Sword

An 1894 penny. Quite nice - except for the fingerpriints. They gave it an AU78. Can I ask which TPG it was? I think Red already told you. AU78 rules out NGC and PCGS, so it's gonna be CGS. Yes, of course, brain wasn't in gear! Out of interest, are CGS definitely the only TPG that use a 1-100 scale? I am quite certain they are. I think I have read on their website somewhere that they have actually patented the scale!

Well, I was out by a lot! 1820, 1823 HC grading as VF I can understand but 40 and 45 seem low. The obverses might a bit less than EF in my view but I thought the nicer reverses might compensate. The 1834 halfcrown only grading as EF65 (i.e. not even GEF which correspond to 70) is something I don't understand. The reverse of that halfcrown in particular looks fantastic to me and seems to be a very strong strike. Anyone can point out where the wear is - love to learn something.

Thanks for the grading challenge Paulus! I am not not experienced but would love to give this a go as a learning exercise. I will also not hedge my bets and will just go for single grades. 1820 halfcrown: EF60 1823 halfcrown: EF65 1834 halfcrown: absolutely stunning. I will stick my neck out and go for UNC82 First gothic florin: EF65 1712 shilling: I will pass. The marks on the obverse are problematic to grading (for someone of my experience)

Very interesting point! I very much hope a nEF obverse and UNC reverse won't be graded as AU75 (or even as GEF, EF70). Balance is important and I think grading should show significant bias for the weaker side (if a single grade is used). One thing which I think is a bit illogical is that wear is treated a lot harsher than bagmarks when it comes to grading (by TPGs or by anyone else). Personally, I prefer coins with as few bag marks as possible and can put up with a bit more wear. I think bag marks can greatly reduce eye appeal. Hence I won't buy a say £200 coin blind base on a grade of say EF70 as it might just look "ugly" in real life.

Can you point me to a webpage where this guarentee is defined? I'd be interested to see the terms and conditions. The one thing I do know about the guarentees offered by the grading companies are that they are entirely worthless if you buy a slabbed coin. The guarentee only applies to the original submitter of the raw coin. I have now had some feedback from CGS - but I will be seeking further clarification as it deals with the submitter of the coin, not the current holder (extract from flier and website follows): ABOUT THE CGS GRADING SYSTEM .......................................... THE COIN GRADING SERVICE The CGS UK system starts by asking whether the coin is genuine (it may be compared to our extensive library of known forgery types, and weighed) in some cases it may be sent to consultant experts and specialists depending on the coin type. In essence we convince our selves as much as is possible we are dealing with the genuine item. We have to as we offer to pay the full market value to the submitter of any coin we encapsulate which subsequently is proved not to be genuine. We then assess if the coin has been enhanced by artificial toning, tooled, polished, plugged, or whizzed. Coins not passing these two tests are returned to the submitter and do not find their way into CGS UK holders. I am pleased to hear that most of the air is removed prior to encapsulation. That will certainly reduces the chance of things going wrong later. Bill, can I make the following suggestion for the CGS website? 1) it might be worth while for CGS to produce a short video clip on their site showing the grading process. Seeing precautions taken like air removal will help to inspire confidence. 2) it would be great to see photos of sets of coins they use as benchmark standards. This will help everyone to understand the strict grading of CGS 3) some information need to be updated. E.g. CGS did not used to encapsulate and grade coins with certain problems. Hence, the following paragraph appear on the website "We then assess if the coin has been enhanced by artificial toning, tooled, polished, plugged, or whizzed. Coins not passing these two tests are returned to the submitter and do not find their way into CGS UK holders" However, CGS now grade and and encapsulate problem coins but will describe the problems on the tickets. Hence the wording in bold above is no longer true. It is confusing to have contradictory information on the same webpage. Also on that page, the range for AU should be 75-78 and not 75-75 as stated. It states that the mid point for EF is 70. Now it is 65 as 70-75 have been renamed from EF to AU. Regarding the CGS guarantee, I am convinced by the wording that it will only apply to the submitter and only cover cases when the English milled coin is not genuine. I have read all the information on the website and I do not believe it will cover defects on coins slabbed. On the link to the CGS forum, there is a FAQ section. It states that "The CGS Capsules How sealed are the holders, for example would they help prevent BU silver coins from toning? The capsules are hermetically sealed and would need to be broken to get the coin out. 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." However, CGS has pointed out that it is not responsible for the accuracy of the information on the CGS forum, the information is therefore not binding. Might be it is a good idea to draw CGS's attention to this information and ask them to either confirm or withdraw it. As many have said eariler, many thanks Bill, for joining the forum and for sharing your views and extensive experience with CGS. Sorry not to have dealt with your note before now - actually been working for a change! However, here goes: 1. I like the idea of the video clip and indeed more information on the attribution and grading process (even a clip of their scientific program process). I will add this to the 'wish list' of changes requested for the Web Site (that I have not touched for a year or more). [since starting writing my views on CGS I have discovered more information about their Policies etc that I am told were formulated by a committee of coin dealers/collectors rather than just one or two people.] 2. A number of people have asked for pictures of the bench mark set to be available on the site (we all think it a great idea) so I will make sure this is prominent in the next wish list for website changes review. 3. You are right about information needing to be updated on the site. With evolution of the site some of the earlier comments no longer apply. I have this action for myself but my work keeps getting in the way. Maybe in a month or so I will have the time to check the full detail of the site. A number of your next points deal with accuracy of information; for example encapsulating coins with yellow tickets is a fairly new innovation and the whole matter of how they are dealt with on the site (as well as information about the process of grading leading to rejections) needs to be refreshed. You are right to raise the matter of can the guarantee be passed from originator of the encapsulation to the current owner - I have asked the question but I think I need to ask it again as I buy CGS graded coins from third parties and I would hate to have to differentiate from ones I submitted to ones I bought. The sealing of the capsule should stop most problems occurring (I wrote elsewhere about sealing in inert gas environments but the cost would be prohibitive. Using a vacuum may be an answer but again it would increase costs). I am not sure what else can be done in economic terms to give total peace of mind but I will continue to reflect on it. I accept your point about statements and then counter statements about rejecting inaccuracy on the web site. This all comes down to a review of the wording and general content of the site. If I have missed anything out, please accept my apologies. At some point I will be publishing a note on the CGS Forum of all matters that need correcting on the CGS main site as well as suggested enhancements to the site. Just a matter of finding the time. All the best. Bill Many thanks for your reply Bill. Very much appreciated.

Can you point me to a webpage where this guarentee is defined? I'd be interested to see the terms and conditions. The one thing I do know about the guarentees offered by the grading companies are that they are entirely worthless if you buy a slabbed coin. The guarentee only applies to the original submitter of the raw coin. I have now had some feedback from CGS - but I will be seeking further clarification as it deals with the submitter of the coin, not the current holder (extract from flier and website follows): ABOUT THE CGS GRADING SYSTEM .......................................... THE COIN GRADING SERVICE The CGS UK system starts by asking whether the coin is genuine (it may be compared to our extensive library of known forgery types, and weighed) in some cases it may be sent to consultant experts and specialists depending on the coin type. In essence we convince our selves as much as is possible we are dealing with the genuine item. We have to as we offer to pay the full market value to the submitter of any coin we encapsulate which subsequently is proved not to be genuine. We then assess if the coin has been enhanced by artificial toning, tooled, polished, plugged, or whizzed. Coins not passing these two tests are returned to the submitter and do not find their way into CGS UK holders. I am pleased to hear that most of the air is removed prior to encapsulation. That will certainly reduces the chance of things going wrong later. Bill, can I make the following suggestion for the CGS website? 1) it might be worth while for CGS to produce a short video clip on their site showing the grading process. Seeing precautions taken like air removal will help to inspire confidence. 2) it would be great to see photos of sets of coins they use as benchmark standards. This will help everyone to understand the strict grading of CGS 3) some information need to be updated. E.g. CGS did not used to encapsulate and grade coins with certain problems. Hence, the following paragraph appear on the website "We then assess if the coin has been enhanced by artificial toning, tooled, polished, plugged, or whizzed. Coins not passing these two tests are returned to the submitter and do not find their way into CGS UK holders" However, CGS now grade and and encapsulate problem coins but will describe the problems on the tickets. Hence the wording in bold above is no longer true. It is confusing to have contradictory information on the same webpage. Also on that page, the range for AU should be 75-78 and not 75-75 as stated. It states that the mid point for EF is 70. Now it is 65 as 70-75 have been renamed from EF to AU. Regarding the CGS guarantee, I am convinced by the wording that it will only apply to the submitter and only cover cases when the English milled coin is not genuine. I have read all the information on the website and I do not believe it will cover defects on coins slabbed. On the link to the CGS forum, there is a FAQ section. It states that "The CGS Capsules How sealed are the holders, for example would they help prevent BU silver coins from toning? The capsules are hermetically sealed and would need to be broken to get the coin out. 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." However, CGS has pointed out that it is not responsible for the accuracy of the information on the CGS forum, the information is therefore not binding. Might be it is a good idea to draw CGS's attention to this information and ask them to either confirm or withdraw it. As many have said eariler, many thanks Bill, for joining the forum and for sharing your views and extensive experience with CGS.

Is this a positive slab-related comment by our Peter?? I have no doubt that CGS graded it impartially and accurately. But grading an MS-64 coin as AU78 is to CGS's advantage... It gives an impression that they are much stricter than NGC and would therefore help CGS coins realise higher prices. I don't think AJW would be too pleased though.

I think this is a major issue. If people are relying on their grading then they need to be independent and seen to be independent of both buyers and sellers. As the Americans might say ... it is Ethics 101. I have my high grade coins slabbed by CGS mainly for protection and ease of viewing. I do find their grading generally strict but I think that's probably a good thing. I too find their intimate relationship with London Coins of some concern. As stated on their website, London Coins (Holdings) Group Ltd owns 51% of CGS. I don't have a real problem with that or the fact that London Coins auctions CGS coins on behalf of clients. However, I just think that the selling of CGS slabs on the London coins website (and the auctioning of these slabs when they fail to sell) raise questions of on the independency of CGS.

Oh dear, oh, dear! That can only have developed in the slab if it's CGS! You're going to have to crack it out to arrest it surely? From some of the previous statements made in the other CGS thread, I'm assuming if you return it to CGS you'll get compensation (not!) but, at the very least, you'd think they'd be happy to re-slab for free and cover your postage costs, once you've neutralised the verd? Re the grade, at that end of the scale you really do need some serious close-ups. I did mention in another thread about the buckles on the side of the boot, are they still proud/struck-up? Or have they been pushed back into the seam? Actually, I'm really looking forward to a major close-up on the boot of Dave's proof, must remember to ask him! I'm certain that CGS don't pay compensation for any deterioration in the slab. They only pay market value if you can prove that it's a fake, and even then you have to be the original submitter and also prove it's fake without removing it or tampering with the slab - so you have zero chance of that. Surely, they would refuse to re-slab after removing the 'green' as it has been cleaned. I agree with Nick. Quoting their website: "In fact we guarantee to pay the submitter the full market value of any non genuine English Milled coin that we may encapsulate.". Hence there is no compensation even if it is a non-English fake or an English hammered fake. They would probably only reslab it with a yellow label.

No, regular slab issue for this one! I've still got the cotton bud if anyone knows of a simple chemical experiment to determine the composition of the green coloured residue on it? What can you add to a copper component that guarantees a colour change or an explosion or something? Try adding ammonia solution. Any blue colour would indicate would indicate presence of copper ions. Copper ions react with ammonia to give blue copper hydroxide. (Further addtion of ammonia will give a deep blue copper complex but you haven't got enough substance on the cotton bud for this test) Excellent, Sword, will give that a go! What would be the easiest source of ammonia...chemist? I can get a 9.5% solution from boots! Strong enough, do you think? That's certainly concentrated enough. I think the best thing to do is to add a few drops of ammonia solution to the cotton bud. If there is no immediate change, then put a bit of glass or ceramic on the top of it (to stop the ammonia from evaporating quickly) and wait for a day or two. Would be very interested to know the result!

No, regular slab issue for this one! I've still got the cotton bud if anyone knows of a simple chemical experiment to determine the composition of the green coloured residue on it? What can you add to a copper component that guarantees a colour change or an explosion or something? Try adding ammonia solution. Any blue colour would indicate would indicate presence of copper ions. Copper ions react with ammonia to give blue copper hydroxide. (Further addtion of ammonia will give a deep blue copper complex but you haven't got enough substance on the cotton bud for this test)

Apparently, the dreaded green can be copper carbonate, chloride or acetate. These three compounds are soluble in acetic acid, ethanol and alcohol (or water) respectively. However, knowing bugger all about chemistry - I can't vouch for the correctness of this info. I have never tried to remove verd spots as I don't collect copper. Hence I have no practical experience in this but am now tempted to try out some experiments!Copper carbonate is a base and so will dissolve (react) with acid. Thinking more about it, you are right Coinery. Copper chloride is solube in acetone and I assume can be removed that way. (I shouldn't trust an article too readily without a bit more thought). Copper carbonate is insolube in water and I think is also insolube in acetone. However, if the verd has not eaten in, then acetone will at least act as a lubricant and should help to an extent. Acetone is an organic solvent and should be very good with plastic residues. I still think that the main responsibilities of a TPG are to accurately grade the coin and to make certain that the slabbing process is not going to cause extra harm to a coin. It is a tad unrealistic to expect them to analyse the suface of the coin to see if there are any harmful substances on it. If it looks like a problem is developing, one should be prepared to crack the slab open to sort it out. If people are worried about the edge of the coin, then the NGC slab design shows the edge. I don't think slabbing is prefect by any means but I am of the opinion that a slabed coin has less chance of picking up damage (physcially or chemically). Slabed coins developing problems always raise eyebrows but a much much greater number are sitting safely (as far as one can tell ) in the slab.

.500 silver. The other 50% is vulnerable isn't it? I was just going to ask about that, how do you get verd on a silver coin, if it's not, but a deposit, is it corrosive, and could it have been caused by living in the slab?? Not surprised at your shock though Stuart! Yes, the non-silver 50% is mostly copper, so verdigris is possible. Still getting over the shock that a humble 1922 3d would be slabbed! I have done quite a bit of background search on Verdigris since my last post on the subject and agree with peck that verd is possible on 50% silver coins. Just type "verdigris" and "crown" into the past results in London Coins auctions and you will find photos of a number of wealth crowns with verd spots. I came across an interesting article on ebay review which is written by a chemist and numismatist. It claims that acetone generally cannot remove verd but might remove other green deposits. http://reviews.ebay.com/How-to-Remove-Verdigris-From-Coins?ugid=10000000017991989 Blaming CGS in this case is a bit harsh as the coin could have picked up a chemical deposit on the edge which was invisible at the time of slabbing and the green stuff would probably have developed whether the coin was slabbed or not. They can't clean each coin with chemical before slabbing as that will surely upset most collectors. What happen if some nice toning is removed by the "cleaning"? On the subject of cheap coins being slabbed, I remembered that the London Coin site was selling some slabbed churchill crowns for about a couple of pounds about two or three yers ago. At the time, I wondered briefly why would anyone spend money to slab junk. Then I realised that it was probably done by CGS for training / practice.

I found the CGS service pretty shocking the last time I used them. They failed to forward the coins more than 3 weeks after the actual encapsulations (you can monitor progres on their website). The reply I have got when I phoned them was that they "would only post in batches". I then emailed Semra and the coins were dispatched on the same day. Just need to complain to the management when you get nonsense on the phone.

Any collector with a tiny bit of experience would probably agree that the Royal Mint prices are frightful. However, charging someone, say £50 for a commenorative coin that can only be resold for £10 is no worse than other companies trying to make the same margin with a bone china plate or mug. They are in my view just running posh sovenir shop. What worries me is that if someone were naive enough to buy gold soverigns directly from the mint as an "investment". It would be a very good idea if they can be forced to quote the bullion values of their high values coins! Also, I think it is totally unexcusable when they buy old coins from open market and try to sell them at sky high prices. E.g. Oxford_Collector pointed out earlier in the year when they tried to sell a VF double florin (with a silver 20p piece) for £145. No respectable seller can charge so much beyond standard book prices.

Not sure I entirely agree with that. 'Unc' for a proof coin always seems anomalous because a proof coin is either perfect or it isn't. Anything which impairs the coin after production is ultimately wear and the next step down should surely be GEF shouldn't it? Traditionally the term 'proof impaired' was used but seems to have gone out of fashion now; nonetheless the term didn't say how much the coin was impaired, so was I guess only of limited use. I have been led to believe that 'Proof' was not a grade at all, rather a reference to the polished and normally superior dies used. While you might expect a Proof coin to be high grade as they are not intended for circulation, the grade of a coin is something completely separate, is it not? I have seen some low-mid grade Proof coins! Quite, and a low grade Proof pocket piece should be graded F, VF etc. Once it has lost its FDC status then its back on the normal grading system. I am certainly no expert and is probably a bit naive when it comes to grading. But I think there can be difficulties when we use the same terms for grading top end proof and currency coins. A curreny coin at GEF has a definate amount of wear (or at least a rather high number of minor contact marks). Hence I think it is too harsh to describe a proof coin as such if it has the slightest impairment such as a single tiny contact mark or a couple of faint hairlines. I think such a coin should at least be described as UNC as an UNC currenty coin allows a few minor contact marks (or even a bit of cabinet friction (aka very minor wear)). Slightly impaired proof coins have never been circulated and has only been slightly mishandled at some point. Hence describing them as UNC seem OK to me. Otherwise the GEF term would cover coins in a rather wide range of conditions. If it were up to me, I would use the follwing grades for proof coins: FDC (perfect), PAS (with very slight impairment), UNC (with more minor contact marks or hairlines but has never been used as currency. Hence no wear and reflective fields and damage is still only caused by mishandling)and then GEF (if it has acutally been circulated and has wear).

I would presume that "choice FDC" refers to a coin that's beautifully toned? However, I do think the term is piss poor, as a picture or description of the toning would be better than such puff. And yes, AFDC is without meaning (it's as stupid as "almost unique"). I don't think they even meant toning as they described a matt proof 1902 halfcrown as "choice FDC" and it hasn't got great (or much) toning. That auction house also seem to brag about nice toning explictly whenever it can. Sorry I omitted a word earlier. I meant they called a coin "choice AFDC". Personally, I have some symapthy with the pharse "aFDC". I agree that the term doesn't make sense if one is strict and it is really just an "imaginary grade". The gap between UNC and FDC is rather big for proof coins as UNC can include quite a few contact marks and a few hairlines. Hence the term might apply to a coin with say just one tiny contact mark or a couple of very faint hairlines. It is like aUNC, aEF or aVF which really mean coins in the very top ends of EF, VF and F respectively.

I particularly dislike the term "choice FDC" used by a London auction house. If FDC is perfect, then what on earth is "choice FDC"? They recently described a 1935 raised edge proof crown as choice FDC and the said coin has been slabbed by CGS as UNC88. UNC88 (88 out of 100) is hardly perfect in the first place! I think one might reasonably conclude that coins they describe as plain "FDC" are even less perfect. They have also used the terms "AFDC" and "choice FDC or near so" which I think are even more meaningless.

That's another worry,you think they are slabbed correctly,turns out the slab is faked so the content is also worthless,or worst scenario,the slab is correct,and it's a third party grader that's wrongly slabbed a fake.I think with the internet,more and more people will start to rely on a slabbed coin for authenticity. If you can prove that they have slabbed a fake, the more respectable TPGs like PCGS, NGC or CGS will compensate you to the market value of the real coin. For NGC or CGS, you can use the number on the slab on their databases and get a photo of the coin originally slabbed. This should tell you if you have got a fake coin in a fake slab. NGC only takes pictures of the coins that have paid the extra fee for pictures. Almost half or more don't have pictures. I think CGS takes pic's of all coins. (I think). They have had pic's of all of the coins I have followed up on at least! If you are referring to CGS UK, I believe that they do now always take pictures, but have not always done so. There used to be a cheaper option that gave you a slab and a grade, but no photo. Yes, CGS UK always take photos now. They used to offer the cheaper option (£2 less) only for coins worth less than £200.

That's another worry,you think they are slabbed correctly,turns out the slab is faked so the content is also worthless,or worst scenario,the slab is correct,and it's a third party grader that's wrongly slabbed a fake.I think with the internet,more and more people will start to rely on a slabbed coin for authenticity. If you can prove that they have slabbed a fake, the more respectable TPGs like PCGS, NGC or CGS will compensate you to the market value of the real coin. For NGC or CGS, you can use the number on the slab on their databases and get a photo of the coin originally slabbed. This should tell you if you have got a fake coin in a fake slab.

PCGS even has the cheek to state on its website that its guarantee does not cover certain "obvious" errors that they make. E.g. "a variety attribution that is obviously incorrect". I think they are rather shameless in saying that "A blatantly obvious clerical input mistake with respect to the actual grade of the coin. For example, if you had an 1893-O Morgan dollar and the PCGS holder showed the coin as MS65 (a Gem quality coin), but the coin was so beat up and marked up that it would grade MS60 at best, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as this would be an obvious input error. The rule of thumb here would be a difference of more than two points on the grading scale". Does it mean that if they will take no responsibility if they grade a MS64 coin as MS67 (a difference of more than 2 points)?

Like Vicky, I also believe that TPGs do take into account on the position of the marks. The PCGS website give the following defintition for MS65 "Minor marks/hairlines though none in focal areas, above average strike". By "focal" areas, I assume they mean the face or an important part of the design on the reverse.

I don't really buy that as a logical proposition. There are two sides to a coin, and probability theory would suggest that both receive equal amount of contact marks. Contact marks would be most obvious in the clear fields of a coin. So maybe there is, as Peck suggested, a tendency to be drawn towards the head. Maybe there tends to be more area of clear field on the obverse, predominantly. Otherwise the suggestion that one side received more contact marks than the other makes zero sense. I do agree that contact marks are more obvious in clear fields. This a very long shot, but could it be possible that because the obverse is generally flatter (having more field etc), a clash of two coins can produce two (or a least a bigger) contact mark(s) because one coin can skid on the surface of another. The reverse has more design and so might result in less skidding? Also for the same contact, the mark would be larger if it occur on the field rather than the design as the design protect the surrounding field from damage? There is one fact that's indisputable : 99% of obverses have a similar design, i.e. a head surrounded by a circular legend, with clear fields between. Reverses are enormously varied, from the complex and fussy (Eliz II florins and sixpences, George V halfcrowns, Vic JH shillings, etc), through a mid range where there is at least some clear field (Britannia, Vic JH and Geo V florins, lion on crown), to the simple and uncluttered with a lot of field (farthings from 1937, thrift brass 3d, silver 3d to 1936, wreath 6d, etc). I stand by my earlier claim that we would be less inclined to collect a coin where there was obvious damage to a portrait, than a similar disfigurement to a reverse. I'm not sure why this is, but it could be just human psychology, as I said before (though you made no comment). y I do agree with you Peck that a mark on the portrait is a lot more significant that one in the field. Sorry that I forgot to reply earlier. It is a matter of human psychology in the sense that we care a lot more about how our face look than say our hands. (If we were to have a place a scar on our body, then no one will choose to put it on his face!)I was just wondering whether are other factors at play in addition to this especially for the larger coins with fussy reverse designs.

I don't really buy that as a logical proposition. There are two sides to a coin, and probability theory would suggest that both receive equal amount of contact marks. Contact marks would be most obvious in the clear fields of a coin. So maybe there is, as Peck suggested, a tendency to be drawn towards the head. Maybe there tends to be more area of clear field on the obverse, predominantly. Otherwise the suggestion that one side received more contact marks than the other makes zero sense. I do agree that contact marks are more obvious in clear fields. This a very long shot, but could it be possible that because the obverse is generally flatter (having more field etc), a clash of two coins can produce two (or a least a bigger) contact mark(s) because one coin can skid on the surface of another. The reverse has more design and so might result in less skidding? Also for the same contact, the mark would be larger if it occur on the field rather than the design as the design protect the surrounding field from damage?

I just did a quick bit of research on the London coins website. I searched the pharse "contact marks on the obverse" in the "realised prices" and it came up with three pages of results. I then tried "contact marks on the reverse" and it only came up with one page. OK, this is only a very crude attempt and might not mean much. But the difference is significant.