Sword

I'm not sure about the predecimal position, but anything post-1971 can't be melted; that IS illegal. This is from the guidelines issued by the HM Treasury. "(1) No person shall, except under the authority of a licence granted by the Treasury, melt down or break up any metal coin which is for the time being current in the United Kingdom or which, having been current there, has at any time after 16th May 1969 ceased to be so." https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/194220/guidance_coinage_banknotes.pdf This statment suggests that it is fine prior to that date. People melt pre 1947 silver coins, and I can't see why bronze coins should be any different. Unfortunately, that quote was the very one that caused the earlier uproar! If you examine its logic, it is saying that even if a coin WAS legal tender in the UK, but has been declared no longer legal tender after 16/5/69, it's still illegal to melt. That little word "or", you see. Thanks for pointing that out Peck. So one can't melt pre decimal pennies as they were demonitzed after 5/69. But by that logic, one can't melt silver shillings or florins or come to think of it, even sovereigns? Doesn't make any sense now.

I'm not sure about the predecimal position, but anything post-1971 can't be melted; that IS illegal. This is from the guidelines issued by the HM Treasury. "(1) No person shall, except under the authority of a licence granted by the Treasury, melt down or break up any metal coin which is for the time being current in the United Kingdom or which, having been current there, has at any time after 16th May 1969 ceased to be so." https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/194220/guidance_coinage_banknotes.pdf This statment suggests that it is fine prior to that date. People melt pre 1947 silver coins, and I can't see why bronze coins should be any different.

I would also support TPG discussions to be moved elsewhere. Debating this topic every couple of months doesn't do any good to the harmony of the forum. It is just about the only discussion topic that can make people fall out.

Blimey, TPGC's what? Yes, what's happened Stuart? Or have you, like me, just finished reading all the posts in this thread?! On the head, Paulus! Right on the head! Edit: it really needs its own dedicated forum page, it's such a popular debate! It would would probably get the google number 1 slot for search terms 'CGS' NGC' PCGS' ahead of the slabbing companies themselves, such is the volume of material in this area! Just sayin'! I am mostly finished with the subject myself, I have to say! I did suggest that a while back. We have surely generated over 100 pages of discussion by now. Just for fun, I have just search "CGS NGC PCGS" on google. Predecimal Forum only comes up on top of page 2

I am simply speechless!

Could have been a dealer who believes (rightly or wrongly) that the slabbed coins will sell quicker or for a little more?

I am not sure if CGS has scaled back. They graded about 4000 coins in the past year which is about the norm for them. Someone has supposedly submitted over 1000 coins in a single consignment last June. One problem the novice learning the Sheldon Scale is that the TPGs (and some dealers) would say one thing but do another. The definition of MS on the Sheldon scale is that there should be absolutely no wear. But we all know that the majority of coins MS62 / MS63 or below do have some wear and should really be graded AU58 at best. Consistentcy can only be achieve if people actually grade according to the agreed criteria.

Happy Birthday guys!

Just a thought. If there are collectors in say the US prepared to pay £20k for such a coin, then the Royal mint should consider making a single gold specimen of all the coins they produce each year. Price these "unique coins" at £10K each and they will make several hundred thousands a year!

Just an Idle thought. When the 2012 50pence coins were made, 2 examples of each design (29 designs in total) were produced in gold. One was given to the artist and the other to the Royal Mint museum. In the not so long future, they will surely come onto the market. How much do you think each coin will sell for? For me, the insane number of commenorative coins produced by the Royal Mint in the last 2 decades has put me right off in collecting anything recent. I don't find the idea of owning a gold 2012 50pence exciting even if it is the only example available to the public. Still, I am sure some collectors will love the idea of owning a practically unique coin!

I read the article. But I think that, if we are commemorating the sacrifice of our troops in WW1, then a focus for 2014 should be the sacrifice of the BEF at Mons, Le Cateau, the Aisne and Ypres rather than a recruiting posters supposedly representing a call to arms. My grandfather was in the reserve in 1914. As a member of the Royal Garrison Artillery, he arrived in France in February 1915 and stayed there until he was demobilised in February of 1919. Both his brothers also served with the youngest contracting TB from which he died in 1921. I have his medals in my possession (including his Imperial Service Medal) and have been able to access his medal card via Ancestry. I agree that images highlighting the waste of life in battles, suffering, heroism in the field would be a lot more appropriate than the Kitchener poster.

There was an article in the daily mail discussing the coin. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2531850/Royal-Mint-unveils-2-coin-featuring-famous-image-Lord-Kitchener-commemorate-100th-anniversary-World-War-One.html

I think it would have been better if the RM waited until 2018 and commenorate the end of the war instead. Apparently, they are going to issue coins with WWI themes for the next 4 years.

I agree Dave, trouble is they would f*ck it up! Look what the French have done to Roty's beautiful Sower Geez that looks like a Lowry. The only recent Design i like was the 1997 £2 Britannia REV design, they must of sacked that engraver because nothing has come up to scratch since and i can't remember what was great previous to that, i think we're talking decades. They don't seem to have any artistic flair at the mint anymore.Was that the standing Britannia in a warship with flowing hair and robes? That was a cracking design! I have just been to the engraver / designer's website. http://www.philipnathanart.co.uk/coins/ Really like some of his work. He is in his seventies and so I guess has retired from royal mint coin designing.

Very nice!

Beautiful coin Sword. It doesn't look dipped to me. Nice clear fields! I agree, looks like natural beauty to me! Thanks guys!

This is the first serious coin I have brought and so has sentimental value. Virtually toneless when I brought it. Would you say this is natural or has been previously lightly dipped?

It seems pretty odd to me that the absolute pinnacle that is FDC can manage to span 6 grade numbers at the top of the table. So that's FDC, FDC and a bit, FDC and some, FDC with knobs on, ... What's more, their top 4 numbers all equate to Sheldon 70 - would the Americans accept their absolute pinnacle can be further subdivided by 4? And strictly, should only be applied to proofs. The highest grade for a non-proof is BU or UNC. Which would prompt me to ask whether CGS 88 is the highest achievable grade for a non-proof! I believe it is, but don't quote me on that Non-proof specimen coins can be significantly higher than that I think.

Interesting question. I am collecting CGS graded coins and as far as I know they did not change their valuation by grade „across the board“. Generally speaking they monitor the prices achieved on the market and then adjust prices accordingly. On CGS forum meeting last year I have personally seen their impressive computer database were are the achieved prices added (as well as prices of raw coins). For example 1/2Crown 1836 valued by CGS in grade 80 at 1000,- pounds at that time sold in Lockdales sale 103 in May this year for £1580,- (double the estimate) and subsequently the CGS price on their website changed to 1600,-. In the same sale Ghotic Crown 1847 (in grade 78, valued at 3500,-) sold for £ 4200,- and is currently valued at 4000,- (interestingly in December sale this coin in grade 70 sold for £ 3900,-). I have noticed this as I have been bidding on this coins (unsuccessfully – needless to say). On the other hand I owe 6d 1879 No Die Number in grade 80 – the CGS valuation recently dropped from £ 300,- to 275,-. For me, however, still applies that value of my coins is what someone will be prepared to pay in the future. And I always buying the coins for the price I am happy with. CGS never (as far as I can tell) revise their valuations downward even though some of the figures are way over the top (i.e. more than two times out). For example they valued a grade 82 1900 LXIV crown at £900, and an example was sold in the august london coins auction at £380 hammer. A halfcrown was brought for £110 hammer from London coins and it got slabbed at grade 80 and has a CGS valuation of £350. There are many more examples I can give. I think the reason that some of the CGS prices have remained static for several years is that they were over the top in the first place and it will be many years before the market prices can catch up. I am sure there will be lot of examples on both sides of the spectrum and you may be right with "prices catching up" in some series. Their valuation by grade is great for insurance (valuation) purposes but otherwise it does not concern me at all. I always pay what I am happy to pay for particular coin. Some coins are sold even over their "over the top" prices some under their prices, it may depend how many buyers are interested in particular coin on the particular day. Raw shilling 1839 sold at their last auction at £200 hammer in spite of Spink valuation of £600. I do not think that because of this result we can say that Spink prices are "over the top". If the Crown 1900 is overpriced then it will remain on their website for sale for another 20 years until the price catch up (or until the price drops). It is not my problem, I am just not going to buy it for this price. FYI I'd like to confirm that CGS valuation of 6d 1879 dropped recently which is easily verifiable on their website. Thanks for the 1879 6d info. (They have dropped the price from £300 to £275 for grade 80 of a variety). Surely, even such modest drops are exceptionally rare? I do respect the grading of CGS and do use them. (The main reason for me slabbing some of my high grade coins is for protection and ease of viewing). I am also not saying that all CGS valuations are over the top. However, some of their valuations are obviously so and this does nothing for their credibility. London coins sells CGS slabs at CGS prices. If some CGS prices are double of what the raw coins can sell raw, then some might say that it is an attempt to push the theory that slabbing can greatly increase the value of a coin.

They can't wash their hands quite so easily though as there are still hundreds (perhaps thousands) of CGS slabs out there labelled with grade qualifiers. I notice that they didn't offer to re-label all old slabs with the new style when they changed the nomenclature. More than 25000 CGS slabs (minus those that have been cracked out) with the grade qualifiers.

Interesting question. I am collecting CGS graded coins and as far as I know they did not change their valuation by grade „across the board“. Generally speaking they monitor the prices achieved on the market and then adjust prices accordingly. On CGS forum meeting last year I have personally seen their impressive computer database were are the achieved prices added (as well as prices of raw coins). For example 1/2Crown 1836 valued by CGS in grade 80 at 1000,- pounds at that time sold in Lockdales sale 103 in May this year for £1580,- (double the estimate) and subsequently the CGS price on their website changed to 1600,-. In the same sale Ghotic Crown 1847 (in grade 78, valued at 3500,-) sold for £ 4200,- and is currently valued at 4000,- (interestingly in December sale this coin in grade 70 sold for £ 3900,-). I have noticed this as I have been bidding on this coins (unsuccessfully – needless to say). On the other hand I owe 6d 1879 No Die Number in grade 80 – the CGS valuation recently dropped from £ 300,- to 275,-. For me, however, still applies that value of my coins is what someone will be prepared to pay in the future. And I always buying the coins for the price I am happy with. CGS never (as far as I can tell) revise their valuations downward even though some of the figures are way over the top (i.e. more than two times out). For example they valued a grade 82 1900 LXIV crown at £900, and an example was sold in the august london coins auction at £380 hammer. A halfcrown was brought for £110 hammer from London coins and it got slabbed at grade 80 and has a CGS valuation of £350. There are many more examples I can give. I think the reason that some of the CGS prices have remained static for several years is that they were over the top in the first place and it will be many years before the market prices can catch up.

The CGS guarentee is almost worthless. Their coin submission terms and conditions state: "Should any English Milled coin authenticated as genuine and encapsulated by CGS UK be proved subsequently to be fake and is returned to us by the original submitter, intact in the original holder with no evidence of tampering CGS UK will pay the submitter an agreed market value of a genuine example in a similar grade." There are a couple of obvious scenarios: 1) You buy the coin slabbed. The guarentee does not apply as you are not the original submitter. 2) You are the original submitter and you think the coin is fake. Try proving that conclusively without tampering with the slab. I agree with you Nick. However, I am sure that some people still believe that the warranty is attached to the slab and not to the original submitter. In the section regarding authenticity in "auction buyers guide" on the London coins website, it states that "Third party graded and encapsulated coins ("slabbed" coins) have authenticity guarantees from the grading company concerned." Hence, it would be a good idea to get official confirmation from CGS. If they confirm that it only apply to the original submitter, then it will be interesting to have their reasoning. Your second point is very interesting. For many cases, how can you ever prove that a coin is fake esp. if it is still in a slab. The TPGs and most auction houses for that matter have avoided discussing this. If PCGS or NGC refuse to reslab the coin on grounds of suspected authenticiy, would that be enough? There need to be a list of acceptable arbiters in case of disputes. Obviously, these issues apply to all TPGs and not just to CGS. (I suspect that since CGS slabs mainly English milled which they have expertise on, they must be very reliable on the authenticity front. I don't think anyone has reported a fake coin in a CGS slab yet ...)

It is indeed a shame that Bill has not make an appearance on the forum for so long. I too enjoyed his input. From memory, he never got round to confirming whether the CGS warranty can be passed on to subsequent purchasers of the slabs. Also the CGS forum makes the claim that "CGS Guarantee the state of the coin as encapsulated so they know that the coins will not be damaged or toned in any way once encapsulated." and we did asked if he could get official confirmation for that. Strangely, hammered coins do not feature on the CGS population reports and so it is not possible to tell how many they have slabbed from their website. I think lightly dipped coins should have no problem getting accepted. E.g. there are plenty of blazing white proof coins of George V (with no signs of toning) in slabs.

Merry Christmas to all!!

Did you take photos (or a video clip) of the coin in the drinking vessel? Many people with be convinced by that. I assume you wouldn't store such a coin in a cabinet afterwards for fear of toning?