Sword

There's not a bag of them but about 25 of them were struck (forged) during that period in the 70's/80's by the same person(s)....who, I am told, is alledgedly still around. Do you know why he did not make more? If he could make such good fakes in the 70's / 80's, then I dread to think what will happen in 50 years time. Nothing given he should be pushing up the daisies I didn't mean him, but what forgers in gerneral can do in the future. What worry me is that one day, forgeries will be so good that they can no longer be distinguished from the real thing by visual inspection or weight. Then will all rare coins have to be sold in "slabs" after expensive analysis have been done in labs? Scary! Bear in mind that a few years ago, people were willing to pay a few hundred for a superbly done silver proof repro of a Gothic Crown. Maybe that is the future - affordable repros for those who can't afford originals? Better by far than fakes IMO. I wasn't aware that people were willing to pay such money for a repro. For me, the main attraction of coin collecting is the feeling of owning some history. I like admiring 19 century unc currency coins thinking how lucky they have been. A repro has little more attraction than a photo of a real coin as far as I am conerned! Modern fakes are of course revolting but contemporary fakes can potentially be interesting (not that I collect them).

There's not a bag of them but about 25 of them were struck (forged) during that period in the 70's/80's by the same person(s)....who, I am told, is alledgedly still around. Do you know why he did not make more? If he could make such good fakes in the 70's / 80's, then I dread to think what will happen in 50 years time. Nothing given he should be pushing up the daisies I didn't mean him, but what forgers in gerneral can do in the future. What worry me is that one day, forgeries will be so good that they can no longer be distinguished from the real thing by visual inspection or weight. Then will all rare coins have to be sold in "slabs" after expensive analysis have been done in labs? Scary! As Rob has said that is where provenance is going to play a major part in putting minds at rest on un-slabbed coins. Provenance will certainly play a major part but many qualtiy coins on the market today have no provenance. It is difficult to know if the provenance claimed is genuine unless photos are available.

If it is solder, then the person who did it was a bit sloppy as he put the mount on 10:30 rather than 12 o'clock of the coin

There's not a bag of them but about 25 of them were struck (forged) during that period in the 70's/80's by the same person(s)....who, I am told, is alledgedly still around. Do you know why he did not make more? If he could make such good fakes in the 70's / 80's, then I dread to think what will happen in 50 years time. Nothing given he should be pushing up the daisies I didn't mean him, but what forgers in gerneral can do in the future. What worry me is that one day, forgeries will be so good that they can no longer be distinguished from the real thing by visual inspection or weight. Then will all rare coins have to be sold in "slabs" after expensive analysis have been done in labs? Scary!

There's not a bag of them but about 25 of them were struck (forged) during that period in the 70's/80's by the same person(s)....who, I am told, is alledgedly still around. Do you know why he did not make more? If he could make such good fakes in the 70's / 80's, then I dread to think what will happen in 50 years time.

I wish things could have stayed that way: it would have made things a lot easier. I guess it still wouldn't have been easy, as you would then be required to choose between a matt-coloured, uninspiring-looking, Fine, and a weakly-struck UNC, which would likely have that bejewelled look of a lustred coin. Even beneath a deep tone, the full-lustred coin is supremely prettier, and a far nicer coin! Which would you choose, how much more would you pay for that? Also, a weak strike isn't an absolute thing - it could range from horribly noticeable which might result in a Fine downgrade, less horrid (VF) or barely noticeable (EF). I wonder how serious weak strucking is compared to the other "defects". For example, if you were keen to get a George VI or William VI halfcrown in unc condition and you have a choice of: 1) Nicely struck example with a trace of cabinet friction (but would still just grade as unc by modern day standards) 2) A weaker struck example with full lustre and no wear (but would only grade as EF or GEF if the loss of details is actually due to wear rather than stricking) 3) Nicely struck example with no wear but has some contact marks (and hence also just grade as unc) Hypothetically, which one would you prefer? I'm not sure who William VI is, but as far as George VI goes, his halfcrowns are common enough in perfect state without having to settle for one of those 3 options. However, if it was a 19thC halfcrown, I think I would go for option 1. No, DEFINITELY option 1! Option 3 might be ok, but it would depend on exactly how the contact marks look. I guess that's true of all coins though - how it looks in hand. Sorry, I meant William IV and George IV. :D I would choose option 1 too. Mainly because of eye appeal

I wish things could have stayed that way: it would have made things a lot easier. I guess it still wouldn't have been easy, as you would then be required to choose between a matt-coloured, uninspiring-looking, Fine, and a weakly-struck UNC, which would likely have that bejewelled look of a lustred coin. Even beneath a deep tone, the full-lustred coin is supremely prettier, and a far nicer coin! Which would you choose, how much more would you pay for that? Also, a weak strike isn't an absolute thing - it could range from horribly noticeable which might result in a Fine downgrade, less horrid (VF) or barely noticeable (EF). I wonder how serious weak strucking is compared to the other "defects". For example, if you were keen to get a George VI or William VI halfcrown in unc condition and you have a choice of: 1) Nicely struck example with a trace of cabinet friction (but would still just grade as unc by modern day standards) 2) A weaker struck example with full lustre and no wear (but would only grade as EF or GEF if the loss of details is actually due to wear rather than stricking) 3) Nicely struck example with no wear but has some contact marks (and hence also just grade as unc) Hypothetically, which one would you prefer?

I wish things could have stayed that way: it would have made things a lot easier. I guess it still wouldn't have been easy, as you would then be required to choose between a matt-coloured, uninspiring-looking, Fine, and a weakly-struck UNC, which would likely have that bejewelled look of a lustred coin. Even beneath a deep tone, the full-lustred coin is supremely prettier, and a far nicer coin! Which would you choose, how much more would you pay for that? For me, probably neither. If the weak-struck UNC example cost twice or more compared to the ciculated fine, then I would prefer to get an honest VF example. For me the VF would have better eye appeal.

How easy is it to tell if a coin has wear or simply was weakly struck from an auction photo? With coin in hand, I would check a) if the lustre is continuous loss of toning on the weak areas (with my limited experience, I would be catious and assume it is wear except in clear cut cases) However, this is often not possible from a photo. I suppose if a feature is abnormally weak but the rest of the coin is sharp, then it is probably weak strike. A knowledge of the years / features that are particularly prone to weak striking would be very handy but I have little such knowledge. Hence I have avoided coins described as "weak on high points probably due to striking rather than wear" just to be safe. How can experts tell? Is there just no substitute for experience? Are there many cases which you just can't tell from photos? How much premium is a particularly strong struck unc worth compared to "normal" unc? E.g. most Victorian Old Head currency crowns (even those graded as unc) have lost some detail on the strap across St George's chest due to striking. Would an example with the strap (and other details) fully struck up be a lot more desirable?

Wow! She must be delighted!

Depends on what you are paying. It is given on this link: http://www.coingradingservices.co.uk/?page=service_charge It can take up to 90 days which is far too long in my view. However, at least they are now promising to post promptly after encapsulation.

One significant improvement with CGS is that you now receive an e-mail when your coin has been encapsulated saying that it will be dispatched "within a few days". (I have once waited for more than 3 weeks in the past for coins to get posted.) Thank you Bill if this is due to your feedback to CGS.

Name your price! Here's my 1964 sixpence... That well-known variety "I in GRATIA missing" (still trying to get it accepted as a variety - I live in hope) Very nice! I can trade you my steel two pence without the copper plating variety for it (I made one sometime ago by leaving a 2p in acid for just the right amount of time and ended up with removing all the copper and without damaging the steel at all) Seriously, there is obviously a curiosity value as Gary said earlier. If that were to happen to say a unc. young head crown that would otherwise be worth 2K plus, do you also think the value would be reduced significantly. (I don't have any coin like that but is just curious)

I have dropped a fair number of copper coins into acid over the year (for serious purposes at work and not fooling about). I used concentrated nitric acid which can reduce the weight and size to a fraction within a few minutes. In this case, it does look like that something has reacted with the coin judging by the shape of the letters and colons in the legend and an oxidising acid seem very plausible to me. Proving that it is due to acid is of course (very) difficult. You need to be lucky with guessing the concentration of the acid and time scale, etc etc. that might have caused the desired effect. On a different note, if you have a high grade milled coin (say EF or unc) that is "missing" a letter or has a weak letter in the legend due to say greese, how would that affect its value?

Even rejected coins have UIN I think. All coins were initially allocated UIN prior to grading and the UIN of rejected coins can't really be recyled without causing problems. Is it possible that many of the staff at CGS might also be employed by London Coins? If so, some are simply earning a bit of extra money "on the side" when they have time. Since there is hardly any extra overhead as CGS is using same premises as London Coins, they can keep going even with a small turnover. I don't believe that they spend the same amount of time grading each coin. For example, they are graded over 1000 QE sovereigns. If the grading doesn't affect value, then why put in the effort? Yes Nick, you're right about rejected coins having a UIN, I have just checked mine. I don't know whether any of the graders also work for London Coins, but if they do it could explain how the finances could be made to work, but also introduces more potential for conflict of interest! I think it would be appalling if they don't spend the same care/time grading QE sovereigns (for example) - someone has paid £20 quid a pop and should expect the same service IMO. People who slab those coins probably only want to show they are genuine. Do you think that London Coins themselves would also pay £20 a pop?

Even rejected coins have UIN I think. All coins were initially allocated UIN prior to grading and the UIN of rejected coins can't really be recyled without causing problems. Is it possible that many of the staff at CGS might also be employed by London Coins? If so, some are simply earning a bit of extra money "on the side" when they have time. Since there is hardly any extra overhead as CGS is using same premises as London Coins, they can keep going even with a small turnover. I don't believe that they spend the same amount of time grading each coin. For example, they are graded over 1000 QE sovereigns. If the grading doesn't affect value, then why put in the effort?

Marriage is like a deck of cards VS. All you need at the start are 2 Hearts, at the end all you want is a Club and a Spade!!!! a Heart and a (big) Diamond might also start things off!

CGS members would have received an e-mail "Save Money with CGS Service". The title is very strange as it is actually about price increases from May!! (You can therefore avoid the price increase if you submit your coins in April ... ) Milled Coins worth less than £200: £13.75 (30-90 days) Milled Coins worth less than £2000: £23.75 (30-90 days) Hammered coins less than £2K: £29.99 etc. A price increase to £23.75 from £19.99 for milled coins worth less than 2K is not unreasonable as it has been £19.99 for quite a few years. However, increasing the turn round time from 30 days to 30-90 days is really unhelpful. A potential wait of 3 months is enough to wear out the patience of anyone (esp. those who are planning to sell afterwards). It is a bit of a vicious circle. Excesssive turn round time --> less business --> more price increses + even longer turn round time I think they would do well by promising to return all coins within 30 days with this round of price increase.

What planet have you been living on scott? It's been steel since the early 1990s! I didn't know that! Not that I should, of course! Really? Yep, copper plated steel since 1992. Wow, makes me feel sorry for the future generations of collectors! Imagine the questions on post-decimal.com in 50 years time! "How exactly do you store a piece of steel"? "Can I dip it?" "My tuppence has developed a series of nasty orange bubbles, what can I do?" No real problem as they are plated with copper. If the copper is worn through, then the coin might not be worth collecting for 5000 years

Not at all. A GCS redefinition as proposed is by far the cheapest way to get an upgrade to the collection - it would have cost me 100s to upgrade my (sorry, EF78 and not AU78) P1133A penny (ref. 000057-PE.G3.1797.03) by the traditional route of acquiring a coin in a better grade/condition. And it has the further added bonus of upgrading from the good EF assigned by Spink in the Adams sale (lot 36). A lot can happen in 10 years. The proposal by CGS to remove the prefix qualifier on its numbering system is to allow different players interpret as they believe is best so now if you feel CGS coin rightly UNC - you do not have a contradiction from CGS saying it is AU (or one time EF). I have written elsewhere about grading creep and how the older or scarcer a coin is the the 'higher the perceived grade' that may be allocated to it by a collector / dealer / auction house. You were fortunate that your coin from Spink graded as CGS 78 - some coins I bought from Spink over the years (and numerous other dealers) as UNC have been rejected by CGS (normally for having been cleaned). Of course, others I have bought as UNC have graded in the CGS 80's but alas some at lower than CGS 70. I am grateful to the CGS service for showing me how to better judge coins I now buy in the raw. I don't think there is much point in removing the prefix qualifiers on the slabs if CGS then publish a table converting numbers to traditional grades. Now a CGS 75 coin can be EF or AU on the slab or "unc or near so" according to the proposed table. Confusion is not a good thing for credibility. Some of the conversions on the table are rather questionable too in my view E.g. AU 58 = CGS60, or AU55 = CGS55. Grade inflation (which happens over a long period of time) is one thing but grade "revaluation" or "redefinition" is another. CGS has only been around for 6 years and it is difficult to persuade collectors that grading has changed significantly since. Most of the above has already been said by others. It is almost impossible to please everyone with any "proposal". But one very helpful thing they can do is to promise to post coins back within one week of encapsulation.

Plastic was invented in 1855, 158 years ago, i think the problem lies in that there was no TPGs in 1856 and they did'nt think about plastic holders back then They used to vanish them, not a lot different really. A number of collectors lacquered the coins they had (a bit like slabbing......) and it needs to be VERY carefully removed without damaging the underlying coin. The main point that I was making was that even though slabs might not be visually appealing, they do a relatively good job protecting the coins inside. I think it is worth slabbing UNC Victorian or Georgian coins as there are not many about and they have toned enough by now.Slabbing is also easily reversible unlike lacquer. Lacquer won't prevent cabinet friction and edge knocks.

duplicate post

If plastic was invented two hundred years ago and coins were being slabbed since say 1816, then there is much less fun collecting milled coins today. For a start, you won't get the wonderful tones developed over the centuries. There will also be plenty of lustrous "uncirculated" (in all sense of the word) of Victorian and Georgian coins and owning one will therefore give little satisfaction. Personally, I think slabbing of recent coins to be pointless and see little benefit in slabbing mid grade coins unless they are particularly rare. However, I do think there is a place in coin collecting for slabbing and have confessed that I have slabbed high grade coins (AU or UNC). I did that mainly for the protection of the coins as I can then look at them casually and frequently without fear of damaging them. I know many of us feel (probably quite rightly) that we can look after our coins properly. But accidents / mishandling are bound to happen as coins are passed through generations of keepers. For example, how many Victorian, 1902, 1911 or 1927 proof sets today are still in truly mint FDC condition? Very very few. Even that magnificent example of a 1935 raised edge proof crown that Azda has brought recently and will slab is not (in my view) prefect mint state. The official cases, although infinitely more handsome than plastic slabs have not proved to be ideal for storage. Even the 1937 Edward VIII model crowns, currently offered on sale on this very website have toning spots due to incorrect storage. I know that problems can develop in slabs too but that is comparatively rare. As Bill pointed out, most of the air is extracted when slabbing and that must go a long way to stopping problems. Would I slab a 1927 proof set if I were to buy one (I won't as I have decided to concentrate on circulating coins)? No, because I cannot bring myself to take them out of the handsome case. But what if all 6 coins are truly mint FDC? Then I will probably do it in a heartbeat as there might not even be ten perfect sets now in existence and I don't want to be the one damaging one set. I will probably want to admire such a rarity regularly and easily. Hence, I do think that there is a percentage of coin (the figure of course depends on the individual) worth slabbing and I am very glad that there is a TPG in UK.

Totally agree! It's impossible to not just read VF, the psychology of it is just too much...especially so if you've sent the raw coin off! It would make good business sense for CGS to make this change (maybe one for you to feed back, Bill?)! My point being, would Paulus use CGS again? Would I? CGS won't have compromised their tough standards in adopting the above suggestion! The changing of EF75 to AU75 by CGS a few years back was no big deal. It is the same grade if the number is the same and the seller of an EF75 coin will be quick to point out it is the same as AU75. However, adding new numbers such as 58 and 59 will cause problems, as coins previously graded 55 might be the same as the new 59. I think it is very important to maintain consistency. And where do you stop? The same argument can be used for AVF 19 and 18, AFDC86,87 etc. Using a finer scale will probably also increase the time it take to grade accurately and consistently and hence cost.