Sword

Great coins! I wish I can own a crown like that!

Depends on what you are paying. It is given on this link: http://www.coingradingservices.co.uk/?page=service_charge It can take up to 90 days which is far too long in my view. However, at least they are now promising to post promptly after encapsulation.

One significant improvement with CGS is that you now receive an e-mail when your coin has been encapsulated saying that it will be dispatched "within a few days". (I have once waited for more than 3 weeks in the past for coins to get posted.) Thank you Bill if this is due to your feedback to CGS.

I concur on both points. Shame about the slight friction. Still not a bad coin though. The veil ruff looks slightly better in this photo (the original auction photo) but it still looks like there is a trace of cabinet friction . I brought it in the last London Coins auction and asked CGS to slab it before posting to me. (It is not worth the return postage to slab a coin of this value if it wasn't from London Coins). 7 weeks later, they have graded it as CGS80. I might actually get it another week or two if I am lucky. They really take too long!

Some very slight rubbing (Veil ruff obverse, lion thighs reverse) but pretty damn near UNC and gorgeous tone. Very nice coin. Thanks Peck. It did cross my mind that there might be some slight rubbing on the veil ruff but I find it hard to resist nicely toned coins!

Thank you Ozzy, Paulus

Brought this 1888 halfcrown as an unc and is waiting delivery.

Name your price! Here's my 1964 sixpence... That well-known variety "I in GRATIA missing" (still trying to get it accepted as a variety - I live in hope) Very nice! I can trade you my steel two pence without the copper plating variety for it (I made one sometime ago by leaving a 2p in acid for just the right amount of time and ended up with removing all the copper and without damaging the steel at all) Seriously, there is obviously a curiosity value as Gary said earlier. If that were to happen to say a unc. young head crown that would otherwise be worth 2K plus, do you also think the value would be reduced significantly. (I don't have any coin like that but is just curious)

I have dropped a fair number of copper coins into acid over the year (for serious purposes at work and not fooling about). I used concentrated nitric acid which can reduce the weight and size to a fraction within a few minutes. In this case, it does look like that something has reacted with the coin judging by the shape of the letters and colons in the legend and an oxidising acid seem very plausible to me. Proving that it is due to acid is of course (very) difficult. You need to be lucky with guessing the concentration of the acid and time scale, etc etc. that might have caused the desired effect. On a different note, if you have a high grade milled coin (say EF or unc) that is "missing" a letter or has a weak letter in the legend due to say greese, how would that affect its value?

Even rejected coins have UIN I think. All coins were initially allocated UIN prior to grading and the UIN of rejected coins can't really be recyled without causing problems. Is it possible that many of the staff at CGS might also be employed by London Coins? If so, some are simply earning a bit of extra money "on the side" when they have time. Since there is hardly any extra overhead as CGS is using same premises as London Coins, they can keep going even with a small turnover. I don't believe that they spend the same amount of time grading each coin. For example, they are graded over 1000 QE sovereigns. If the grading doesn't affect value, then why put in the effort? Yes Nick, you're right about rejected coins having a UIN, I have just checked mine. I don't know whether any of the graders also work for London Coins, but if they do it could explain how the finances could be made to work, but also introduces more potential for conflict of interest! I think it would be appalling if they don't spend the same care/time grading QE sovereigns (for example) - someone has paid £20 quid a pop and should expect the same service IMO. People who slab those coins probably only want to show they are genuine. Do you think that London Coins themselves would also pay £20 a pop?

Even rejected coins have UIN I think. All coins were initially allocated UIN prior to grading and the UIN of rejected coins can't really be recyled without causing problems. Is it possible that many of the staff at CGS might also be employed by London Coins? If so, some are simply earning a bit of extra money "on the side" when they have time. Since there is hardly any extra overhead as CGS is using same premises as London Coins, they can keep going even with a small turnover. I don't believe that they spend the same amount of time grading each coin. For example, they are graded over 1000 QE sovereigns. If the grading doesn't affect value, then why put in the effort?

Marriage is like a deck of cards VS. All you need at the start are 2 Hearts, at the end all you want is a Club and a Spade!!!! a Heart and a (big) Diamond might also start things off!

CGS members would have received an e-mail "Save Money with CGS Service". The title is very strange as it is actually about price increases from May!! (You can therefore avoid the price increase if you submit your coins in April ... ) Milled Coins worth less than £200: £13.75 (30-90 days) Milled Coins worth less than £2000: £23.75 (30-90 days) Hammered coins less than £2K: £29.99 etc. A price increase to £23.75 from £19.99 for milled coins worth less than 2K is not unreasonable as it has been £19.99 for quite a few years. However, increasing the turn round time from 30 days to 30-90 days is really unhelpful. A potential wait of 3 months is enough to wear out the patience of anyone (esp. those who are planning to sell afterwards). It is a bit of a vicious circle. Excesssive turn round time --> less business --> more price increses + even longer turn round time I think they would do well by promising to return all coins within 30 days with this round of price increase.

What planet have you been living on scott? It's been steel since the early 1990s! I didn't know that! Not that I should, of course! Really? Yep, copper plated steel since 1992. Wow, makes me feel sorry for the future generations of collectors! Imagine the questions on post-decimal.com in 50 years time! "How exactly do you store a piece of steel"? "Can I dip it?" "My tuppence has developed a series of nasty orange bubbles, what can I do?" No real problem as they are plated with copper. If the copper is worn through, then the coin might not be worth collecting for 5000 years

Not at all. A GCS redefinition as proposed is by far the cheapest way to get an upgrade to the collection - it would have cost me 100s to upgrade my (sorry, EF78 and not AU78) P1133A penny (ref. 000057-PE.G3.1797.03) by the traditional route of acquiring a coin in a better grade/condition. And it has the further added bonus of upgrading from the good EF assigned by Spink in the Adams sale (lot 36). A lot can happen in 10 years. The proposal by CGS to remove the prefix qualifier on its numbering system is to allow different players interpret as they believe is best so now if you feel CGS coin rightly UNC - you do not have a contradiction from CGS saying it is AU (or one time EF). I have written elsewhere about grading creep and how the older or scarcer a coin is the the 'higher the perceived grade' that may be allocated to it by a collector / dealer / auction house. You were fortunate that your coin from Spink graded as CGS 78 - some coins I bought from Spink over the years (and numerous other dealers) as UNC have been rejected by CGS (normally for having been cleaned). Of course, others I have bought as UNC have graded in the CGS 80's but alas some at lower than CGS 70. I am grateful to the CGS service for showing me how to better judge coins I now buy in the raw. I don't think there is much point in removing the prefix qualifiers on the slabs if CGS then publish a table converting numbers to traditional grades. Now a CGS 75 coin can be EF or AU on the slab or "unc or near so" according to the proposed table. Confusion is not a good thing for credibility. Some of the conversions on the table are rather questionable too in my view E.g. AU 58 = CGS60, or AU55 = CGS55. Grade inflation (which happens over a long period of time) is one thing but grade "revaluation" or "redefinition" is another. CGS has only been around for 6 years and it is difficult to persuade collectors that grading has changed significantly since. Most of the above has already been said by others. It is almost impossible to please everyone with any "proposal". But one very helpful thing they can do is to promise to post coins back within one week of encapsulation.

Plastic was invented in 1855, 158 years ago, i think the problem lies in that there was no TPGs in 1856 and they did'nt think about plastic holders back then They used to vanish them, not a lot different really. A number of collectors lacquered the coins they had (a bit like slabbing......) and it needs to be VERY carefully removed without damaging the underlying coin. The main point that I was making was that even though slabs might not be visually appealing, they do a relatively good job protecting the coins inside. I think it is worth slabbing UNC Victorian or Georgian coins as there are not many about and they have toned enough by now.Slabbing is also easily reversible unlike lacquer. Lacquer won't prevent cabinet friction and edge knocks.

duplicate post

If plastic was invented two hundred years ago and coins were being slabbed since say 1816, then there is much less fun collecting milled coins today. For a start, you won't get the wonderful tones developed over the centuries. There will also be plenty of lustrous "uncirculated" (in all sense of the word) of Victorian and Georgian coins and owning one will therefore give little satisfaction. Personally, I think slabbing of recent coins to be pointless and see little benefit in slabbing mid grade coins unless they are particularly rare. However, I do think there is a place in coin collecting for slabbing and have confessed that I have slabbed high grade coins (AU or UNC). I did that mainly for the protection of the coins as I can then look at them casually and frequently without fear of damaging them. I know many of us feel (probably quite rightly) that we can look after our coins properly. But accidents / mishandling are bound to happen as coins are passed through generations of keepers. For example, how many Victorian, 1902, 1911 or 1927 proof sets today are still in truly mint FDC condition? Very very few. Even that magnificent example of a 1935 raised edge proof crown that Azda has brought recently and will slab is not (in my view) prefect mint state. The official cases, although infinitely more handsome than plastic slabs have not proved to be ideal for storage. Even the 1937 Edward VIII model crowns, currently offered on sale on this very website have toning spots due to incorrect storage. I know that problems can develop in slabs too but that is comparatively rare. As Bill pointed out, most of the air is extracted when slabbing and that must go a long way to stopping problems. Would I slab a 1927 proof set if I were to buy one (I won't as I have decided to concentrate on circulating coins)? No, because I cannot bring myself to take them out of the handsome case. But what if all 6 coins are truly mint FDC? Then I will probably do it in a heartbeat as there might not even be ten perfect sets now in existence and I don't want to be the one damaging one set. I will probably want to admire such a rarity regularly and easily. Hence, I do think that there is a percentage of coin (the figure of course depends on the individual) worth slabbing and I am very glad that there is a TPG in UK.

Totally agree! It's impossible to not just read VF, the psychology of it is just too much...especially so if you've sent the raw coin off! It would make good business sense for CGS to make this change (maybe one for you to feed back, Bill?)! My point being, would Paulus use CGS again? Would I? CGS won't have compromised their tough standards in adopting the above suggestion! The changing of EF75 to AU75 by CGS a few years back was no big deal. It is the same grade if the number is the same and the seller of an EF75 coin will be quick to point out it is the same as AU75. However, adding new numbers such as 58 and 59 will cause problems, as coins previously graded 55 might be the same as the new 59. I think it is very important to maintain consistency. And where do you stop? The same argument can be used for AVF 19 and 18, AFDC86,87 etc. Using a finer scale will probably also increase the time it take to grade accurately and consistently and hence cost.

An 1894 penny. Quite nice - except for the fingerpriints. They gave it an AU78. Can I ask which TPG it was? I think Red already told you. AU78 rules out NGC and PCGS, so it's gonna be CGS. Yes, of course, brain wasn't in gear! Out of interest, are CGS definitely the only TPG that use a 1-100 scale? I am quite certain they are. I think I have read on their website somewhere that they have actually patented the scale!

Well, I was out by a lot! 1820, 1823 HC grading as VF I can understand but 40 and 45 seem low. The obverses might a bit less than EF in my view but I thought the nicer reverses might compensate. The 1834 halfcrown only grading as EF65 (i.e. not even GEF which correspond to 70) is something I don't understand. The reverse of that halfcrown in particular looks fantastic to me and seems to be a very strong strike. Anyone can point out where the wear is - love to learn something.

Thanks for the grading challenge Paulus! I am not not experienced but would love to give this a go as a learning exercise. I will also not hedge my bets and will just go for single grades. 1820 halfcrown: EF60 1823 halfcrown: EF65 1834 halfcrown: absolutely stunning. I will stick my neck out and go for UNC82 First gothic florin: EF65 1712 shilling: I will pass. The marks on the obverse are problematic to grading (for someone of my experience)

Very interesting point! I very much hope a nEF obverse and UNC reverse won't be graded as AU75 (or even as GEF, EF70). Balance is important and I think grading should show significant bias for the weaker side (if a single grade is used). One thing which I think is a bit illogical is that wear is treated a lot harsher than bagmarks when it comes to grading (by TPGs or by anyone else). Personally, I prefer coins with as few bag marks as possible and can put up with a bit more wear. I think bag marks can greatly reduce eye appeal. Hence I won't buy a say £200 coin blind base on a grade of say EF70 as it might just look "ugly" in real life.

Can you point me to a webpage where this guarentee is defined? I'd be interested to see the terms and conditions. The one thing I do know about the guarentees offered by the grading companies are that they are entirely worthless if you buy a slabbed coin. The guarentee only applies to the original submitter of the raw coin. I have now had some feedback from CGS - but I will be seeking further clarification as it deals with the submitter of the coin, not the current holder (extract from flier and website follows): ABOUT THE CGS GRADING SYSTEM .......................................... THE COIN GRADING SERVICE The CGS UK system starts by asking whether the coin is genuine (it may be compared to our extensive library of known forgery types, and weighed) in some cases it may be sent to consultant experts and specialists depending on the coin type. In essence we convince our selves as much as is possible we are dealing with the genuine item. We have to as we offer to pay the full market value to the submitter of any coin we encapsulate which subsequently is proved not to be genuine. We then assess if the coin has been enhanced by artificial toning, tooled, polished, plugged, or whizzed. Coins not passing these two tests are returned to the submitter and do not find their way into CGS UK holders. I am pleased to hear that most of the air is removed prior to encapsulation. That will certainly reduces the chance of things going wrong later. Bill, can I make the following suggestion for the CGS website? 1) it might be worth while for CGS to produce a short video clip on their site showing the grading process. Seeing precautions taken like air removal will help to inspire confidence. 2) it would be great to see photos of sets of coins they use as benchmark standards. This will help everyone to understand the strict grading of CGS 3) some information need to be updated. E.g. CGS did not used to encapsulate and grade coins with certain problems. Hence, the following paragraph appear on the website "We then assess if the coin has been enhanced by artificial toning, tooled, polished, plugged, or whizzed. Coins not passing these two tests are returned to the submitter and do not find their way into CGS UK holders" However, CGS now grade and and encapsulate problem coins but will describe the problems on the tickets. Hence the wording in bold above is no longer true. It is confusing to have contradictory information on the same webpage. Also on that page, the range for AU should be 75-78 and not 75-75 as stated. It states that the mid point for EF is 70. Now it is 65 as 70-75 have been renamed from EF to AU. Regarding the CGS guarantee, I am convinced by the wording that it will only apply to the submitter and only cover cases when the English milled coin is not genuine. I have read all the information on the website and I do not believe it will cover defects on coins slabbed. On the link to the CGS forum, there is a FAQ section. It states that "The CGS Capsules How sealed are the holders, for example would they help prevent BU silver coins from toning? The capsules are hermetically sealed and would need to be broken to get the coin out. CGS Guarantee the state of the coin as encapsulated so they know that the coins will not be damaged or toned in any way once encapsulated." However, CGS has pointed out that it is not responsible for the accuracy of the information on the CGS forum, the information is therefore not binding. Might be it is a good idea to draw CGS's attention to this information and ask them to either confirm or withdraw it. As many have said eariler, many thanks Bill, for joining the forum and for sharing your views and extensive experience with CGS. Sorry not to have dealt with your note before now - actually been working for a change! However, here goes: 1. I like the idea of the video clip and indeed more information on the attribution and grading process (even a clip of their scientific program process). I will add this to the 'wish list' of changes requested for the Web Site (that I have not touched for a year or more). [since starting writing my views on CGS I have discovered more information about their Policies etc that I am told were formulated by a committee of coin dealers/collectors rather than just one or two people.] 2. A number of people have asked for pictures of the bench mark set to be available on the site (we all think it a great idea) so I will make sure this is prominent in the next wish list for website changes review. 3. You are right about information needing to be updated on the site. With evolution of the site some of the earlier comments no longer apply. I have this action for myself but my work keeps getting in the way. Maybe in a month or so I will have the time to check the full detail of the site. A number of your next points deal with accuracy of information; for example encapsulating coins with yellow tickets is a fairly new innovation and the whole matter of how they are dealt with on the site (as well as information about the process of grading leading to rejections) needs to be refreshed. You are right to raise the matter of can the guarantee be passed from originator of the encapsulation to the current owner - I have asked the question but I think I need to ask it again as I buy CGS graded coins from third parties and I would hate to have to differentiate from ones I submitted to ones I bought. The sealing of the capsule should stop most problems occurring (I wrote elsewhere about sealing in inert gas environments but the cost would be prohibitive. Using a vacuum may be an answer but again it would increase costs). I am not sure what else can be done in economic terms to give total peace of mind but I will continue to reflect on it. I accept your point about statements and then counter statements about rejecting inaccuracy on the web site. This all comes down to a review of the wording and general content of the site. If I have missed anything out, please accept my apologies. At some point I will be publishing a note on the CGS Forum of all matters that need correcting on the CGS main site as well as suggested enhancements to the site. Just a matter of finding the time. All the best. Bill Many thanks for your reply Bill. Very much appreciated.