I’m so out of touch that this got 85 by LCGC

[Coinery]

[Coinery]

I wish I could edit the title...it was more a ‘I can’t believe I’m so out of touch that this now achieves 85!’ 

[Diaconis]

Should be CGS85 (in very minor areas). Quality assurance shouldn't be tainted by vested interests.

It doesn't seem like much change since 2015.

http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/9818-shocking-experience-from-cgs-coin-grading-services-forum-advice-pl/

except for marital status, that is.

[Coinery]

On 5/12/2020 at 12:01 PM, Diaconis said:

Should be CGS85 (in very minor areas). Quality assurance shouldn't be tainted by vested interests.

It doesn't seem like much change since 2015.

http://www.predecimal.com/forum/topic/9818-shocking-experience-from-cgs-coin-grading-services-forum-advice-pl/

except for marital status, that is.

Lord, I just reread that entire thread 🥴

[JLS]

What about this example of CGS grading ? 

https://www.ringramcoins.com/boe-dollar-12727.html

Clearly polished in my opinion; also what's with all the fibre still in the holder ???

[jelida]

4 hours ago, JLS said:

What about this example of CGS grading ? 

https://www.ringramcoins.com/boe-dollar-12727.html

Clearly polished in my opinion; also what's with all the fibre still in the holder ???

Something very strange going on there- the coin is not aligned with the slab on either side, which would not be usual even for a TPG; I wonder if it’s been out of the original slab for a rub, hence the fibres?

Jerry

[Peckris 2]

4 hours ago, JLS said:

What about this example of CGS grading ? 

https://www.ringramcoins.com/boe-dollar-12727.html

Clearly polished in my opinion; also what's with all the fibre still in the holder ???

It does look polished. However, I'm not convinced about the fibre - could be scratches?

[Paddy]

Combination of CGS dodgy grading and Ingram dodgy selling - I am not buying.

[Sword]

40 minutes ago, jelida said:

Something very strange going on there- the coin is not aligned with the slab on either side, which would not be usual even for a TPG; I wonder if it’s been out of the original slab for a rub, hence the fibres?

Jerry

Very occasionally, the washer can rotate within the CGS slab.

Those are not fibres but marks on the coin surface. The coin was struck on an existing coin and I think the marks were made in the minting process.

This is a photo of the coin before it was encapsulated showing that at least some of the marks are raised. 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Sword

[rpeddie]

i dont think fibers but underlying details from the over struck Spanish 8R? 

[JLS]

10 minutes ago, Sword said:

Very occasionally, the washer can rotates within the CGS slab.

Those are not fibres but marks on the coin surface. The coin was struck on an existing coin and I think the marks were made in the minting process.

This is a photo of the coin before it was encapsulated showing that at least some of the marks are raised. 

Lot 1984 in Auction 149, sold at £300 + premium back in 2015. Alright coin (EF cleaned or rubbed...) but hardly worth the AU grade or a £1k+ price.

Edited May 15, 2020 by JLS
Correct typo

[mrbadexample]

When I first saw the marks I thought it was the undertype but they didn't seem right to me, I couldn't see the design. Could it have been overstruck more than once?

[Rob]

1 hour ago, mrbadexample said:

When I first saw the marks I thought it was the undertype but they didn't seem right to me, I couldn't see the design. Could it have been overstruck more than once?

It's the underlying 8 reales detail. The original was dated 1792 and the wavy line is the base of the cuirasse. 1794 attached for comparison.

[mrbadexample]

I can see the base of the cuirasse and the 9 of the date. But opposite there, between the IUS of GEORGIUS and the bust, are marks I can't reconcile with the 8R. Similarly under the T of GRATIA.

[Rob]

Yes, it must have been struck at least twice, because the stop after GRATIA can be seen under the T upright. The other strike(s) might have been out of collar given the position of the detail around IUS which best approximates to somewhere in the tie area.

And in daylight it is 1797, not 1792.