Sword

Many auction houses reserve the right to bid on behalf of the seller up to the reserve price. So if a high reserve have been set, the auctioneer can start at your highest bid (if it is the same or less than the reserve) I guess.

Probably on Monday I think. They have been very prompt with publishing hammer prices in the last few auctions. I am rarely lucky with proxy bids in auctions. The lots I won were usually at my max bids. The few I got below my max bids have issues not apparent from the photos. The descriptions in LCA are generally rather good though. Made two bids this time.

Two of my most colourfully toned coins.

The coin is currently being offered on Ebay for $4495 and the item is in the US. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1483-85-England-Silver-Groat-4P-Coin-S-2156-Richard-III-NGC-VF-20-Scarce-AKR-/201075752106 His cheap trick would surely fool no one.

I didn't think it was quite EF either, but my grading experience is decidedly limited. I would like to get a really good unc double florin at some point.

A few years back, cgs offered the option of no photo (for 2 or 3 pounds less) if the value of the coin was less than £200. However, they have removed that option and photograph every coin now. I agree with Dave. There is no point in sending it back to cgs as it is impossible to prove who is at fault. If the photo shows the edge knock, then cgs will say it was like that when you submitted it and it has already been taken into account when the grade of 82 was given. If photo shows no edge knock, then it is just as likely that NGC has caused the damage when taking the coin out of the holder. NGC would of course say it was done by cgs.

No you didn't - you meant holey dollar Try again. Third time lucky. Thanks Rob

I meant holely dollar of course.

Talking about the Land of Aus, I think there is a holy dollar on display too. But I could be wrong and saw the dollar in the British Museum instead.

Yes, it is part of the B of E Building.

I had a spare hour yesterday in London and dropped into the Bank of England Museum. It is a small museum but has some good displays including sets of coins for each monarch (from QEII to W&M) + some hammered coins. The coins were stored in wooden display cases with glass tops which allowed close viewing. Highlights include 1935 gold crown, Charles I Pound, circulated 1839 £5 etc.

I really like Nick's and Mark's examples. This is from the FAQ section of the CGS Forum: "When grading a whole range of attributes are considered. Although a coin may have the appearance of being brilliant uncirculated without any apparent blemishes, if the striking is not exact and deep it could end up with a grade of VF45 something that can frequently occur with early Victorian Bronze pennies yet many dealers and collectors would assume the coin to be uncirculated. That is the point of the CGS service, if a coin is determined to be UNC80 then it will be worth at least the common catalogue value for UNC. When it is higher grade it is likely to be higher value that any catalogue would suggest." Looks like CGS has not always been consistent when it comes to strike.

My understanding is that the CGS grading system is by type, therefore there is no theoretical reason why a circulation non-proof coin could not achieve a grade of 100 ... this despite some anomalies in their descriptions for the grades, CGS 88 and above referencing FDC which normally refers to proof coins only. I have non-proof coins graded as MS70 by NGC ... True, I agree that in theory a non-proof can be graded 100. But I think the mint might not be bothered enough to use perfect flans and handle the resulting coins so carefully for ordinary coins.

I personally find the dint on the Charles I significantly easier to live with than the one on Cromwell. Sometimes I am annoyed with myself that I just can't help focussing on the worst part of of each coin in my procession (e.g. minor wear on key part of design, minor carbon spot or contact mark in field etc). I can't stand looking at that Cromwell. If I own it, I would either get it repaired or sell it immediately at any price I can get.

I didn't get one at the end. Apparently, CGS has already graded 68 of these things?! 5 are at CGS 99. Rather surprised by the 99 since they weren't minted to proof standard. Some individual (coin8x.co.uk) is even trying to sell one at, wait for it, at the £999.99.

1) CGS 75 2) CGS 88 3) CGS 70

Davies is usually good at picking the best features for determining varieties, but for the Jubilee head halfcrowns he didn't. I could never work out what the open/closed lace at front of veil was all about. Michael Gouby's method makes it much easier. Thank you! Gouby's method is really so much clearer

But the UIN 33327 indicates that this 1882 has only been graded very recently (within the last 3 months). So it does indeed confirm the views that verd / corrosions are tolerated on low grade and /or rare coins.

:D Funny (esp. because there are probably people who would describe an underweight coin as a rare variety)

Thanks.

Wanted to get an early milled in high grade but didn't want to spend a lot of money. Hence this Hungary thaler. Looks impressive with a large diameter of 45 - 46mm.

True, eye appeal is all important. I find it difficult to enjoy owning a coin (even if it is very rare) if I don't like the look of it. I also agree that for some series like the Wreath crowns, friction on the king's cheek is indeed distracting. However, I think a large number of coin designs can tolerate a bit of "cabinet friction" without reducing eye appeal significantly. However, the presence of this cabinet friction should strictly disqualify a coin from UNC / MS. However, a coin can suffer a number of bag marks or have a few deeper contact marks and is still graded as unc. (MS60 can have a huge number of marks!). These marks on the portrait generally lower eye appeal significantly in my view. As Mark said, grading is not an exact science. Eye appeal is probably more art than science.

I agree with you Azda, if CGS is really an "independent TPG service", then submissions from London Coins shouldn't always be given immediate priority over other customers. Something that I have never understood is why wear is treated more harshly than bag marks when grading. For example, a coin with a trace of wear is no longer described as "mint state" or unc if one is strict. The damage to the coin's surface might only be as little 1 percent. (i.e. only 1% of the coin's surface has suffered slight flattening and loss of lustre). However, a coin with a number of bag marks would have suffered a higher percentage of surface damage but such coins are graded as MS or even unc. For some reason, the "quote" button is no longer working for me. Does anyone know how I can fix it? Thanks

According to the LC website " London coins LTD is part of the London Coins (Holdings) Group LTD which owns London Coins LTD and has 51% ownership of CGS". So London Coins has control of CGS in any case. I am still waiting for a coin which was submitted in early September. Looks like they won't even make the 90 days turnaround and so I am not very pleased with them at the moment.

If he is grading a coin "slightly" better than VF as VF-EF, then he ought to, by the same logic, grade a coin slightly less than VF as F-VF. He is certainly not doing that and uses terms such as aVF and aEF on his webpage.