CGS - A customer-facing business?

[jaggy 528]

I am currently bidding on some coins in the Heritage auction which, of course, are all graded and slabbed. However, and thanks to the excellent photography on their site, I am able to bid on what I think the coin is worth and not what they say the grade is. In my opinion, the grading is generally higher than the grade I would give them, While I do tend to err on the side of caution, I would be worried about grade inflation under pressure from customers.

I don't know where CGS sites in terms of generous grades or conservative grades as I have not seen any of their slabs. That should change shortly as I bought a CGS graded coin at the London auction and just waiting for it to arrive. However, I would be concerned if they found themselves trying to compete with US graders.

[Peckris 579]

CGS going belly up is something I've thought about! If they were no more, would their slabs lose their value over time, as they fade into memory?

What happened to the slabs of the comparable company that folded in Australia, I think it was?

That's a very good point, and calls to mind a similar operation that arose in the late 60s and early 70s (also originating in America?) : though much cruder, as there was no grading service and certification involved, it involved having your best coins sealed into perspex tombs to protect them but allow viewing. That was a fad for a few years but it eventually died the death. TPG's run a better system it's true, but there's no guarantee they too won't go the way of perspex slabs.

[Bill Pugsley 0]

Although I find AUNC/EF interesting as a description it does not make the coin AUNC.

It certainly doesn't, it makes the coin AUNC/EF...but each to their own!

Please help me out here. When I started collecting the concept was the 'coin'. Now I may be old(er) but to me it is still the coin. It has only been in recent years (the last two) that I have begun to see descriptions as in AUNC/EF. I did suggest elsewhere that perhaps we should also grade the edge as in AUNC/EF/EF but that was very much tongue in cheek. I suppose there are collectors out there who may only have an interest in obverses or reverses and as such may not care what the 'other side' looks like. That is great and if collectors want AUNC/EF as a description that is also great. I actually wonder how many collectors out there are interested in the 'coin' as a whole (because that is what it is) or the AUNC/EF designation. As you say, each to their own.

[Peter 615]

Thanks Bill

Your posts are honest and informative.

Being realistic USA TPG's are grading everything including brand new coins trying to get the magic grades.

Unbelievable.

It just won't happen here.

CGS nice idea but.....

[jaggy 528]

Well, today, I received my first ever slabbed coins (from a Heritage auction).

And I have to admit I can see the attraction of having the coins in their slabs. Not just from a commercial perspective (which really doesn't interest me that much) but in terms of the 'presentation box'. So, I think I am going to leave them in the slab for now and, perhaps, research ways of displaying the 'slabs' alongside my raw coins.

Also, and in fairness to Heritage and to NGC, the Heritage photos really showed all the warts on these coins. They actually look better than I expected and the grading looks fair. Based on that, I am beginning to think I got a decent deal; essentially, two fro the price of one.

[Peckris 579]

Although I find AUNC/EF interesting as a description it does not make the coin AUNC.

It certainly doesn't, it makes the coin AUNC/EF...but each to their own!

Please help me out here. When I started collecting the concept was the 'coin'. Now I may be old(er) but to me it is still the coin. It has only been in recent years (the last two) that I have begun to see descriptions as in AUNC/EF. I did suggest elsewhere that perhaps we should also grade the edge as in AUNC/EF/EF but that was very much tongue in cheek. I suppose there are collectors out there who may only have an interest in obverses or reverses and as such may not care what the 'other side' looks like. That is great and if collectors want AUNC/EF as a description that is also great. I actually wonder how many collectors out there are interested in the 'coin' as a whole (because that is what it is) or the AUNC/EF designation. As you say, each to their own.

I don't know when exactly you began Bill, but I can assure you that by the late 60s, 'complex grades' already existed. And it is important - yes, it's the "coin", but if you knew that the 1917 halfcrown you saw advertised as AEF was actually VF/EF that might have a bearing on whether you bought it. After all, series 1 G5 halfcrowns are very common with obverses of VF but get progressively harder to find.

[mike 5]

Well, today, I received my first ever slabbed coins (from a Heritage auction).

And I have to admit I can see the attraction of having the coins in their slabs. Not just from a commercial perspective (which really doesn't interest me that much) but in terms of the 'presentation box'. So, I think I am going to leave them in the slab for now and, perhaps, research ways of displaying the 'slabs' alongside my raw coins.

Also, and in fairness to Heritage and to NGC, the Heritage photos really showed all the warts on these coins. They actually look better than I expected and the grading looks fair. Based on that, I am beginning to think I got a decent deal; essentially, two fro the price of one.

Jaggy, if you are based in the UK - can you tell me how long did it take for the coins to arrive, how much was the postage and taxes (if any, %). I'd like to bid in Heritage auctions and I do wonder what would be the total cost (apart from BP). Hope you don't mind me asking. Thanks. M.

[jaggy 528]

Well, today, I received my first ever slabbed coins (from a Heritage auction).

And I have to admit I can see the attraction of having the coins in their slabs. Not just from a commercial perspective (which really doesn't interest me that much) but in terms of the 'presentation box'. So, I think I am going to leave them in the slab for now and, perhaps, research ways of displaying the 'slabs' alongside my raw coins.

Also, and in fairness to Heritage and to NGC, the Heritage photos really showed all the warts on these coins. They actually look better than I expected and the grading looks fair. Based on that, I am beginning to think I got a decent deal; essentially, two fro the price of one.

Jaggy, if you are based in the UK - can you tell me how long did it take for the coins to arrive, how much was the postage and taxes (if any, %). I'd like to bid in Heritage auctions and I do wonder what would be the total cost (apart from BP). Hope you don't mind me asking. Thanks. M.

Mike

I am based in the USA (although British) so cannot really help you there. Postage within the USA was $6.80 and no U.S. tax. One nice thing is that I was able to pay by credit card with no extra fee (London Coins charge 3%).

[Coinery 1,102]

Although I find AUNC/EF interesting as a description it does not make the coin AUNC.

It certainly doesn't, it makes the coin AUNC/EF...but each to their own!

Please help me out here. When I started collecting the concept was the 'coin'. Now I may be old(er) but to me it is still the coin. It has only been in recent years (the last two) that I have begun to see descriptions as in AUNC/EF. I did suggest elsewhere that perhaps we should also grade the edge as in AUNC/EF/EF but that was very much tongue in cheek. I suppose there are collectors out there who may only have an interest in obverses or reverses and as such may not care what the 'other side' looks like. That is great and if collectors want AUNC/EF as a description that is also great. I actually wonder how many collectors out there are interested in the 'coin' as a whole (because that is what it is) or the AUNC/EF designation. As you say, each to their own.

I'm not really sure about helping you out here, Bill, as I too see a coin as a whole, in all its ugliness and honesty, which is why I can't see an issue with looking at one side and going 'wow,' but turning it over and going 'ugh'! That's the grade for me... 'wow' and 'hmmmm', which humanly transcribes as lovely, and not so lovely, at least for me! This is straight truth for me, not calling it an EF or something on balance of its faults or strengths!

Of course, I should say I don't just live by 'wow' and 'hmmm', there is also 'blindingly good' and 'amazing', as well as 'Jesus' and 'doh'!

Always going to be a toughy!

Edit: we all seek out the coin we can turn over and over without being detracted by a badly placed dig, or rim nick, and is hopefully UNC/UNC in its aesthetics!

Edited March 11, 2013 by Coinery

[Paulus 1,975]

Although I find AUNC/EF interesting as a description it does not make the coin AUNC.

It certainly doesn't, it makes the coin AUNC/EF...but each to their own!

Please help me out here. When I started collecting the concept was the 'coin'. Now I may be old(er) but to me it is still the coin. It has only been in recent years (the last two) that I have begun to see descriptions as in AUNC/EF. I did suggest elsewhere that perhaps we should also grade the edge as in AUNC/EF/EF but that was very much tongue in cheek. I suppose there are collectors out there who may only have an interest in obverses or reverses and as such may not care what the 'other side' looks like. That is great and if collectors want AUNC/EF as a description that is also great. I actually wonder how many collectors out there are interested in the 'coin' as a whole (because that is what it is) or the AUNC/EF designation. As you say, each to their own.

I'm not really sure about helping you out here, Bill, as I too see a coin as a whole, in all its ugliness and honesty, which is why I can't see an issue with looking at one side and going 'wow,' but turning it over and going 'ugh'! That's the grade for me... 'wow' and 'hmmmm', which humanly transcribes as lovely, and not so lovely, at least for me! This is straight truth for me, not calling it an EF or something on balance of its faults or strengths!

Of course, I should say I don't just live by 'wow' and 'hmmm', there is also 'blindingly good' and 'amazing', as well as 'Jesus' and 'doh'!

Always going to be a toughy!

Edit: we all seek out the coin we can turn over and over without being detracted by a badly placed dig, or rim nick, and is hopefully UNC/UNC in its aesthetics!

With you completely Stuart, also comes back to the eye appeal factor to the beholder again ... to be honest though, coins are not graded separately for obv/rev (let alone the edge), as a norm, by dealers, on web sites, or in auctions, it's a relative rarity ... I have just checked all my favorite dealers and it's true! So while I agree there can be important distinctions that should be made (especially if a grade or more difference), I don't think this is an enhancement that should only be applied to slabbed coins ... thoughts?

[Coinery 1,102]

Although I find AUNC/EF interesting as a description it does not make the coin AUNC.

It certainly doesn't, it makes the coin AUNC/EF...but each to their own!

Please help me out here. When I started collecting the concept was the 'coin'. Now I may be old(er) but to me it is still the coin. It has only been in recent years (the last two) that I have begun to see descriptions as in AUNC/EF. I did suggest elsewhere that perhaps we should also grade the edge as in AUNC/EF/EF but that was very much tongue in cheek. I suppose there are collectors out there who may only have an interest in obverses or reverses and as such may not care what the 'other side' looks like. That is great and if collectors want AUNC/EF as a description that is also great. I actually wonder how many collectors out there are interested in the 'coin' as a whole (because that is what it is) or the AUNC/EF designation. As you say, each to their own.

I'm not really sure about helping you out here, Bill, as I too see a coin as a whole, in all its ugliness and honesty, which is why I can't see an issue with looking at one side and going 'wow,' but turning it over and going 'ugh'! That's the grade for me... 'wow' and 'hmmmm', which humanly transcribes as lovely, and not so lovely, at least for me! This is straight truth for me, not calling it an EF or something on balance of its faults or strengths!

Of course, I should say I don't just live by 'wow' and 'hmmm', there is also 'blindingly good' and 'amazing', as well as 'Jesus' and 'doh'!

Always going to be a toughy!

Edit: we all seek out the coin we can turn over and over without being detracted by a badly placed dig, or rim nick, and is hopefully UNC/UNC in its aesthetics!

With you completely Stuart, also comes back to the eye appeal factor to the beholder again ... to be honest though, coins are not graded separately for obv/rev (let alone the edge), as a norm, by dealers, on web sites, or in auctions, it's a relative rarity ... I have just checked all my favorite dealers and it's true! So while I agree there can be important distinctions that should be made (especially if a grade or more difference), I don't think this is an enhancement that should only be applied to slabbed coins ... thoughts?

As I understand it, genuine UNC coins are marked down by TPGC's for bag marks and rim damaged, and no longer qualify for UNC status! To clarify, if I took a perfect G3 UNC coin and dropped it, bruising the rim, and putting a dig on the bust, it would no longer be UNC according to a TPGC, whereas, in reality, it's still an UNC coin that now has a bruise and an unfortunate dig to the bust (in my eyes)!

Now I totally understand it's impossible to have an UNC reverse and an EF obverse, because the obverse didn't have a merry time circulating without the reverse! So, whenever we are using these terms, we can only ever be saying that 'this particular reverse is in a state comparable to that of an uncirculated coin'! We know it can't truly be uncirculated, as the obverse has circulation wear.

In some respects the term uncirculated has given the collector/market a real headache. The term 'pristine,' 'exemplary,' or similar, would have been much less complicated!

Edited March 11, 2013 by Coinery

[Paulus 1,975]

Although I find AUNC/EF interesting as a description it does not make the coin AUNC.

It certainly doesn't, it makes the coin AUNC/EF...but each to their own!

Please help me out here. When I started collecting the concept was the 'coin'. Now I may be old(er) but to me it is still the coin. It has only been in recent years (the last two) that I have begun to see descriptions as in AUNC/EF. I did suggest elsewhere that perhaps we should also grade the edge as in AUNC/EF/EF but that was very much tongue in cheek. I suppose there are collectors out there who may only have an interest in obverses or reverses and as such may not care what the 'other side' looks like. That is great and if collectors want AUNC/EF as a description that is also great. I actually wonder how many collectors out there are interested in the 'coin' as a whole (because that is what it is) or the AUNC/EF designation. As you say, each to their own.

I'm not really sure about helping you out here, Bill, as I too see a coin as a whole, in all its ugliness and honesty, which is why I can't see an issue with looking at one side and going 'wow,' but turning it over and going 'ugh'! That's the grade for me... 'wow' and 'hmmmm', which humanly transcribes as lovely, and not so lovely, at least for me! This is straight truth for me, not calling it an EF or something on balance of its faults or strengths!

Of course, I should say I don't just live by 'wow' and 'hmmm', there is also 'blindingly good' and 'amazing', as well as 'Jesus' and 'doh'!

Always going to be a toughy!

Edit: we all seek out the coin we can turn over and over without being detracted by a badly placed dig, or rim nick, and is hopefully UNC/UNC in its aesthetics!

With you completely Stuart, also comes back to the eye appeal factor to the beholder again ... to be honest though, coins are not graded separately for obv/rev (let alone the edge), as a norm, by dealers, on web sites, or in auctions, it's a relative rarity ... I have just checked all my favorite dealers and it's true! So while I agree there can be important distinctions that should be made (especially if a grade or more difference), I don't think this is an enhancement that should only be applied to slabbed coins ... thoughts?

As I understand it, genuine UNC coins are marked down by TPGC's for bag marks and rim damaged, and no longer qualify for UNC status! To clarify, if I took a perfect G3 UNC coin and dropped it, bruising the rim, and putting a dig on the bust, it would no longer be UNC according to a TPGC, whereas, in reality, it's still an UNC coin that now has a bruise and an unfortunate dig to the bust (in my eyes)!

Now I totally understand it's impossible to have an UNC reverse and an EF obverse, because the obverse didn't have a merry time circulating without the reverse! So, whenever we are using these terms, we can only ever be saying that 'this particular reverse is in a state comparable to that of an uncirculated coin'! We know it can't truly be uncirculated, as the obverse has circulation wear.

In some respects the term uncirculated has given the collector/market a real headache. The term 'pristine,' 'exemplary,' or similar, would have been much less complicated!

I think there are a few misleading terms used by all numismatists, be they collectors, dealers, buyers, sellers, investors, and TPGs ... just not sure I would single out TPGs for being more guilty on this particular one ... given that most English coins are sold with a single grade, and 99% are not slabbed, how then are the Obv/Rev being assessed? There could be 3 (or more) obvious approaches ... an average of some sort, the best side, or the worst, and if numbers are used, as with TPGs, who knows!

Misleading terms I have come across in just 18 months of 'serious' collecting:

• UNC - and to your point Stuart - very often (to the seller/TPG/dealer/collector) means AS (As Struck), not 'Uncirculated' in the sense of never being used as currency - I think AS is a better description, Michael Gouby uses this in preference to UNC (as do many others, PAS (Practically As Struck being far more meaningful to me - as long as it's true!)) ... (after all, who in the end really knows if it has been circulated?)
  
• Bag marks (don't know exactly what they look like, and to me it's still wear)
  
• Cabinet friction (as above)
  
• Condition: Proof (not a grade)
  
• aFDC (an oxymoron, to me)
  
• aUNC (for an unopened coin still in it's Royal Mail packaging)
  

I have an open mind on all the fascinating issues that pertain to CGS in particular, and will be formulating my own opinions based on personal experience during this month!

Edited March 11, 2013 by Paulus

[Peter 615]

Come on Paulus

Give us the grades now and it will be interesting to see what CGS return.

I do believe CGS will be harsh on grading.I bought a PCGS veiled florin PCGS MS65 from CC and CGS interests me.I might just crack it out.

[Paulus 1,975]

Okay, well I have submitted 8 coins, not my very best grades but a cross-section, some of which I am going to be selling in the next month or 2.

Here are the first 2 (CGS Photos), just in advance of CGS completing their grading (or not, if they turn out to be cleaned or forgeries!)

(0025574)

Edited March 11, 2013 by Paulus

[Paulus 1,975]

Second coin (0025575):

All comments welcome, this is a trial run!

CGS completion expected/hoped by the end of this week.

More later!

Edited March 11, 2013 by Paulus

[Bill Pugsley 0]

Well, today, I received my first ever slabbed coins (from a Heritage auction).

And I have to admit I can see the attraction of having the coins in their slabs. Not just from a commercial perspective (which really doesn't interest me that much) but in terms of the 'presentation box'. So, I think I am going to leave them in the slab for now and, perhaps, research ways of displaying the 'slabs' alongside my raw coins.

Also, and in fairness to Heritage and to NGC, the Heritage photos really showed all the warts on these coins. They actually look better than I expected and the grading looks fair. Based on that, I am beginning to think I got a decent deal; essentially, two fro the price of one.

Jaggy, if you are based in the UK - can you tell me how long did it take for the coins to arrive, how much was the postage and taxes (if any, %). I'd like to bid in Heritage auctions and I do wonder what would be the total cost (apart from BP). Hope you don't mind me asking. Thanks. M.

I have bought some British Coins at Heritage Auctions (in US slabs.....) twice and made prompt payment. The premium is shown in the auction so you know the direct cost. I seem to recollect there was a choice of shipment and for one lot I chose express and coins arrived in three days without any UK customs charge but the shipment cost was around £15.00. The second lot I did not go for express, merely Airmail and this time I had to pay a customs charge which because it came by post has a minimum admin charge of £8.50 (even if the custom charge is only £1.00!). So before bidding check out delivery costs and weigh up the likelihood of being charged import duty (Heritage Auctions declare the total value on the packet) - for some reason carriers like Federal Express do not always accrue customs duty. Mind you why customs duty is payable on returning an item to country of origin always perplexes me.

One thing that I have become aware of with CGS grading is the riders CGS uses AU (78) UNC (80) were attached as a marketing aid as the CGS founding committee took the view that a stand alone numerical system was too radical. The CGS system itself only arrives at a numeric grade. Experience has shown that for current market standards especially independent dealers rather than London auction rooms that the CGS AU75 and AU78 is everyone else UNC.

Although not exactly per the CGS website, the following are the grades I believe CGS compares to:

Grade CGS Category

80 – 100 Uncirculated

75 – 79 Almost Uncirculated

60 – 74 Extremely Fine

40 – 59 Very Fine

20 – 39 Fine

01 – 19 Good, Very Good

I have tried to arrive at a comparison of US Sheldon grades to UK CGS Grades (MS61 is definitely not a UK UNC!).

Fine CGS F20 US: VF 20

Very Fine CGS VF40 US: XF40

Ex. Fine CGS VF55 US: AU50

AU (May be Brown) CGS EF60 US: AU58

UNC (Red/Brown) CGS AU75 US: MS61RB

Choice UNC (Red) CGS AU78 US MS63 R

Gem UNC (Red) CGS UNC80 US MS65 R

Proof (in FDC) CGS UNC85 US PF66 R

Edited March 11, 2013 by Bill Pugsley

[Bill Pugsley 0]

Well, today, I received my first ever slabbed coins (from a Heritage auction).

And I have to admit I can see the attraction of having the coins in their slabs. Not just from a commercial perspective (which really doesn't interest me that much) but in terms of the 'presentation box'. So, I think I am going to leave them in the slab for now and, perhaps, research ways of displaying the 'slabs' alongside my raw coins.

Also, and in fairness to Heritage and to NGC, the Heritage photos really showed all the warts on these coins. They actually look better than I expected and the grading looks fair. Based on that, I am beginning to think I got a decent deal; essentially, two fro the price of one.

Jaggy, if you are based in the UK - can you tell me how long did it take for the coins to arrive, how much was the postage and taxes (if any, %). I'd like to bid in Heritage auctions and I do wonder what would be the total cost (apart from BP). Hope you don't mind me asking. Thanks. M.

I have bought some British Coins at Heritage Auctions (in US slabs.....) twice and made prompt payment. The premium is shown in the auction so you know the direct cost. I seem to recollect there was a choice of shipment and for one lot I chose express and coins arrived in three days without any UK customs charge but the shipment cost was around £15.00. The second lot I did not go for express, merely Airmail and this time I had to pay a customs charge which because it came by post has a minimum admin charge of £8.50 (even if the custom charge is only £1.00!). So before bidding check out delivery costs and weigh up the likelihood of being charged import duty (Heritage Auctions declare the total value on the packet) - for some reason carriers like Federal Express do not always accrue customs duty. Mind you why customs duty is payable on returning an item to country of origin always perplexes me.

One thing that I have become aware of with CGS grading is the riders CGS uses AU (78) UNC (80) were attached as a marketing aid as the CGS founding committee took the view that a stand alone numerical system was too radical. The CGS system itself only arrives at a numeric grade. Experience has shown that for current market standards especially independent dealers rather than London auction rooms that the CGS AU75 and AU78 is everyone else UNC.

Although not exactly per the CGS website, the following are the grades I believe CGS compares to:

Grade CGS Category

80 – 100 Uncirculated

75 – 79 Almost Uncirculated

60 – 74 Extremely Fine

40 – 59 Very Fine

20 – 39 Fine

01 – 19 Good, Very Good

I have tried to arrive at a comparison of US Sheldon grades to UK CGS Grades (MS61 is rarely a UK UNC!).

Fine CGS F20 US: VF 20

Very Fine CGS VF40 US: XF40

Ex. Fine CGS VF55 US: AU50

AU (May be Brown) CGS EF60 US: AU58

UNC (Red/Brown) CGS AU75 US: MS61RB

Choice UNC (Red) CGS AU78 US MS63 R

Gem UNC (Red) CGS UNC80 US MS65 R

Proof (in FDC) CGS UNC85 US PF66 R

[Peter 615]

Nice coins.

The 1820 has a few edge dings at 12 o'clock on the reverse and both have a few digs.

They are practically as struck and IMO GEF+.

From the pictures I cannot see evidence of cleaning.

[Paulus 1,975]

Thanks Peter! I will post the pics on a new thread 'CGS Trial'

[Nick 329]

Nice coins.

The 1820 has a few edge dings at 12 o'clock on the reverse and both have a few digs.

They are practically as struck and IMO GEF+.

From the pictures I cannot see evidence of cleaning.

I don't think CGS will see them that way. I suspect that grades somewhere in the VF55-EF60 range are more likely, but hope that they rate a little higher.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Nick

[Peter 615]

Nice coins.

The 1820 has a few edge dings at 12 o'clock on the reverse and both have a few digs.

They are practically as struck and IMO GEF+.

From the pictures I cannot see evidence of cleaning.

I don't think CGS will see them that way. I suspect that grades somewhere in the VF55-EF60 are more likely, but hope they rate a little higher.

please advise where you have seen better.

[Nick 329]

Nice coins.

The 1820 has a few edge dings at 12 o'clock on the reverse and both have a few digs.

They are practically as struck and IMO GEF+.

From the pictures I cannot see evidence of cleaning.

I don't think CGS will see them that way. I suspect that grades somewhere in the VF55-EF60 are more likely, but hope they rate a little higher.

please advise where you have seen better.

If you look on Mark Rasmussen's website in the archive section there are a couple there that look to be higher grades, but are only described as EF.

[Rob 3,125]

Nice coins.

The 1820 has a few edge dings at 12 o'clock on the reverse and both have a few digs.

They are practically as struck and IMO GEF+.

From the pictures I cannot see evidence of cleaning.

I don't think CGS will see them that way. I suspect that grades somewhere in the VF55-EF60 are more likely, but hope they rate a little higher.

please advise where you have seen better.

Here's one I purged from the collection in the great refocus 4 or 5 years ago. Around the EF mark.

[jaggy 528]

When I made my first auction purchase through Heritage they sent me a book 'The Collectors Handbook'. This is what is says about Third Party Authentication and Grading:

"NGC and PCGS remain the acknowledged leaders for coin grading. The reason for their success is that they are the only firms that have maintained sufficient dealer confidence to allow coins to be traded routinely on a sight-unseen basis"

I think this is quite telling. Now that we are in the internet and eBay era, we have a market that is largely unregulated with very easy access for disreputable sellers. The purpose of TPG-ing is to inject confidence into that market.

As a coin collector I have not been back in the market long enough to get burned. But I am sure that if I dropped a few hundred pounds on a coin that was not what I was led to expect then I might take a different view of grading.

[mike 5]

Nice coins.

The 1820 has a few edge dings at 12 o'clock on the reverse and both have a few digs.

They are practically as struck and IMO GEF+.

From the pictures I cannot see evidence of cleaning.

I don't think CGS will see them that way. I suspect that grades somewhere in the VF55-EF60 are more likely, but hope they rate a little higher.

please advise where you have seen better.

Here's one I purged from the collection in the great refocus 4 or 5 years ago. Around the EF mark.

Here's my example - obverse: