CGS - A customer-facing business?

[Peter 615]

There are a couple of US coin dealers that I use.I still like CC although their standards have dropped.

I still like the Midland for raw coins.

[ski 1]

They used to vanish them

my wife and son still do this to the notes and coins in my wallet.....

if i was to buy a slabbed UK coin blind it would be a CGS coin

me too, but i have bought ngc coins because they have been incorrectly labeled....more a case of the coin inside was of interest rather than the slab and its grading.

Ski

[Bill Pugsley 0]

If plastic was invented two hundred years ago and coins were being slabbed since say 1816, then there is much less fun collecting milled coins today. For a start, you won't get the wonderful tones developed over the centuries. There will also be plenty of lustrous "uncirculated" (in all sense of the word) of Victorian and Georgian coins and owning one will therefore give little satisfaction. Personally, I think slabbing of recent coins to be pointless and see little benefit in slabbing mid grade coins unless they are particularly rare.

However, I do think there is a place in coin collecting for slabbing and have confessed that I have slabbed high grade coins (AU or UNC). I did that mainly for the protection of the coins as I can then look at them casually and frequently without fear of damaging them. I know many of us feel (probably quite rightly) that we can look after our coins properly. But accidents / mishandling are bound to happen as coins are passed through generations of keepers. For example, how many Victorian, 1902, 1911 or 1927 proof sets today are still in truly mint FDC condition? Very very few. Even that magnificent example of a 1935 raised edge proof crown that Azda has brought recently and will slab is not (in my view) prefect mint state. The official cases, although infinitely more handsome than plastic slabs have not proved to be ideal for storage. Even the 1937 Edward VIII model crowns, currently offered on sale on this very website have toning spots due to incorrect storage. I know that problems can develop in slabs too but that is comparatively rare. As Bill pointed out, most of the air is extracted when slabbing and that must go a long way to stopping problems.

Would I slab a 1927 proof set if I were to buy one (I won't as I have decided to concentrate on circulating coins)? No, because I cannot bring myself to take them out of the handsome case. But what if all 6 coins are truly mint FDC? Then I will probably do it in a heartbeat as there might not even be ten perfect sets now in existence and I don't want to be the one damaging one set. I will probably want to admire such a rarity regularly and easily.

Hence, I do think that there is a percentage of coin (the figure of course depends on the individual) worth slabbing and I am very glad that there is a TPG in UK.

Plastic was invented in 1855, 158 years ago, i think the problem lies in that there was no TPGs in 1856 and they did'nt think about plastic holders back then

They used to vanish them, not a lot different really.

A number of collectors lacquered the coins they had (a bit like slabbing......) and it needs to be VERY carefully removed without damaging the underlying coin.

[Coinery 1,109]

What I did find interesting, given we have mostly said that buying a coin blind from CGS is a better option than from most other sources, is that they don't include eye-appeal. Namely, they haven't determined any markings for or against for toning, suggesting to me that a black coin or an untoned gem, or a half-moon-toned (coin on coin) coin, would achieve exactly the same grade, if all other components of the calculation were the same?

The TPGC soup is altogether enough to put you off collecting anything more recent than Charles I!

The 'lustre' component of the grading would take this into account, the point was made to me that there wasn't a specific category for 'eye appeal'.

I also asked about the location of marks, dings etc, and yes, if there are problems in the middle of the face, for example, rather than half-hidden in some design detail, then these would count as more 'serious' problems and the coin would score less.

Would it though, bearing in mind lustre has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with toning. You can have a deeply-toned coin with obvious full-lustre underneath. My point is you could presumably have two full-lustred CGS coins, one with ugly toning, and one with beauty personified, and they would both come out of the computer with the same grade?

[Paulus 1,975]

What I did find interesting, given we have mostly said that buying a coin blind from CGS is a better option than from most other sources, is that they don't include eye-appeal. Namely, they haven't determined any markings for or against for toning, suggesting to me that a black coin or an untoned gem, or a half-moon-toned (coin on coin) coin, would achieve exactly the same grade, if all other components of the calculation were the same?

The TPGC soup is altogether enough to put you off collecting anything more recent than Charles I!

The 'lustre' component of the grading would take this into account, the point was made to me that there wasn't a specific category for 'eye appeal'.

I also asked about the location of marks, dings etc, and yes, if there are problems in the middle of the face, for example, rather than half-hidden in some design detail, then these would count as more 'serious' problems and the coin would score less.

Would it though, bearing in mind lustre has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with toning. You can have a deeply-toned coin with obvious full-lustre underneath. My point is you could presumably have two full-lustred CGS coins, one with ugly toning, and one with beauty personified, and they would both come out of the computer with the same grade?

I really don't know! I wonder if Bill knows or has a view?

[Paulus 1,975]

What I did find interesting, given we have mostly said that buying a coin blind from CGS is a better option than from most other sources, is that they don't include eye-appeal. Namely, they haven't determined any markings for or against for toning, suggesting to me that a black coin or an untoned gem, or a half-moon-toned (coin on coin) coin, would achieve exactly the same grade, if all other components of the calculation were the same?

The TPGC soup is altogether enough to put you off collecting anything more recent than Charles I!

The 'lustre' component of the grading would take this into account, the point was made to me that there wasn't a specific category for 'eye appeal'.

I also asked about the location of marks, dings etc, and yes, if there are problems in the middle of the face, for example, rather than half-hidden in some design detail, then these would count as more 'serious' problems and the coin would score less.

Would it though, bearing in mind lustre has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with toning. You can have a deeply-toned coin with obvious full-lustre underneath. My point is you could presumably have two full-lustred CGS coins, one with ugly toning, and one with beauty personified, and they would both come out of the computer with the same grade?

Duplicate Post

Edited March 19, 2013 by Paulus

[pies 33]

What I did find interesting, given we have mostly said that buying a coin blind from CGS is a better option than from most other sources, is that they don't include eye-appeal. Namely, they haven't determined any markings for or against for toning, suggesting to me that a black coin or an untoned gem, or a half-moon-toned (coin on coin) coin, would achieve exactly the same grade, if all other components of the calculation were the same?

The TPGC soup is altogether enough to put you off collecting anything more recent than Charles I!

The 'lustre' component of the grading would take this into account, the point was made to me that there wasn't a specific category for 'eye appeal'.

I also asked about the location of marks, dings etc, and yes, if there are problems in the middle of the face, for example, rather than half-hidden in some design detail, then these would count as more 'serious' problems and the coin would score less.

Would it though, bearing in mind lustre has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with toning. You can have a deeply-toned coin with obvious full-lustre underneath. My point is you could presumably have two full-lustred CGS coins, one with ugly toning, and one with beauty personified, and they would both come out of the computer with the same grade?

Which would you buy,to me thats the answer just buy on eye appeal

[Red Riley 2]

Plastic was invented in 1855, 158 years ago, i think the problem lies in that there was no TPGs in 1856 and they did'nt think about plastic holders back then

I wonder if anybody had the idea of slabbing a coin in bakelite?

[Bill Pugsley 0]

What I did find interesting, given we have mostly said that buying a coin blind from CGS is a better option than from most other sources, is that they don't include eye-appeal. Namely, they haven't determined any markings for or against for toning, suggesting to me that a black coin or an untoned gem, or a half-moon-toned (coin on coin) coin, would achieve exactly the same grade, if all other components of the calculation were the same?

The TPGC soup is altogether enough to put you off collecting anything more recent than Charles I!

The 'lustre' component of the grading would take this into account, the point was made to me that there wasn't a specific category for 'eye appeal'.

I also asked about the location of marks, dings etc, and yes, if there are problems in the middle of the face, for example, rather than half-hidden in some design detail, then these would count as more 'serious' problems and the coin would score less.

Would it though, bearing in mind lustre has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with toning. You can have a deeply-toned coin with obvious full-lustre underneath. My point is you could presumably have two full-lustred CGS coins, one with ugly toning, and one with beauty personified, and they would both come out of the computer with the same grade?

I really don't know! I wonder if Bill knows or has a view?

I am not sure if CGS differentiate between different types of lustre/toning of a coin in their 'scientific' process. I will ask the question though.

What I do know is I have coins graded by CGS that are heavily toned (where the silver is just a shade off of black) but they have ended up with a high CGS grade of 85 or better because of minimal, if any, wear. I bought an early proof Victorian silver coin at an auction described as near EF (I suspect because it was almost black) which when CGS graded it it came out as CGS UNC91 (that was an unusual win). The coin, had it been original brilliant silver, would have been described as FDC.

[Bill Pugsley 0]

What I did find interesting, given we have mostly said that buying a coin blind from CGS is a better option than from most other sources, is that they don't include eye-appeal. Namely, they haven't determined any markings for or against for toning, suggesting to me that a black coin or an untoned gem, or a half-moon-toned (coin on coin) coin, would achieve exactly the same grade, if all other components of the calculation were the same?

The TPGC soup is altogether enough to put you off collecting anything more recent than Charles I!

The 'lustre' component of the grading would take this into account, the point was made to me that there wasn't a specific category for 'eye appeal'.

I also asked about the location of marks, dings etc, and yes, if there are problems in the middle of the face, for example, rather than half-hidden in some design detail, then these would count as more 'serious' problems and the coin would score less.

Would it though, bearing in mind lustre has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with toning. You can have a deeply-toned coin with obvious full-lustre underneath. My point is you could presumably have two full-lustred CGS coins, one with ugly toning, and one with beauty personified, and they would both come out of the computer with the same grade?

I really don't know! I wonder if Bill knows or has a view?

I am not sure if CGS differentiate between different types of lustre/toning of a coin in their 'scientific' process. I will ask the question though.

What I do know is I have coins graded by CGS that are heavily toned (where the silver is just a shade off of black) but they have ended up with a high CGS grade of 85 or better because of minimal, if any, wear. I bought an early proof Victorian silver coin at an auction described as near EF (I suspect because it was almost black) which when CGS graded it it came out as CGS UNC91 (that was an unusual win). The coin, had it been original brilliant silver, would have been described as FDC.

I asked the question and am pleased to offer the response:

"The benchmarking coin set for lustre contains runs for copper, bronze, brass, silver and gold. Thus lustre is an attribute of the CGS benchmarking process."

[Peter 615]

Buy Acetone some cotton buds and distilled water and some I sheet to dab. CGS 95

[Coinery 1,109]

"The benchmarking coin set for lustre contains runs for copper, bronze, brass, silver and gold. Thus lustre is an attribute of the CGS benchmarking process."

Thanks, Bill, though it was the point on toning that was of particular interest.

As you pointed out, a black coin can achieve a high grade (which I'm happy with), leaving me to think a coin with the half-moon tone you get from a coin sitting on a coin, or a coin with an ugly, patchy tone or, reciprocally, a beautifully preserved coin with a golden tone, would have no bearing on the the numeric grade it received? Terrible use of grammar there, but I just couldn't think my way around it, so apologies!

[Peter 615]

Bill from your ramblings you are educated and knowledgeable why do you need to spend over £20k to know what you have.Whack them up on the forum.It is a bit cheaper.I have been collecting for over 40 years we also have many top dealers who frequent.I would take their advice.We have dealers,book wrighters,website holders.....get the message are you a shareholder or have another interest I note that you are a chairman at the CGS forums.

I love my farthings but there are 2 Colins and one is dead plus John Minshnial...I hopefully appear in the peck...ing order.

[Peckris 579]

What I did find interesting, given we have mostly said that buying a coin blind from CGS is a better option than from most other sources, is that they don't include eye-appeal. Namely, they haven't determined any markings for or against for toning, suggesting to me that a black coin or an untoned gem, or a half-moon-toned (coin on coin) coin, would achieve exactly the same grade, if all other components of the calculation were the same?

The TPGC soup is altogether enough to put you off collecting anything more recent than Charles I!

The 'lustre' component of the grading would take this into account, the point was made to me that there wasn't a specific category for 'eye appeal'.

I also asked about the location of marks, dings etc, and yes, if there are problems in the middle of the face, for example, rather than half-hidden in some design detail, then these would count as more 'serious' problems and the coin would score less.

Would it though, bearing in mind lustre has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with toning. You can have a deeply-toned coin with obvious full-lustre underneath. My point is you could presumably have two full-lustred CGS coins, one with ugly toning, and one with beauty personified, and they would both come out of the computer with the same grade?

You can also have coins that have SOME lustre, which are way uglier than some coins which have no lustre, but an overall dark patina instead. Lustre is sometimes overrated.

Plastic was invented in 1855, 158 years ago, i think the problem lies in that there was no TPGs in 1856 and they did'nt think about plastic holders back then

I wonder if anybody had the idea of slabbing a coin in bakelite?

I suspect you were only joking Derek! However, I'm sure that coin collecting back then was for historical and artistic reasons, and there probably wasn't much monetary value above the intrinsic metal and there were certainly no forgers around faking numismatic as opposed to currency pieces. So the whole notion of TPG's would have resulted in raised eyebrows and a very quizzical look.

[Sword 1,438]

If plastic was invented two hundred years ago and coins were being slabbed since say 1816, then there is much less fun collecting milled coins today. For a start, you won't get the wonderful tones developed over the centuries. There will also be plenty of lustrous "uncirculated" (in all sense of the word) of Victorian and Georgian coins and owning one will therefore give little satisfaction. Personally, I think slabbing of recent coins to be pointless and see little benefit in slabbing mid grade coins unless they are particularly rare.

However, I do think there is a place in coin collecting for slabbing and have confessed that I have slabbed high grade coins (AU or UNC). I did that mainly for the protection of the coins as I can then look at them casually and frequently without fear of damaging them. I know many of us feel (probably quite rightly) that we can look after our coins properly. But accidents / mishandling are bound to happen as coins are passed through generations of keepers. For example, how many Victorian, 1902, 1911 or 1927 proof sets today are still in truly mint FDC condition? Very very few. Even that magnificent example of a 1935 raised edge proof crown that Azda has brought recently and will slab is not (in my view) prefect mint state. The official cases, although infinitely more handsome than plastic slabs have not proved to be ideal for storage. Even the 1937 Edward VIII model crowns, currently offered on sale on this very website have toning spots due to incorrect storage. I know that problems can develop in slabs too but that is comparatively rare. As Bill pointed out, most of the air is extracted when slabbing and that must go a long way to stopping problems.

Would I slab a 1927 proof set if I were to buy one (I won't as I have decided to concentrate on circulating coins)? No, because I cannot bring myself to take them out of the handsome case. But what if all 6 coins are truly mint FDC? Then I will probably do it in a heartbeat as there might not even be ten perfect sets now in existence and I don't want to be the one damaging one set. I will probably want to admire such a rarity regularly and easily.

Hence, I do think that there is a percentage of coin (the figure of course depends on the individual) worth slabbing and I am very glad that there is a TPG in UK.

Plastic was invented in 1855, 158 years ago, i think the problem lies in that there was no TPGs in 1856 and they did'nt think about plastic holders back then

They used to vanish them, not a lot different really.

A number of collectors lacquered the coins they had (a bit like slabbing......) and it needs to be VERY carefully removed without damaging the underlying coin.

The main point that I was making was that even though slabs might not be visually appealing, they do a relatively good job protecting the coins inside. I think it is worth slabbing UNC Victorian or Georgian coins as there are not many about and they have toned enough by now.Slabbing is also easily reversible unlike lacquer. Lacquer won't prevent cabinet friction and edge knocks.

[ski 1]

Lacquer won't prevent cabinet friction and edge knocks.

but is relatively cheap compared to prices for slabbing.

the modern coin collector is spoilt for storage solutions, everything from envelopes of plastic and paper to slabs and coin cabinets........so ultimately the collector will choose their own method.

i recognise the merits of slabbing for maybe long term preservation but only time will tell if its completely safe.

But Bills main sales pitch is around grading and how the traditional raw market have over/under graded over the years.

but then so have the tpg's...there are many examples of tpg's having got things wrong on this forum and elsewhere and so is as questionable with slabs as any raw coin based solution to grading.

So the problems for me with slabs......

firstly the desire to have a coin with a numerical advantage over another ( no matter how small) when that numerical advantage actually can mean so little to the coin and its appeal to a seller/purchaser/owner, but can make a huge difference to price.

secondly, tpgs only offer another view on grade, grade is very subjective, and whilst tpg's can offer benchmarks to use for justifying grading in their systems.......its still just a view......and who's to say theyve got it so completely right?...maybe all the traditional dealers have got it right and tpg's havent......lets not be hoodwinked here by selling an idealism when good old fashioned grading of f,vf,ef and unc may very well be sufficient for general use with eye appeal to the prospective purchaser.

thirdly, the notion that a slabbed coin can increase the value of a coin, well maybe to those who already collect slabbed coins...but for those of us looking at slabbed prices from a raw coin point of view......the prices are ridiculous.....witness Bills recent ebay acquisition of a churchill crown that for the same sum of money could have maybe allowed him to buy 30 or more of the same coin in the same grade.

To summarise......ive collected raw coins for over 45 years, i went the slabbed route for a while. i guess im the opposite of Bill.......i learnt a few things though from slabbing.....theyre overpriced..theyre only another storage medium and theyre just another view on grading.

Ski

[Bill Pugsley 0]

Bill from your ramblings you are educated and knowledgeable why do you need to spend over £20k to know what you have.Whack them up on the forum.It is a bit cheaper.I have been collecting for over 40 years we also have many top dealers who frequent.I would take their advice.We have dealers,book wrighters,website holders.....get the message are you a shareholder or have another interest I note that you are a chairman at the CGS forums.

I love my farthings but there are 2 Colins and one is dead plus John Minshnial...I hopefully appear in the peck...ing order.

'Why have I spent over £20K?" - I would wonder myself sometimes BUT it is because I am (probably) a perfectionist in terms of being a collector. I have collections of other things as well (Stamps, Comics, Books, Early Maps, Early Prints, Train sets etc) and when I was actively into stamp collecting there was little I did not know about the subject areas that I collected. (Must run in the family as my elder brother could bore for England on the subject of Boer War stamps.)

When it comes to coins (that I started dabbling in 45 years ago but seriously got into ten years ago), I made some big mistakes in casting my interest too wide. I was buying all the new sets from the Royal Mint, buying Euro sets from all countries and really wasting my money. I changed my focus (see my profile for what I collect) and I wanted where possible to have EF or better of all the coins I collected.

My epiphany on CGS grading came about when I first submitted 39 coins graded by 'other' grading companies (to get the coins in the same size slab) and the varied results that came about. So I saw the CGS 'scientific process' (that will be produced as a Video for the web in the future) for myself and submitted some more coins. By the time I had truly begun to understand the CGS process I was over 500 coins submitted for grading. I like the results of slabbing (cringe / horror / shock for many) having once loathed it.

With my better understanding of the CGS process I now have a clearer idea of what is a good coin and am able to make my own judgements on quality. However, I have 100 coins with CGS currently that I carefully went through (shillings from 1820 through 1967). 12 are rejected (predominantly for cleaning but also for scratches, verdigris etc). Only 45 achieved CGS 80 or higher. 31 achieved CGS 70 to 78. The lowest grade given was CGS 45 which I was expecting for that particular coin. Some of the other lower grades I was expecting but many of the 75 or 78 I submitted in the belief they would achieve 80. So even with my experience I did not get it right.

Why I support CGS has several answers. First, let me be clear that I am not a shareholder and other than the odd meal shared with them, do not receive any financial reward - I pay commercial prices for their grading services. Dealing with the reasons for my support:

- I like the service and product;

- I like to think because I am a good customer they listen to my views (the website has been changed based upon numerous suggestions I have made);

- I pay for the cgsforum.org and run it at my convenience;

- I want to get all my collection re-slabbed as being part of the "Bill Pugsley collection" (a service offered to CGS 'Hall of Fame' collectors);

- I believe that in time CGS will become more accepted and the value of my CGS collection will be maintained or improve;

- I like having the finest known (albeit only recorded by CGS) of scarce or rare coins; I also like having the 'finest known' for run of the mill coins;

In my early life in business I was supported by many different people and consequently I like to support others. I 'retired' nearly eight years ago but for the last six I have been helping a former competitor in what seems like a full time role (as well as supporting other businesses). I actually enjoy trying to help CGS because it ties in with my deep interest in coins.

I write articles associated with my main hobby (Coins) because I want to 'share' (a horrible Americanism meaning 'tell') my views and experiences - having written business articles for over thirty years.

What it all boils down to though is the simple statement 'I love coin collecting!'.

[Bill Pugsley 0]

Lacquer won't prevent cabinet friction and edge knocks.

but is relatively cheap compared to prices for slabbing.

the modern coin collector is spoilt for storage solutions, everything from envelopes of plastic and paper to slabs and coin cabinets........so ultimately the collector will choose their own method.

i recognise the merits of slabbing for maybe long term preservation but only time will tell if its completely safe.

But Bills main sales pitch is around grading and how the traditional raw market have over/under graded over the years.

but then so have the tpg's...there are many examples of tpg's having got things wrong on this forum and elsewhere and so is as questionable with slabs as any raw coin based solution to grading.

So the problems for me with slabs......

firstly the desire to have a coin with a numerical advantage over another ( no matter how small) when that numerical advantage actually can mean so little to the coin and its appeal to a seller/purchaser/owner, but can make a huge difference to price.

secondly, tpgs only offer another view on grade, grade is very subjective, and whilst tpg's can offer benchmarks to use for justifying grading in their systems.......its still just a view......and who's to say theyve got it so completely right?...maybe all the traditional dealers have got it right and tpg's havent......lets not be hoodwinked here by selling an idealism when good old fashioned grading of f,vf,ef and unc may very well be sufficient for general use with eye appeal to the prospective purchaser.

thirdly, the notion that a slabbed coin can increase the value of a coin, well maybe to those who already collect slabbed coins...but for those of us looking at slabbed prices from a raw coin point of view......the prices are ridiculous.....witness Bills recent ebay acquisition of a churchill crown that for the same sum of money could have maybe allowed him to buy 30 or more of the same coin in the same grade.

To summarise......ive collected raw coins for over 45 years, i went the slabbed route for a while. i guess im the opposite of Bill.......i learnt a few things though from slabbing.....theyre overpriced..theyre only another storage medium and theyre just another view on grading.

Ski

"30 or more in the same grade?" - Sorry, did you not read the preliminary comments on my purchase. I am not a novice collector and I believe I noted I had looked at over 100 Churchill Crowns (possibly more). None of them had achieved the quality for the 'overpriced one' that I bought. I look for the finest known - or if I cannot get it the next best possible. I already had a CGS 80 Churchill Crown but a CGS 82 to me was better - because I had not come across one as good!

If you can get 30 of the same grade as CGS 82 then it would be worth buying them, paying (currently £11.99 each) to get them graded and then selling them for £30.00 each. If you found one was a CGS 85 or better I would pay £50.00 for it! Make your money back in no time.

There are others who value the CGS process (we trade a lot with each other) and I suspect will continue to use it. There are a vast majority that do not like the process of slabbing at all. So be it. My purpose is to explain why I collect CGS encapsulated coins and open up the possibility to other collectors.

People will become weary of my explanation of why CGS - I have had coins slabbed by other companies and I have looked at many more of the same. I buy and have bought raw coins from everywhere and the only 'standard' I have come to accept is the CGS process. Even dealers who I believe consistently grade well make mistakes (as I frequently do) - I have opened a thread on Grading as a separate topic in this forum by the way.

You are right, each collector will chose their own method of storage. I have used most (although I have never lacquered a coin) and ended up preferring paper coin envelopes and CGS Capsules (and I have explained why in other posts).

I have no shame in wanting a 'numerical advantage' for my coins. I want the best possible collection I can achieve. That goes hand in hand with my love of coin collecting. If I have two coins of the same type I tend to keep the best and sell on or trade the other - so why would not knowing a 'numerical advantage' be any different?

"Overpriced" - interesting! I do not think the CGS service is overpriced and others obviously do not either. Having recently examined the prices offered by US companies - when you take into account all cost elements, I believe the CGS service is excellent value for money. There are indeed many cheaper ways of storing coins but none come with third party archival pictures of the coins, an optional remote logging of the coins so graded with online access and a download of that information AND with this third party verification the potential for reduced insurance costs. Some people use the archival pictures to show their friends and family their coin collections without having to remove it from any Bank Vault or secure store - so a CGS capsule is not just a means of holding a coin!

[Peckris 579]

Lacquer won't prevent cabinet friction and edge knocks.

but is relatively cheap compared to prices for slabbing.

the modern coin collector is spoilt for storage solutions, everything from envelopes of plastic and paper to slabs and coin cabinets........so ultimately the collector will choose their own method.

i recognise the merits of slabbing for maybe long term preservation but only time will tell if its completely safe.

But Bills main sales pitch is around grading and how the traditional raw market have over/under graded over the years.

but then so have the tpg's...there are many examples of tpg's having got things wrong on this forum and elsewhere and so is as questionable with slabs as any raw coin based solution to grading.

So the problems for me with slabs......

firstly the desire to have a coin with a numerical advantage over another ( no matter how small) when that numerical advantage actually can mean so little to the coin and its appeal to a seller/purchaser/owner, but can make a huge difference to price.

secondly, tpgs only offer another view on grade, grade is very subjective, and whilst tpg's can offer benchmarks to use for justifying grading in their systems.......its still just a view......and who's to say theyve got it so completely right?...maybe all the traditional dealers have got it right and tpg's havent......lets not be hoodwinked here by selling an idealism when good old fashioned grading of f,vf,ef and unc may very well be sufficient for general use with eye appeal to the prospective purchaser.

thirdly, the notion that a slabbed coin can increase the value of a coin, well maybe to those who already collect slabbed coins...but for those of us looking at slabbed prices from a raw coin point of view......the prices are ridiculous.....witness Bills recent ebay acquisition of a churchill crown that for the same sum of money could have maybe allowed him to buy 30 or more of the same coin in the same grade.

To summarise......ive collected raw coins for over 45 years, i went the slabbed route for a while. i guess im the opposite of Bill.......i learnt a few things though from slabbing.....theyre overpriced..theyre only another storage medium and theyre just another view on grading.

Ski

"30 or more in the same grade?" - Sorry, did you not read the preliminary comments on my purchase. I am not a novice collector and I believe I noted I had looked at over 100 Churchill Crowns (possibly more). None of them had achieved the quality for the 'overpriced one' that I bought. I look for the finest known - or if I cannot get it the next best possible. I already had a CGS 80 Churchill Crown but a CGS 82 to me was better - because I had not come across one as good!

If you can get 30 of the same grade as CGS 82 then it would be worth buying them, paying (currently £11.99 each) to get them graded and then selling them for £30.00 each. If you found one was a CGS 85 or better I would pay £50.00 for it! Make your money back in no time.

There are others who value the CGS process (we trade a lot with each other) and I suspect will continue to use it. There are a vast majority that do not like the process of slabbing at all. So be it. My purpose is to explain why I collect CGS encapsulated coins and open up the possibility to other collectors.

People will become weary of my explanation of why CGS - I have had coins slabbed by other companies and I have looked at many more of the same. I buy and have bought raw coins from everywhere and the only 'standard' I have come to accept is the CGS process. Even dealers who I believe consistently grade well make mistakes (as I frequently do) - I have opened a thread on Grading as a separate topic in this forum by the way.

You are right, each collector will chose their own method of storage. I have used most (although I have never lacquered a coin) and ended up preferring paper coin envelopes and CGS Capsules (and I have explained why in other posts).

I have no shame in wanting a 'numerical advantage' for my coins. I want the best possible collection I can achieve. That goes hand in hand with my love of coin collecting. If I have two coins of the same type I tend to keep the best and sell on or trade the other - so why would not knowing a 'numerical advantage' be any different?

"Overpriced" - interesting! I do not think the CGS service is overpriced and others obviously do not either. Having recently examined the prices offered by US companies - when you take into account all cost elements, I believe the CGS service is excellent value for money. There are indeed many cheaper ways of storing coins but none come with third party archival pictures of the coins, an optional remote logging of the coins so graded with online access and a download of that information AND with this third party verification the potential for reduced insurance costs. Some people use the archival pictures to show their friends and family their coin collections without having to remove it from any Bank Vault or secure store - so a CGS capsule is not just a means of holding a coin!

Bill, if I kept my coins in a bank vault, I would have no problems with them being in a slab. But I'm of the old school that likes to take the coins out every now and then, and hold them carefully and admire them in a good light, and then put them back.

As for wanting the "best known example", or the ego boost of my coins being part of the "Xxxxxxx Collection" ... well ok, that's your world, but it isn't mine. Sure, I like to have good examples of the coins, the best I can afford. But not the "best known example". What's the point of that? If a coin brings me pleasure, and is lovely to look at, I simply don't care if there are better specimens out there.

I suppose what I'm saying is that there are many different kinds of collector. We know your enthusiasm for CGS grading and slabbing, I don't really think there's any more to say on the subject. We should all be the collector we want to be, "live and let live".

[ski 1]

hi Bill........when i used the word overpriced, it was in a statement about coins.....not about cgs.

i do think cgs is the best grader for british coins and the price is very competative to other tpgs.

What it all boils down to though is the simple statement 'I love coin collecting!'.

and thats what its all about.

ski

[azda 979]

Just to add a few things I was told or witnessed when I visited CGS last week:

• there are 3 graders for every coin (not 2)
• 'cabinet friction' is graded as wear, in the same way as any other wear
• there is no specific plus or minus for 'eye appeal' (like there is for some of the US TPGs - apparently)
• rejected coins may be slabbed but are not graded or valued, and are only included in the population report as 'rejected'
• their photography is all indoors using a standard desk lamp bulb for lighting, and an Olympus SP500UZ camera with macro, 3Mb resolution, and a white balance adjustment
• the main factors in their grading (against benchmark coins exhibiting varying degrees of these factors) are:
• Hairlines
• Friction/Wear
• Striking
• Marks/Problems (bag marks, dings, edge knocks, etc)
• Lustre
• These factors are manually assessed against the hundreds of benchmark coins available and entered into a computer program that produces a grade for that grader's assessment. Although they wouldn't tell me the different weighting applied to these factors in their algorithm, I was told that of these 5 the 2 that would count most against a coin's grade were hairlines and marks/problems
• Coins will also be marked down for 'non-progressive spots' (e.g. carbon spots, haymarking, adjustment lines, fingerprints), and would definitely be rejected for 'progressive spots' (e.g. verdigris)

It was all very interesting! I recommended to them that this information should be provided to the paying customer, who currently only gets to see the final grade!!!

Incidentally, while I was there I asked more about what it was about my Northumberland shilling that gave the game away when it was (thankfully) rejected in March 2012 ... and I found out something about these forgeries that I didn't know before. Apparently one of the most telling factors is in the formation of the 6 - most of the forgeries have a sharper intersection between the top curve and the circular bit (pardon my ignorance on what these bits are called!):

I think i just bought this one, but it's not been added to my bought lots as yet, so i'll have to wait and see, but this will be shipped to CGS because of the OBV legend lettering

[Peter 615]

I don't have a problem with CGS what I fear is the slabbing of modern coins especially in the US.

Big bucks for a MS69.

Surely the hunt is more exiting than buying an off the shelf slabbed coin.?

[Rob 3,125]

I think i just bought this one, but it's not been added to my bought lots as yet, so i'll have to wait and see, but this will be shipped to CGS because of the OBV legend lettering

You should have bought the previous lot - much nicer.

[azda 979]

I think i just bought this one, but it's not been added to my bought lots as yet, so i'll have to wait and see, but this will be shipped to CGS because of the OBV legend lettering

You should have bought the previous lot - much nicer.

And more expensive, i did'nt have any intention of buying a Northumberland, it was'nt on the cards at all. I still don't knowi if i got it or not, results say i did but looking at what i won says i did'nt. I also got lot 341

[Rob 3,125]

I think i just bought this one, but it's not been added to my bought lots as yet, so i'll have to wait and see, but this will be shipped to CGS because of the OBV legend lettering

You should have bought the previous lot - much nicer.

And more expensive, i did'nt have any intention of buying a Northumberland, it was'nt on the cards at all. I still don't knowi if i got it or not, results say i did but looking at what i won says i did'nt. I also got lot 341

The latter was plugged, so probably not a lot to be made there. Plugged things have to be either super-rare or £1 shop cheap. I got a few things in the Ed.IV-Henry VIII period. 174 was the York groat with the lis over crown on the reverse. I'm hoping that can be shown to be a London die recut. Never seen the overmark before. I also got the Abp Warham groats lot 186 and some small odds and sods. Spink is potentially looking a bit more productive, assuming I haven't spent up at Harrogate this Friday.