Sword

I have brought two last year. This 1888 is CGS 78.

If I am buying a 1927 crown to keep, I would be happier to pay a lot more for a decent proof than an impaired one. Obviously, its a different story if buying to sell.

Nice coins!! The inverted 1 is now believed to be due to a filled die rather than a broken punch. The new ESC has very nice photos showing coins with full left bottom serif (normal), trace of lower left serif (partially filled die) and no lower left serif (completely filled or "inverted 1") I have brought a rather nice 1888 double florin recently but it is a normal variety as I didn't want to pay extra for the inverted 1.

Our own Chris has written an article on this in predecimal.com! http://www.predecimal.com/newpence "Approx 450 minted (although there is no accurate figure)."

So I assume that the majority / most of the rarity figures were simply done by "impression" by Rayner, Bull and a few selected colleagues. Thanks for the figures for the LIMA halfcrown Rob. Didn't realise they are as rare as R4. Wow. LCA should a couple at around the £1-1.2K mark I think. Not that expensive if it's around R4.

I very much enjoy reading my copy of the new ESC. It's very interesting to see images of patterns not available to collectors in particular. One thing I have noticed is that they have missed out (probably unintentionally) the meaning of the rarity terms like S, R1, R2 etc. That's of little importance of course since everyone know the definitions already and most would have the 5th edition. However, I think it would be very useful (but would probably be too much work in practice) if it specifies the rarity of grades that collectors want to know. For example, the 1746 LIMA halfcrown is given a rarity factor of C3 (very common). However, I don't care about how many worn pieces are available but would be interested to know the rarity of an EF or UNC example. I also don't understand the rarity factors allocated to certain coins. For example the proof RE rocking horse crown is given a rarity of R and they are readily available in auctions. The proof Arabic I double florin is given a rarity factor S despite a lower mintage. Also The Roman I which is so much rarer is also given the same R factor.

Thanks for the above. The coin is indeed the one that Paul has picked.

Swanny No TPG would ever use any "tests" which would cause scratching on coin surfaces. Virtually all coins are graded exclusively by visual inspection and weight. I don't think it is possible to conclude from your photos that any damage has been done to the coin during the grading process. The best thing to do IMO is to therefore assume that no damage has done. Otherwise you would be annoyed every time you look at the coin and will get much less enjoyment owning it. In any case, those marks are really quite insignificant (esp. when there are contact marks on the neck and hair).

I agree that the marks on the right definitely existed before submittal.

I think you need to post a photo of the coin before slabbing and another with the coin still in the slab ...

Merry Christmas and a happy new year!!

However, if the coin is for sale in a charity shop, I would still pay the £3 but I will then make a donation.

Of course I would pay the dealer £3. He obviously paid the person selling to him for less than £3. So why should the dealer benefit instead of me?

Nice coins Paul and thanks for another grading exercise.

I will have a go but I have never been much good at guessing CGS grades. My last coin took almost two months to move from Level II to Grade available (Encapsulation pending). So I guess we won't be getting the answers soon. 1899 crown: CGS 75 (has this been dipped before?) 1707 halfcrown: CGS 25 1911 halfcrown: CGS 88 1911 florin: CGS 88 1902 florin: CGS 80 1736 shilling: CGS 45 1911 shilling: CGS 85 1674 sixpence CGS 35

In general what exactly is meant by "re-toning"? I assume it is not the same as the category "cleaned" which presumably has hairlines. So does it mean that a coin has been lightly dipped to remove the old toning and has now toned again? Can one tell if a coin has once been lightly dipped (say 50 years ago) and has now toned strongly? Would they have rejected a lightly dipped coin with no toning if the lustre has not been noticeably dulled? I don't think they have a reject category for "dipped".

Dave, can you open and re-use these slabs or are they permanently sealed once slabbed ? R My concern with plastic holders and coin capsules for that matter is that the size of hole is in mm increments. So for a crown size 38.6mm, one needs 39mm capsules / holder. Since this is not an exact fit, I am worried that the coin will get high points friction over time. Would crown size fit into a 38mm foam inset for these holders? Is it possible to get capsules that fit the coin size exactly?

For me, mainly because of convenience and expense. You don't have to pay membership fees, they accept single coin submissions, and it's cheaper. And there is some respect for CGS grading within the UK.

I like the look of the coin too. If I own it, I probably won't want to keep it in a holder which say "reject" either. Rather poor customer service from CGS if they won't return the coin unslabbed. They take coins out of holders all the time and it is disappointing they won't put in the small amount of effort to do so in your case. (Their fee is £4.99 if you send them a slabbed coin to get it re-encapsulated. So it is no big deal on their part). I don't think they have been offering 1 month turnaround service for quite a few years now. Fees are £23.75 for 90 days and £39.00 for 15 days (for coin value greater than 2k). If you have paid £39.00, then you should get a refund if they took 3 months. The last coin I got back from them had a crack on the holder. But it wasn't worth the effort to complain.

Apologies for my delayed condolences also. I am so shocked to read this and am very sorry for your loss.

We all have our reasons for wanting or not wanting to get all / some / a few/ one of our coin(s) slabbed... This has been argued to the death already.

It was just a coin with a ticket sword(out of a slab )and was sending a batch anyway. I see.

I can understand why someone might want to send a CGS 82 to PCGS / NGC in the hope of it making MS65. No one can dispute that PCGS / NGC has a bigger audience than CGS esp. outside the UK. What can one hope to gain by sending a PCGS / NGC MS65 to CGS (assuming it has been attributed correctly)?

I have added PF/PR to the higher grades. I think the reason that the CGS valuation for the 1860 halfpenny 1*+A has went down because LCA sold an example in 2014 (UNC with a tone spot on the bust and some light deposit on the reverse, highly lustrous and very rare in this high grade) for only £240. They sold another one in 2013 CGS 75 for £100. They are only trying to make the valuation a bit more realistic. Personally, I don't pay much notice to CGS valuations. I have brought coins for one third of the CGS valuation in the past.

I did a small survey using the data from the London Coins Website on CGS graded coins that have been previously graded by PCGS or NGC. (I simply searched for "CGS ex NGC" and "CGS ex PCGS" in the auctions results). I found 72 coins sold by LCA have been graded by CGS and also by NGC /PCGS in the past. Results are as follow: CGS Grade Average NGC/PCGS Grade Range of NGC/ PCGS grades No. of coins in sample 93 67 67 1 92 66 66 1 91 65 65 1 90 66.5 66-67 2 85 64.8 64-67 10 82 64.3 61-66 20 80 64.2 63-66 11 78 63.6 62-65 16 75 63 63 1 70 63 62-64 4 65 55 50-58 4 50 50 50 1 The sample size of 72 coins is small and so one can't draw firm conclusions. But it does suggest a few things: The CGS scale and the Sheldon scale do not appear to be compatible for the top grades. For example, a CGS 82 coin can correspond to 61-66 on the Sheldon scale. Or looking at this another way, MS64 can correspond to CGS 70 to CGS 85. Personally, I think CGS is better off not publishing a table comparing its grades to the Sheldon grades. If the two scales are really comparable, then CGS might as well grade using Sheldon like the other TPGs. Alternatively, it can suggest that graders are not particularly consistent.