Sword

I think this is a major issue. If people are relying on their grading then they need to be independent and seen to be independent of both buyers and sellers. As the Americans might say ... it is Ethics 101. I have my high grade coins slabbed by CGS mainly for protection and ease of viewing. I do find their grading generally strict but I think that's probably a good thing. I too find their intimate relationship with London Coins of some concern. As stated on their website, London Coins (Holdings) Group Ltd owns 51% of CGS. I don't have a real problem with that or the fact that London Coins auctions CGS coins on behalf of clients. However, I just think that the selling of CGS slabs on the London coins website (and the auctioning of these slabs when they fail to sell) raise questions of on the independency of CGS.

Oh dear, oh, dear! That can only have developed in the slab if it's CGS! You're going to have to crack it out to arrest it surely? From some of the previous statements made in the other CGS thread, I'm assuming if you return it to CGS you'll get compensation (not!) but, at the very least, you'd think they'd be happy to re-slab for free and cover your postage costs, once you've neutralised the verd? Re the grade, at that end of the scale you really do need some serious close-ups. I did mention in another thread about the buckles on the side of the boot, are they still proud/struck-up? Or have they been pushed back into the seam? Actually, I'm really looking forward to a major close-up on the boot of Dave's proof, must remember to ask him! I'm certain that CGS don't pay compensation for any deterioration in the slab. They only pay market value if you can prove that it's a fake, and even then you have to be the original submitter and also prove it's fake without removing it or tampering with the slab - so you have zero chance of that. Surely, they would refuse to re-slab after removing the 'green' as it has been cleaned. I agree with Nick. Quoting their website: "In fact we guarantee to pay the submitter the full market value of any non genuine English Milled coin that we may encapsulate.". Hence there is no compensation even if it is a non-English fake or an English hammered fake. They would probably only reslab it with a yellow label.

The best example is actually UNC92, with a further two at UNC90. Yours is indeed a superb example and I too would be interested to see what grade it will get. Yes my mistake sword. I was looking at the picture that comes up when you Click the link, which is the UNC88. So where's the UNC92 picture? I don't think there is a photo for that one and I believe it was slabbed using the cheaper no photo option. If I remember correctly, I think it was actually on sale on the London coin website sometime ago but I did not save the photos. I have one at UNC88 (which I brought raw). Toned, no contact marks but the odd very faint hairlines under magnification. Yours will surely grade higher.

The best example is actually UNC92, with a further two at UNC90. Yours is indeed a superb example and I too would be interested to see what grade it will get.

No, regular slab issue for this one! I've still got the cotton bud if anyone knows of a simple chemical experiment to determine the composition of the green coloured residue on it? What can you add to a copper component that guarantees a colour change or an explosion or something? Try adding ammonia solution. Any blue colour would indicate would indicate presence of copper ions. Copper ions react with ammonia to give blue copper hydroxide. (Further addtion of ammonia will give a deep blue copper complex but you haven't got enough substance on the cotton bud for this test) Excellent, Sword, will give that a go! What would be the easiest source of ammonia...chemist? I can get a 9.5% solution from boots! Strong enough, do you think? That's certainly concentrated enough. I think the best thing to do is to add a few drops of ammonia solution to the cotton bud. If there is no immediate change, then put a bit of glass or ceramic on the top of it (to stop the ammonia from evaporating quickly) and wait for a day or two. Would be very interested to know the result!

No, regular slab issue for this one! I've still got the cotton bud if anyone knows of a simple chemical experiment to determine the composition of the green coloured residue on it? What can you add to a copper component that guarantees a colour change or an explosion or something? Try adding ammonia solution. Any blue colour would indicate would indicate presence of copper ions. Copper ions react with ammonia to give blue copper hydroxide. (Further addtion of ammonia will give a deep blue copper complex but you haven't got enough substance on the cotton bud for this test)

Apparently, the dreaded green can be copper carbonate, chloride or acetate. These three compounds are soluble in acetic acid, ethanol and alcohol (or water) respectively. However, knowing bugger all about chemistry - I can't vouch for the correctness of this info. I have never tried to remove verd spots as I don't collect copper. Hence I have no practical experience in this but am now tempted to try out some experiments!Copper carbonate is a base and so will dissolve (react) with acid. Thinking more about it, you are right Coinery. Copper chloride is solube in acetone and I assume can be removed that way. (I shouldn't trust an article too readily without a bit more thought). Copper carbonate is insolube in water and I think is also insolube in acetone. However, if the verd has not eaten in, then acetone will at least act as a lubricant and should help to an extent. Acetone is an organic solvent and should be very good with plastic residues. I still think that the main responsibilities of a TPG are to accurately grade the coin and to make certain that the slabbing process is not going to cause extra harm to a coin. It is a tad unrealistic to expect them to analyse the suface of the coin to see if there are any harmful substances on it. If it looks like a problem is developing, one should be prepared to crack the slab open to sort it out. If people are worried about the edge of the coin, then the NGC slab design shows the edge. I don't think slabbing is prefect by any means but I am of the opinion that a slabed coin has less chance of picking up damage (physcially or chemically). Slabed coins developing problems always raise eyebrows but a much much greater number are sitting safely (as far as one can tell ) in the slab.

.500 silver. The other 50% is vulnerable isn't it? I was just going to ask about that, how do you get verd on a silver coin, if it's not, but a deposit, is it corrosive, and could it have been caused by living in the slab?? Not surprised at your shock though Stuart! Yes, the non-silver 50% is mostly copper, so verdigris is possible. Still getting over the shock that a humble 1922 3d would be slabbed! I have done quite a bit of background search on Verdigris since my last post on the subject and agree with peck that verd is possible on 50% silver coins. Just type "verdigris" and "crown" into the past results in London Coins auctions and you will find photos of a number of wealth crowns with verd spots. I came across an interesting article on ebay review which is written by a chemist and numismatist. It claims that acetone generally cannot remove verd but might remove other green deposits. http://reviews.ebay.com/How-to-Remove-Verdigris-From-Coins?ugid=10000000017991989 Blaming CGS in this case is a bit harsh as the coin could have picked up a chemical deposit on the edge which was invisible at the time of slabbing and the green stuff would probably have developed whether the coin was slabbed or not. They can't clean each coin with chemical before slabbing as that will surely upset most collectors. What happen if some nice toning is removed by the "cleaning"? On the subject of cheap coins being slabbed, I remembered that the London Coin site was selling some slabbed churchill crowns for about a couple of pounds about two or three yers ago. At the time, I wondered briefly why would anyone spend money to slab junk. Then I realised that it was probably done by CGS for training / practice.

I found the CGS service pretty shocking the last time I used them. They failed to forward the coins more than 3 weeks after the actual encapsulations (you can monitor progres on their website). The reply I have got when I phoned them was that they "would only post in batches". I then emailed Semra and the coins were dispatched on the same day. Just need to complain to the management when you get nonsense on the phone.

Any collector with a tiny bit of experience would probably agree that the Royal Mint prices are frightful. However, charging someone, say £50 for a commenorative coin that can only be resold for £10 is no worse than other companies trying to make the same margin with a bone china plate or mug. They are in my view just running posh sovenir shop. What worries me is that if someone were naive enough to buy gold soverigns directly from the mint as an "investment". It would be a very good idea if they can be forced to quote the bullion values of their high values coins! Also, I think it is totally unexcusable when they buy old coins from open market and try to sell them at sky high prices. E.g. Oxford_Collector pointed out earlier in the year when they tried to sell a VF double florin (with a silver 20p piece) for £145. No respectable seller can charge so much beyond standard book prices.

I think many would agree that with high grade British milled coinage, the observe can often show more wear than the reverse. I assume this is due to fewer "high points" on the observe and so these points experience more pressure when rubbed. E.g. the cheek of George V, the laurel leaves etc. Derek also pointed out in his book that the area of the beard just below the ear on Edward VII crowns wears more rapidly as it is the highest point and sits proud of the rim. However, I also think that the observe often suffers more contact marks then the reverse. I wonder if you agree with this. If so what do you think are the reasons. The reverse design is a lot more "busy" than the observe and minors marks are less noticeable as a result. But I still think that in the majority of cases, there are just more contact and bag marks on the reverse.

Not sure I entirely agree with that. 'Unc' for a proof coin always seems anomalous because a proof coin is either perfect or it isn't. Anything which impairs the coin after production is ultimately wear and the next step down should surely be GEF shouldn't it? Traditionally the term 'proof impaired' was used but seems to have gone out of fashion now; nonetheless the term didn't say how much the coin was impaired, so was I guess only of limited use. I have been led to believe that 'Proof' was not a grade at all, rather a reference to the polished and normally superior dies used. While you might expect a Proof coin to be high grade as they are not intended for circulation, the grade of a coin is something completely separate, is it not? I have seen some low-mid grade Proof coins! Quite, and a low grade Proof pocket piece should be graded F, VF etc. Once it has lost its FDC status then its back on the normal grading system. I am certainly no expert and is probably a bit naive when it comes to grading. But I think there can be difficulties when we use the same terms for grading top end proof and currency coins. A curreny coin at GEF has a definate amount of wear (or at least a rather high number of minor contact marks). Hence I think it is too harsh to describe a proof coin as such if it has the slightest impairment such as a single tiny contact mark or a couple of faint hairlines. I think such a coin should at least be described as UNC as an UNC currenty coin allows a few minor contact marks (or even a bit of cabinet friction (aka very minor wear)). Slightly impaired proof coins have never been circulated and has only been slightly mishandled at some point. Hence describing them as UNC seem OK to me. Otherwise the GEF term would cover coins in a rather wide range of conditions. If it were up to me, I would use the follwing grades for proof coins: FDC (perfect), PAS (with very slight impairment), UNC (with more minor contact marks or hairlines but has never been used as currency. Hence no wear and reflective fields and damage is still only caused by mishandling)and then GEF (if it has acutally been circulated and has wear).

I would presume that "choice FDC" refers to a coin that's beautifully toned? However, I do think the term is piss poor, as a picture or description of the toning would be better than such puff. And yes, AFDC is without meaning (it's as stupid as "almost unique"). I don't think they even meant toning as they described a matt proof 1902 halfcrown as "choice FDC" and it hasn't got great (or much) toning. That auction house also seem to brag about nice toning explictly whenever it can. Sorry I omitted a word earlier. I meant they called a coin "choice AFDC". Personally, I have some symapthy with the pharse "aFDC". I agree that the term doesn't make sense if one is strict and it is really just an "imaginary grade". The gap between UNC and FDC is rather big for proof coins as UNC can include quite a few contact marks and a few hairlines. Hence the term might apply to a coin with say just one tiny contact mark or a couple of very faint hairlines. It is like aUNC, aEF or aVF which really mean coins in the very top ends of EF, VF and F respectively.

I particularly dislike the term "choice FDC" used by a London auction house. If FDC is perfect, then what on earth is "choice FDC"? They recently described a 1935 raised edge proof crown as choice FDC and the said coin has been slabbed by CGS as UNC88. UNC88 (88 out of 100) is hardly perfect in the first place! I think one might reasonably conclude that coins they describe as plain "FDC" are even less perfect. They have also used the terms "AFDC" and "choice FDC or near so" which I think are even more meaningless.

That's another worry,you think they are slabbed correctly,turns out the slab is faked so the content is also worthless,or worst scenario,the slab is correct,and it's a third party grader that's wrongly slabbed a fake.I think with the internet,more and more people will start to rely on a slabbed coin for authenticity. If you can prove that they have slabbed a fake, the more respectable TPGs like PCGS, NGC or CGS will compensate you to the market value of the real coin. For NGC or CGS, you can use the number on the slab on their databases and get a photo of the coin originally slabbed. This should tell you if you have got a fake coin in a fake slab. NGC only takes pictures of the coins that have paid the extra fee for pictures. Almost half or more don't have pictures. I think CGS takes pic's of all coins. (I think). They have had pic's of all of the coins I have followed up on at least! If you are referring to CGS UK, I believe that they do now always take pictures, but have not always done so. There used to be a cheaper option that gave you a slab and a grade, but no photo. Yes, CGS UK always take photos now. They used to offer the cheaper option (£2 less) only for coins worth less than £200.

That's another worry,you think they are slabbed correctly,turns out the slab is faked so the content is also worthless,or worst scenario,the slab is correct,and it's a third party grader that's wrongly slabbed a fake.I think with the internet,more and more people will start to rely on a slabbed coin for authenticity. If you can prove that they have slabbed a fake, the more respectable TPGs like PCGS, NGC or CGS will compensate you to the market value of the real coin. For NGC or CGS, you can use the number on the slab on their databases and get a photo of the coin originally slabbed. This should tell you if you have got a fake coin in a fake slab.

PCGS even has the cheek to state on its website that its guarantee does not cover certain "obvious" errors that they make. E.g. "a variety attribution that is obviously incorrect". I think they are rather shameless in saying that "A blatantly obvious clerical input mistake with respect to the actual grade of the coin. For example, if you had an 1893-O Morgan dollar and the PCGS holder showed the coin as MS65 (a Gem quality coin), but the coin was so beat up and marked up that it would grade MS60 at best, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as this would be an obvious input error. The rule of thumb here would be a difference of more than two points on the grading scale". Does it mean that if they will take no responsibility if they grade a MS64 coin as MS67 (a difference of more than 2 points)?

Like Vicky, I also believe that TPGs do take into account on the position of the marks. The PCGS website give the following defintition for MS65 "Minor marks/hairlines though none in focal areas, above average strike". By "focal" areas, I assume they mean the face or an important part of the design on the reverse.

I don't really buy that as a logical proposition. There are two sides to a coin, and probability theory would suggest that both receive equal amount of contact marks. Contact marks would be most obvious in the clear fields of a coin. So maybe there is, as Peck suggested, a tendency to be drawn towards the head. Maybe there tends to be more area of clear field on the obverse, predominantly. Otherwise the suggestion that one side received more contact marks than the other makes zero sense. I do agree that contact marks are more obvious in clear fields. This a very long shot, but could it be possible that because the obverse is generally flatter (having more field etc), a clash of two coins can produce two (or a least a bigger) contact mark(s) because one coin can skid on the surface of another. The reverse has more design and so might result in less skidding? Also for the same contact, the mark would be larger if it occur on the field rather than the design as the design protect the surrounding field from damage? There is one fact that's indisputable : 99% of obverses have a similar design, i.e. a head surrounded by a circular legend, with clear fields between. Reverses are enormously varied, from the complex and fussy (Eliz II florins and sixpences, George V halfcrowns, Vic JH shillings, etc), through a mid range where there is at least some clear field (Britannia, Vic JH and Geo V florins, lion on crown), to the simple and uncluttered with a lot of field (farthings from 1937, thrift brass 3d, silver 3d to 1936, wreath 6d, etc). I stand by my earlier claim that we would be less inclined to collect a coin where there was obvious damage to a portrait, than a similar disfigurement to a reverse. I'm not sure why this is, but it could be just human psychology, as I said before (though you made no comment). y I do agree with you Peck that a mark on the portrait is a lot more significant that one in the field. Sorry that I forgot to reply earlier. It is a matter of human psychology in the sense that we care a lot more about how our face look than say our hands. (If we were to have a place a scar on our body, then no one will choose to put it on his face!)I was just wondering whether are other factors at play in addition to this especially for the larger coins with fussy reverse designs.

I don't really buy that as a logical proposition. There are two sides to a coin, and probability theory would suggest that both receive equal amount of contact marks. Contact marks would be most obvious in the clear fields of a coin. So maybe there is, as Peck suggested, a tendency to be drawn towards the head. Maybe there tends to be more area of clear field on the obverse, predominantly. Otherwise the suggestion that one side received more contact marks than the other makes zero sense. I do agree that contact marks are more obvious in clear fields. This a very long shot, but could it be possible that because the obverse is generally flatter (having more field etc), a clash of two coins can produce two (or a least a bigger) contact mark(s) because one coin can skid on the surface of another. The reverse has more design and so might result in less skidding? Also for the same contact, the mark would be larger if it occur on the field rather than the design as the design protect the surrounding field from damage?

I just did a quick bit of research on the London coins website. I searched the pharse "contact marks on the obverse" in the "realised prices" and it came up with three pages of results. I then tried "contact marks on the reverse" and it only came up with one page. OK, this is only a very crude attempt and might not mean much. But the difference is significant.

Interesting, do you have a theory as to why this might be the case? I can't think of any reason why one side of a normally circulated coin might experience more contact or nag marks than the other! I don't have any theory at the moment! I will be interested to know if others will agree with the observation that there are often more marks on the observe. (I mistakenly said reverse at the end of my last post. I make a lot of mistakes when I am hungury and still waiting for dinner ...)

Very pleased for you. Well done indeed!! I have no sympathy for the seller even if he brought it believing it was genuine. By refusing to refund you, he was just as low as ----xxxcoinxxx--- who allegedly sold it to him.

I was looking for a high grade 1911 currency halfcrown and has just brought one form a well known auction house (the one that doesn't do photos and charge low buyers premium). I have never brought anything without photos before and probably won't be doing that again for a very long time! It was described as "unc nice light tone, graded MS64 by PCGS". It arrived yesterday and the coin is pleasing, with very few contact marks, nice light gold tone on the observe. However, there are also some light green spots on the reverse localised mainly on the bottom right quarter of the shield as shown in the photo. Are these verdigris spots? Are most green spots verdigris? I only collect silver and don't have any knowledge in this area. I am annoyed with the auction house as it should have been mentioned and am thinking of returning it as a matter of principle. However, it is not a high value coin and I am also fine keeping it and take it as a lesson learnt. What are your opinions?

Yes, I always thought that verd was a copper, bronze & nickel brass issue, rather than a silver one. Had a strange experience with my uncirculated 1919 shilling a few months back. Took one of the shilling drawers from my cabinet, and noticed what ~ for all the world ~ looked like green verd at the base of the 1919 shilling reverse. On removing the shilling, and very lightly rubbing the base of the shilling, the green material just fell away as though it was powder. Obviously it wasn't verd, but quite what the hell it actually was, I've absolutely no idea. No residue was left behiind. Incidentally, talking about slabs, does anybody know if any form of spontaneous or continued deterioration, can occur in the slab ? Or does the act of slabbing arrest the action of any deleterious outside agent already on the coin ? Probably sounds a naive, simplistic question, but I'm no metallurgist. If there is a harmful chemical already on the coin (but initally undetected), then there is no doubt that slabbing cannot prevent it from reacting with the metal in due time. The link in my last post describes a situation where a spot (damage due to previous long term contact with PVC) only developing after the coin has been slabbed. However, I do think these cases relatively uncommon. Obviously, such coins will develop problems whether you slab them or not and so slabbing cannot be blamed for the issues.