ozjohn

Thanks for the advice. I looked at the edge inscription and it looked pretty good. When I go into Brisbane I'll have another look if the coin is still for sale.

I went into Brisbane today and looked in a coin shop. There was a 1847 gothic crown described as about UNC with a few surface marks for $AU 3725 approx. GBP 1863. Is this too good to be true? The dealer assured me that it was genuine. To be fair I have brought coins from this dealer in the past and have always been happy with the grading and price of the coins I have brought in fact the dealer seems to be conservative in their grading. Assuming this seems to be a reasonable deal is there any thing to look for with fake gothic crowns. Any information would be gratefully received. Thanks

Can you be sure that CGS weren't the source of the edge knock?

A good Aussie saying!

I'm visiting the UK this year and may pay the museum a visit. Is the museum part of the B of E or located elsewhere?

As I observed earlier being a grading company and a coin dealer at the same time is incompatible as discussed in these forums earlier regarding the US outfit National Numismatic Certification. If CGS want to maintain their integrity as a third party coin grader they should make a choice and get rid of their London Coins outlet.

A poorly struck coin. The obverse seems to have a wider than normal rim indicating that it wasn't struck properly hence the flat ear. However the raised edge of the rim to the RHS of the head at about 1 to 2 o' clock indicates that there has been little circulation otherwise it would be flattened also it indicates that the blank didn't fit correctly in the die during striking otherwise it would be around the whole of the rim as can be seen on some coins. Again the reverse suffers from the light struck as the center of the shield which is particularly poorly struck is roughly in the same place as the flat ear. The scratch who knows where that came from. Overall the high grade assigned to the coin does not seem to be justified as I have seen coins graded at GVF looking better than the subject coin. I do not think any grading system really describes coins such at this with any accuracy. PGS try to include strike into the equation with their MS graded coins but the 10 odd percent they devote to this would hardly describe the deficiencies in the strike quality of this coin. Perhaps CGS's grading is more a result of the conflict between the grader and the seller of the coin being one and the same organization.

The US as they proposed it ? Why 0 to 70 I don't know 0 to 100 would be better. PGS use this in their initial assessment then rescale from 0 to 60. If the coin is UNC ie MS 60 the final 61- 50 is used to describe the appearance of the UNC coin rather than the wear at least that is what their video implied 0ne thought that struck me was an AU 58 coin with little bag abrasions etc. could look a whole lot better than a MS 61 - 63 graded coin. Toning after grading could be an issue but degreasing the coin before slabbing then slabbing the coin in an airtight inert capsule should take care of that issue. This is a preservation issue.

Interesting and instructive video. The following points. Firstly the US grading is not exactly equivalent to the UK and Oz scales and secondly the video explains the system used for grading of less than MS coins by PGS with coins below VF the coin is graded on what's left of the design and what is missing from the design for higher graded coins up to 60. Also the Sheldon scale of 0 to 70 has been shoehorned into a 0 to 60 scale with the higher grades 61 to 70 used to grade the surface condition, luster etc. Overall informative on the PGS system which I thought before seeing this video was purely based on the Sheldon scale. No grading system is perfect but this at least tries to take some of the subjectivity out of the grading system.

Is this due to strike quality or that very few E2 coins were put by?

I brought one mainly to obtain a mint George and Dragon design coin of a reasonable size and cost to help with grading other coins of that design. Also the price wasn't too bad and the coin's ok for a modern coin.

I was looking for a post in the predecimal forum that showed some coins, (German I think), that had been photographed under different light conditions. The thing that was striking was for the same coin two different results could be obtained. firstly a coin with a patina and no hairline scratching and secondly the same coin with little patina and many hairline scratches. I'm afraid I could not find the post but if anyone can remember the post it may contribute to this debate and also install the notion of buyer beware.

Thanks for the info. However including the pictures in this thread would be useful

Going back to the origin of the topic a photo taken by the buyer would be helpful to judge the extent of the issue.

I wouldn't trust CGS with anything. See posting CGS 1912 Florin UIN 0032905

A good question. For the most part metho is clear in Australia. However I do have a bottle or mauve colored metho which I applied to a paper serviette. To start with there was a slight mauve color which disappeared as the spirit evaporated. The paper is now clean. So I guess it isn't a problem perhaps the dye evaporates along with the spirit.

Metho is ethanol plus a small amount of methanol plus sometimes purple dye. Surgical sprit is similar without dye. While acetone is an aromatic ketone and is the smell on your breath when drinking alcohol. All are solvents that remove grease etc, and probably not a lot between them when cleaning coins.

Again the "bag marks" seem worse on the photos supplied by the seller whereas the CGS photo seems to be less marked with the mark on the neck just behind the adam's apple apparent in both photos indicating they are the same coin. I can see no reason for a grader to enhance the coin if they are grading the coin for a customer unless they have want to sell it on via their own retail outlet. Again in this case the seller's photos are more revealing than the grading company. As far as the strike is concerned 1920s KGV coins used a shallow cut effigy of the king whereas the 1912 effigy of KGV was the deeper cut version that carried more detail.

I think metho sounds better!

Metho is good for degreasing coins and removing surface contaminates such as salt from fingers. Again it does no harm to the coin as far as I can see. Also helps to prevent verdigris from forming on bronze coins. Pour metho into saucer dip coin and pat dry with paper tissue. Do not wipe as abrasion may cause scratching.

Yes but are CGS acting as a coin grading service or a sales service for their retail outlet?

Hi Nick, You are right. It has to be said that the coin for sale is a very nice coin but it also demonstrates that the concept of FDC does not exist other than for proof coins that have been put away from the day they were issued. Normal issue coins in EF UNC condition suffer from many problems starting from the day they were minted.

I saw this coin on Ebay item # 131412577044 which is a CGS certified 1912 florin. The seller provided photos taken by himself and the CGS provided photos UIN 0032905. When I looked at the photos I noticed that a scratch on the upper head part of the King's head shown on the seller's photo as just about absent from the CGS photo with only a smudge showing. Maybe it is just a trick of lighting between the two photos but I thought damage such as this should show up the same in both pictures. Other small edge knocks indicate that it is the same coin in both photos. This does little the enhance CGS as they are both graders and dealers in coins.

82, 75 & 80. The wreath crown was 80+ on the obverse but the high parts of the thistles and the center of the roses were a little weak. I think this was a striking issue rather than wear as the obverse was so good. In all they are all cracking good coins.

Take your point. I can remember at school a decimal pound. !0/- is .500, 2/- is .100. 1/- ,050 etc. 1/4 of a penny was 1/960 which is close to 1/1000 and depending on how many fathings you would round up or down to get the correct value.. Also the USA has a quarter which is 25 cents and when the UK first decimalized they had a 1/2 penny coin where the halfcrown was 12.5 pence.which would not have made the halfcrown redundant cumbersome perhaps but not completely out of the system. The thing that killed it was the 1,2, 5 sequence beloved by the decimal supporters which has lead to the decline of arithmetic in our schools, To survive in an imperial world your arithmetic skills had to be much more than they are today.