My first batch of coins to CGS

[Nonmortuus]

So I have decided to send a few coins to CGS in part because I had to send two slabs in anyway for reslabbing so I decided to sanity check my grading against a TPG. @azda asked me to post what I was sending in so you could give your own grades and I was discussing the whole process with @Paulus yesterday.

I had these down as:

Coin               Obv        Rev

1817 HC        GVF        GVF
1911 HC        EF           gEF
1912 HC        aEF           EF
1913 HC        aEF        aEF
1916 HC        gEF        gEF
1918 HC        EF          EF
1919 HC        gEF        gEF

 

[Garrett]

They are all nice coins Nons.

[Stuntman]

I'd go a little higher on your 1817.  It has bags of eye appeal as well.

I agree with Garrett!

[ozjohn]

Nice coins. My grades with reference to Rotographic  Grading British Coins;

1817 EF/aEF weak reverse shield

1911 aUNC

1912 EF

1913 EF/aUNC

1916 UNC weak reverse shield

1918 GEF+

1919 UNC

 

[azda]

I'll come back to this but I'd be checking what they might be about to charge you for their service 

[Nonmortuus]

They can't charge anymore than I signed up for on the submission form as far as I am aware. I am guessing they will either return my coins or charge me under the pricing model on the submission for I signed.

[PWA 1967]

They are making a joke of something that was working 

[Peter]

Coins value.......Made up value? Price paid? Retail value (pricing book)? Price a dealer will give you? Average auction price plus juice? There are too many variables. Is this the death of UK TPG's?

[Nonmortuus]

So the results are in!

The Obv & Rev grades below refer to what I had them down as before they were sent in.

 

Coin           Obv        Rev    UIN         CGS grade

1817 HC    GVF       GVF     0039729    CGS 50 (GVF AU55)

1911 HC     EF         gEF     0039730    CGS 65 (GEF MS 60-61)

1912 HC    aEF        EF     0039731    CGS 75 (UNC or near so MS 62-63)

1913 HC    aEF        aEF     0039732    CGS 75 (UNC or near so MS 62-63)

1916 HC    gEF        gEF     0039733    CGS 78 (UNC MS 63-64)

1918 HC    EF         EF     0039734    CGS 70 (AU MS 60-61)

1919 HC    gEF        gEF     0039735    CGS 65 (GEF MS 60-61)

As an exercise to help validate my grading I am fairly happy with the results. The decision for me is whether to pay and persist with CGS or move any future coins that I get slabbed to another TPG.

 

I would welcome peoples feedback on the grades.

 

 

[Sword]

Nice to see that you have your coins back. I don't think I have been any good grading Pre 1927 George V from photos. Any tips appreciated.

For example, I thought the 1919 would grade quite a bit higher than CGS65.

I can believe that 1913 is high grade from the details of the crown and that the loss of details is mostly due to weak strike. But how can one tell from a photo how exactly how much is due to wear and how much is due to weak strike.

 

[Nick]

I wouldn't have thought that there was even the slightest possibility that the 1918 would get a higher grade than the 1919, but there you go.

[azda]

10 hours ago, Sword said:

But how can one tell from a photo how exactly how much is due to wear and how much is due to weak strike.

 

Exactly the reason i leave george V coinage well alone unless the hair detail on the OBV is nearly struck up, a very difficult coinage IMO

[Nonmortuus]

10 hours ago, Sword said:

Nice to see that you have your coins back. I don't think I have been any good grading Pre 1927 George V from photos. Any tips appreciated.

For example, I thought the 1919 would grade quite a bit higher than CGS65.

I can believe that 1913 is high grade from the details of the crown and that the loss of details is mostly due to weak strike. But how can one tell from a photo how exactly how much is due to wear and how much is due to weak strike.

 

I think I am in the same boat as yourself, I tend to make my decisions based on the upper ear, tash, general hair detail, the usual I & P, the Harp, how fully struck the upper part of the shield is and the lions faces. Pretty much the standard places we all would look for wear etc.

Although I had the 19 down as gEF, which is what they graded it as, I was slightly disappointed with its grade when compared to the others. Over all though it has served its purpose for a newbie to help confirm I am not making huge mistakes.

[ozjohn]

How the 1912 HC achieves a higher grade than the 1919 HC beats me. Too many inconsistencies to comment on them all I never had any coins graded by CGS before the GBP 400 ripoff and even more unlikely to use their services now. However I hold some CGS in my collection but I try to buy the coin rather than what CGS says about it. Also I think the cost of using CGS is tending to push up prices as people who have coins graded to sell them will try to recover their costs in submitting coins to CGS.

[azda]

12 minutes ago, ozjohn said:

How the 1912 HC achieves a higher grade than the 1919 HC beats me. Too many inconsistencies to comment on them all I never had any coins graded by CGS before the GBP 400 ripoff and even more unlikely to use their services now. However I hold some CGS in my collection but I try to buy the coin rather than what CGS says about it. Also I think the cost of using CGS is tending to push up prices as people who have coins graded to sell them will try to recover their costs in submitting coins to CGS.

IF you buy coins to sell then it would be better going to the likes of PCGS or NGC who are more worldwide recognised rather then LCG who are in theory a brand new grading company...........

[Peter]

Try selling CGS ...LCGS coins at Heritage (it won't happen).

[jaggy]

12 minutes ago, Peter said:

Try selling CGS ...LCGS coins at Heritage (it won't happen).

Yep!

I don't understand why anyone would use CGS over NGC or PCGS. Outside of London Coins Auctions, CGS has almost zero market recognition.

I do think that the UK market is slowly moving towards acceptance of third party grading - though nothing like the US market as yet - and the gradual change in opinions on this forum reflects that. When I first joined this forum, the consensus was very definitely anti-slabbing. I think that perspectives - including my own - have changed over the past few years.

The challenge for CGS is in becoming the de facto TPG standard for the Uk and for British coins. From what I have seen so far, they are a long way off ever getting there.

[Peter]

I know we have a few fans of TPG on the forum.Strange but true.Why anyone needs to be told what they have and pay £499 for the pleasure. In the US grading a modern coin or double die is all the rage...get yourself a loupe.

[PWA 1967]

Well i am strange  and love it Peter.

Can you /someone explain the £499 as maybe its confusing me ?.

 

[azda]

14 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

Well i am strange  and love it Peter.

Can you /someone explain the £499 as maybe its confusing me ?.

 

Are we missing something Pete? £499 is what is required to start the ball rolling towards getting a coin graded by LCGS plus a £99 fee to see it on the charts? Or is there a secret fee that the friendly types pay?

P.S, i'm not gonna argue with you being strange 

Edited August 25, 2016 by azda

[jaggy]

15 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

Well i am strange  and love it Peter.

Can you /someone explain the £499 as maybe its confusing me ?.

 

Essentially, you have to pay this fee to become a 'member' at CGS and it is membership which gives you submission rights. You also have to pay for each submission although CGS gives you the £499 as a credit on submissions. That means you have to submit somewhere north of 30 coins to get your money's worth.

The other TPGs do the same thing. At NGC you have three levels; Associate ($39/year), Premium ($149/year) and Elite ($299/year). The level you choose will depend upon how many coins you choose to grade. NGC also have a number of different grading tiers and at different prices and turnaround times depending on what you need.

[PWA 1967]

I am still confused ,so i have to pay £499 to grade a coin...........are you sure as keep reading that on here ?

£99 to use and access the site is correct as i have paid.

I am freindly with everyone 

[PWA 1967]

Sorry Jaggy your post was not showing when i replied 

Thank you .

[jaggy]

Just now, PWA 1967 said:

Sorry Jaggy your post was not showing when i replied 

Thank you .

Not a problem! Hope my post helped.

[PWA 1967]

On 5/19/2016 at 6:44 PM, azda said:

 

I should of read Daves earlier post 

So its really for people who will be sending quite a few .

Then as you slab i.e. 5 they knock it off .

Anybody who wants to send just a couple may have to go through an agent/someone else.

Edited August 25, 2016 by PWA 1967