Sword

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.

The photo in the hard copy of the catalogue is not great but I had a look at the auction photo on their website last night. (The website photo has now been removed as the auction is over). It must surely be the same coin. One can still see from the catalogue photo the spot under the V, the distinctive scratch on the head, the scratch in front of the mouth, on the neck, and on the C.

I wonder if anyone noticed that this crown was on sale in the recent London Coins Auction (lot 2740)? It was on Ebay until 31st July and the seller was Bucks. Do auction houses have special arrangements with regard to commission with some dealers? Otherwise one would surely make a big loss buying from and then reselling with the same auction within such a short period of time. Also the grading was somewhat cheeky. It was graded as nEF when they thought it was a fake last year. Bucks then graded it as aEF. It was then graded as EF in this auction.

Thanks Benny. Mine only have the missing serif but the C of DECUS is not double struck. (For some reason, the "quote" button is no longer working for me. I have just replaced my computer and need to adjust a setting somewhere I guess)

Very nice crowns Benny and Paulus. I think the recut letters make them a lot of interesting. I particularly like the large S on Benny's and the Y (large Y over small Y I assume) on Paulus. I have an 1818 (with right serif of 1 missing) but no recut letters unfortunately. Do these recut letters make much difference to value? As to the discussion of cloths, I think it is a more likely that foreign particles on the cloth or the coin itself that are guilty of causing hairlines than the cloth itself.

When I first started coin collecting, I brought a crown described by W&W as "1902, about UNC" at what I thought was a good price. When I got more experience later on, I realised that it is (or was) actually a matt proof that has been cleaned (and not just be dipping either). I have left it on the window sill (loosely covered by the lid of a coin capsule and on the top of a piece of dark cloth) for a few years now in an attempt to retone it. It is developing an OK grey tone but I will have to wait until my retirement before it is toned all over.

I particuarly like the story about the godless florin (not that I believe many people actually blamed the omission of DG for the cholera outbreak). Hmm, the coins issued in the colonies don't have DG on them either. Could this be the reason for the end of the British Empire?

One went for 5k and one went for 6k and so Accumulator guessed correctly. (But it is not a coin I would ever want to collect). It is interesting that they have changed the original auction description from "Fifty Pence 2012 Olympics velodrome cyclists Gold Piedfort 31 grams S 4961 one of only 2 minted the other in the Royal Mint Museum so this the only example available to commerce, proof or prooflke Unc with some contact marks. Seldom does an opportunity arise to aquire a coin of such low mintage, and thus must have a fantastic investment potential." to "Fifty Pence 2012 Olympics velodrome cyclists Gold Piedfort 31 grams S 4961 one of only 2 minted the other in the Royal Mint Museum so this the only example available to commerce, proof or prooflike Unc with some contact marks. Seldom does an opportunity arise to acquire a coin of such low mintage, so perhaps a fantastic investment potential."

Nice coin.

I came across a good story about them: "Until about a month ago when a guy came in with a NNC MS68 1932 D Washington quarter... He stated he got it off Ebay for 3500 dollars, and wanted to get my opinion and try to make some fast cash. Now I have to say this, the coin was AMAZING, which is why it caught my eye. I mean full cartwheel, solid unmarked fields, and a luster that would make you cry for this coin... IT GLEAMED. So I examined it under my scope, and sure enough, the d was real, the field were immaculate, and the coin was breathtaking. BUT......... Being in the buisness, I know one thing.. NEVER BUY CRAP you cant fully see from these companies. So I made a deal with the guy, he has been a customer for about 3 years, that I would send it in to PCGS for regrade and reholder at my expense, and pay the agreed price upon return of the coins authenication. He agreed and off the coin went. Low and behold, my intuitions were right, The coin was a fake.. The coin had a 1932 face, and another D minted reverse.. Some mackinist had literally sawed the coin in half, and bound to different sided together. and of course in the NNC holder, you couldnt see the seem. I contacted the owner, and he spoke to the PCGS rep, and the coin was sent back. Upon recieving it, I got to see the seem, and man was if OBVIOUS.... Someone had done a good job to be honest, but it was very evident the edge of the quarter was tampered with."

I had a look at the website and was rather amused to read their t & c Condition 8 "EXCLUSION AND LIMITATION OF WARRANTIES, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY SET FORTH HEREIN, NNC DISCLAIMS (a) ALL WARRANTIES, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ( ALL OTHER REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE UNDERSIGNED AND © ALL OTHER OBLIGATIONS OR LIABILITIES WITH RESPECT TO ITS GRADING SERVICE. IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABLITY AND FITNESS ARE EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED AND DISCLAIMED. THERE ARE NO WARRANTIES WHICH EXTEND BEYOND THE FACE HEREOF." I have never heard of anyone trying to disclaim a "statutory" warranty. Part of condition 9: "PLEASE NOTE: We are no longer accepting submissions from Singapore due to the large number of counterfeit coins coming from there." Well, is not really an issue if they can tell a counterfeit coin from the real thing. Their prices: 1 – 10 coins: $10.00 ea 11 – 49 coins: $9.00 ea 50 – 100 coins: $8.00 ea I guess you get what you pay for!

It's a nice coin. The only drawbacks I can see are a slight flattening starting on the hair and top of the ear. Thanks Peck. The flattening on the top of ear is rather more obvious to me than that on the hair.

I brought one some months ago and paid unc money for it. I agree that the 1911 strike is relative poor compared to the 1902.