Sword

NGC MS62. No wear as far as I can tell but a rather large number of contact marks and scuffs on the obverses.

It's interesting that some Edward VII coins can tone so darkly around the legend leaving the rest of the coin untoned and lustrous. Here are a couple examples of mine. They are common coins but I like the tone.

There were times previously when the main forum was dominated by heated discussions on the merits (or lack of) of TPGs. This was undoubtedly off-putting for a number of people. However, TPG discussions now take place discretely in its own sub-forum. People entering the TPG sub-forum should know what to expect. I think I have exhausted the things (both good and bad) I can say about CGS for now. But since this is the called the negative thread, I will join in the fun and add this: https://taxfreegold.co.uk/cgs-uk.biz.html

Personally, I think there is (or was!) some premium for coins in CGS holders providing the grade is high. E.g. CGS 80+ for later milled crowns and CGS 80/82+ for smaller coins. Most of us would agree with the cliche "buy the coin and not the slab". However, I think a grade on a slab does influence opinions. e.g. if a crown is graded CGS 80, many would assume it is UNC unless observations proved otherwise. The coin is somehow given the benefit of the doubt. Looking at Non's 1913 HC, I confess I can't tell from the photo how much of the loss of details in the obverse is due to wear and how much is due to weak strike. But if it has a grade CGS 75, then many people can believe it is weak strike if they have only a photo to go on. I have no reasons to think that CGS has graded the coins in this tread inaccurately. But as Paul and Azda have also pointed out, grading early George V by photos alone is just difficult. Weak strike can be mistaken for wear. With regard to my own 1911 HC, the original auction description was "UNC toning over original mint lustre". With the coin in hand, I don't think the CGS 80 grade given later on is unreasonable. CGS has annoyed me on numerous occasions by long grading times, using scratched or even cracked holders, slabbing foreign matter with the coin etc but I think their grading is generally OK. (I have always been suspicious of the grades they give to their own coins however) I do agree with Azda to some extent that LCGS / CGS slabs might be less desirable in the future. Now there is no guarantee of any kind. They have become first party grading. People are now more likely to break open their slabs and eventually the meanings of their grades can fade.

I suppose they would be flexible in this case. They have been flexible enough with slabbing rare pennies with verdigris providing the grades are low. I think either Tom or Coinery has mentioned before how would they deal with hammered coins with small flan cracks. Guess we might never find out due to the lack of hammered coins submitted to them.

The old CGS website gave a list of things they would reject a coin. These included flan flaw, flan crack, lamination, etc.

I think it is important to wipe all possible properties from photos before posting them. To be safe, I also use a camera without GPS.

Yes, you can crack the coin out and resubmit it again

Enough of the company CGS and back to George V halfcrowns. I have brought a 1911 a few years back. I had it slabbed with CGS afterwards and it got a CGS 80 grade. Interested to hear how you think it compare with the ones posted earlier.

The new grading company is exactly the same as the old company with just an extra letter added to the name. Actually, not quite the same as they now have a worse attitude.

How about this for a scam. Sign up up to be a CGS agent. Charge a very low service fee to get some business. Then do a runner with the coins! The turnaround time for CGS is 3 months plus. So you have at least 3 months to getaway because anyone suspect anything.

Actually, one has to pay a subscription of £99. Then subscribers can apply to be grading members. They are rather selective and states that " Clients who have a track record of submitting coins to the former CGS or are regular clients of London Coins auction or dealership service are likely to be approve" No riff raff then. And once they have approved your application, then you have the privilege of paying the £499 deposit upfront. Personally, I think this is just not exclusively enough. I think applicants should be proposed by a current member and seconded by another. They must be interviewed and swear their loyalty to LCGS. Seriously though, by getting rid of all their "small" customers, I think CGS coins will lose credibility. This is because a higher percentage of new slabbing is for their own LCA and so there will be more suspicion on their impartiality.

Nice to see that you have your coins back. I don't think I have been any good grading Pre 1927 George V from photos. Any tips appreciated. For example, I thought the 1919 would grade quite a bit higher than CGS65. I can believe that 1913 is high grade from the details of the crown and that the loss of details is mostly due to weak strike. But how can one tell from a photo how exactly how much is due to wear and how much is due to weak strike.

For me it depends a lot on where the carbon spot is. A small spot on the field like that one on the 1918 penny won't put me off. A spot near the rim is even less of a problem. However, I won't want a coin if there is an ugly spot on the eye or mouth of the portrait for example. To be honest, I would probably rather have a slightly lower grade coin instead! I have only ever brought one CGS coin (although I have used CGS quite a few times to slab my raw coins). On that occasion, I placed an absentee bid based on the CGS photos. Unfortunately for me, that coin has actually developed a carbon spot right next to the king's nose since it has been slabbed. Obviously, I would have never brought it if I knew it was there. Out of interest, on what ground did LCGS reject the 1918?

Looks like London Coins have realised this and the links no longer work. You get a "Permission denied. Permission denied" message. However they have also inadvertently disabled all the photos on the "Coins for Sale" section of their London Coins website by doing this. Makes no difference of course as no one want to buy at their silly CGS prices anyway. Update: London Coins have now figured out that they have disabled the photos on their own website and so the links are working again. Last chance (for what's that worth) to download any CGS photos before they disable the links again.

My guess is that they have (or will) ceased trading and have become a dormant company.

Hope they can keep their promise. But did they mention August or 2016?

Looks like London Coins have realised this and the links no longer work. You get a "Permission denied. Permission denied" message. However they have also inadvertently disabled all the photos on the "Coins for Sale" section of their London Coins website by doing this. Makes no difference of course as no one want to buy at their silly CGS prices anyway.

I agree that the "guarantee" is certainly now worthless and charging £99 is going to be fatal to them. However, I am just not clear why they had to take the very drastic step of closing CGS and opening LCGS. This is bad business practise and which will result in the loss of credibility. I doubt anyone has successful proved that they have a fake coin in a CGS slab and so their offer of "guarantee" has and probably will not cost them anything. (proving a fake beyond doubt and without removing it from the slab is just so difficult). Massive changes and U-turns with regard to pricing don't necessitate closing it down either. I am also assuming that those people (if any) that have paid them the £499 membership fee have to be refunded. The only possible reasons I can think of are might be the share holders owing the other 49% of CGS want to pull out. If CGS is then completely own by London Coins, it can no longer be called a TPG. Or perhaps they might now want to grade using Sheldon?

Problem is I don't have a Facebook account.

I wonder what is Bill Pugsley's view on the whole thing ...

Very nice!

An annual £99 fee would effectively stop those people wishing to slab occasionally. I used to slab on average a couple a year and so can't use them anymore. Having said that, I am not sure I want to anyway even without the fee. At least they used to pretend to be a TPG. Now they have effectively declared themselves a first party slabber. (They used to own 51% of CGS. I suspect LC might own the whole thing now and hence the change of name.) Undoubtedly, more people will think (rightly or wrongly) that they will grade coins being sold by LCA more favourably. E.g. a coin might grade 75 if it belongs to a small time customer, 78 if it is slabbed for an LCA auction and 80 if they are selling it via their website. Self slabbers are just not perceived to be impartial. But the grading fee for 200 coins is 2k to 3k and is a substantial investment. I have got less than 20 myself but am still rather annoyed.

Personally, I think this is just very bad behaviour. Firstly, CGS asked for £499 membership and published a new price list. Then customers were told that CGS was under "new management". Now they sent out an e-mail saying that CGS has in fact "closed and ceased trading" and is asking for a £99 annual subscription fee for the new London Coins Grading Service. And who sent the e-mail? Ms Cetin herself. Looks like I was right about the change being from Semra in-charge to Cetin in-charge