CGS - A customer-facing business?

[Red Riley 2]

Ok, so i've submitted 3 coins to CGS so far, yesterday i had to phone and ask about the 1st one which was submitted on the 19th Feb and was sitting at "GRADE FINALISED" for over a week, after my call it has now gone to "PENDING ENCAPSULATION"

I paid 30 quid for the 30 day turnaround which has now run into overtime, so i do have issues with their 30 day theory.

2nd coin you can follow if you wish, it's been photographed and is at 1st stage grading, it's the 1935 raised edge proof (UIN 0026265) this was submitted on their website on the 20th March (their pictures look better than mine)

3rd is the 1763 Northumberland Shilling, submitted on their website on the 26th March, as yet it's not moved (i did'nt expect it to just yet)............UPDATE........Ummmmmm well that's blown me, this is at Grading level II UIN is 0026308 I'm just wondering if that's an ominus sign.

This is a very long thread and so I may have missed something but the 2nd coin you have submitted underlines a major flaw with slabbing - how the hell are you going to see it's a raised edge proof? At best you could peer at an oblique angle (not sure my vari-focals would cope) or at worst you may just not see it at all. Perhaps you were thinking like me and just submitted it to see how they coped; in any event I will be very interested to see what you get back. Not sure how my notoriously short patience will manage...

[Bill Pugsley 0]

Ok, so i've submitted 3 coins to CGS so far, yesterday i had to phone and ask about the 1st one which was submitted on the 19th Feb and was sitting at "GRADE FINALISED" for over a week, after my call it has now gone to "PENDING ENCAPSULATION"

I paid 30 quid for the 30 day turnaround which has now run into overtime, so i do have issues with their 30 day theory.

2nd coin you can follow if you wish, it's been photographed and is at 1st stage grading, it's the 1935 raised edge proof (UIN 0026265) this was submitted on their website on the 20th March (their pictures look better than mine)

3rd is the 1763 Northumberland Shilling, submitted on their website on the 26th March, as yet it's not moved (i did'nt expect it to just yet)............UPDATE........Ummmmmm well that's blown me, this is at Grading level II UIN is 0026308 I'm just wondering if that's an ominus sign.

This is a very long thread and so I may have missed something but the 2nd coin you have submitted underlines a major flaw with slabbing - how the hell are you going to see it's a raised edge proof? At best you could peer at an oblique angle (not sure my vari-focals would cope) or at worst you may just not see it at all. Perhaps you were thinking like me and just submitted it to see how they coped; in any event I will be very interested to see what you get back. Not sure how my notoriously short patience will manage...

When CGS first started it implemented a mechanism for storage of coins in capsules that allowed you to see most of the edge of the coin. However, the holders proved unreliable so they started using the silicon seals that enclose the edge (as the US coin graders used). So the likelihood of seeing the edge is zero in a (currently) CGS encapsulated coin. Since those early days the USA graders have started using seals that allow you to see much of the edge of the coin (which is great) and maybe CGS will follow suit.

What this does require is a strong element of trust in the grading service who has a coin seal that hides the edge (I happen to trust CGS). I have seen a crown taken out of an NGC slab where the edge had been seriously tooled (it had a pattern unlike any conventional edge) yet it had been graded as MS61 by NGC.

[Bill Pugsley 0]

We need a 'cynical squint' smiley, I think.

Or maybe that's just me ...

Not at all. A GCS redefinition as proposed is by far the cheapest way to get an upgrade to the collection - it would have cost me 100s to upgrade my (sorry, EF78 and not AU78) P1133A penny (ref. 000057-PE.G3.1797.03) by the traditional route of acquiring a coin in a better grade/condition. And it has the further added bonus of upgrading from the good EF assigned by Spink in the Adams sale (lot 36). A lot can happen in 10 years.

The proposal by CGS to remove the prefix qualifier on its numbering system is to allow different players interpret as they believe is best so now if you feel CGS coin rightly UNC - you do not have a contradiction from CGS saying it is AU (or one time EF). I have written elsewhere about grading creep and how the older or scarcer a coin is the the 'higher the perceived grade' that may be allocated to it by a collector / dealer / auction house.

You were fortunate that your coin from Spink graded as CGS 78 - some coins I bought from Spink over the years (and numerous other dealers) as UNC have been rejected by CGS (normally for having been cleaned). Of course, others I have bought as UNC have graded in the CGS 80's but alas some at lower than CGS 70. I am grateful to the CGS service for showing me how to better judge coins I now buy in the raw.

[Sword 1,380]

We need a 'cynical squint' smiley, I think.

Or maybe that's just me ...

Not at all. A GCS redefinition as proposed is by far the cheapest way to get an upgrade to the collection - it would have cost me 100s to upgrade my (sorry, EF78 and not AU78) P1133A penny (ref. 000057-PE.G3.1797.03) by the traditional route of acquiring a coin in a better grade/condition. And it has the further added bonus of upgrading from the good EF assigned by Spink in the Adams sale (lot 36). A lot can happen in 10 years.

The proposal by CGS to remove the prefix qualifier on its numbering system is to allow different players interpret as they believe is best so now if you feel CGS coin rightly UNC - you do not have a contradiction from CGS saying it is AU (or one time EF). I have written elsewhere about grading creep and how the older or scarcer a coin is the the 'higher the perceived grade' that may be allocated to it by a collector / dealer / auction house.

You were fortunate that your coin from Spink graded as CGS 78 - some coins I bought from Spink over the years (and numerous other dealers) as UNC have been rejected by CGS (normally for having been cleaned). Of course, others I have bought as UNC have graded in the CGS 80's but alas some at lower than CGS 70. I am grateful to the CGS service for showing me how to better judge coins I now buy in the raw.

I don't think there is much point in removing the prefix qualifiers on the slabs if CGS then publish a table converting numbers to traditional grades. Now a CGS 75 coin can be EF or AU on the slab or "unc or near so" according to the proposed table. Confusion is not a good thing for credibility. Some of the conversions on the table are rather questionable too in my view E.g. AU 58 = CGS60, or AU55 = CGS55.

Grade inflation (which happens over a long period of time) is one thing but grade "revaluation" or "redefinition" is another. CGS has only been around for 6 years and it is difficult to persuade collectors that grading has changed significantly since.

Most of the above has already been said by others. It is almost impossible to please everyone with any "proposal". But one very helpful thing they can do is to promise to post coins back within one week of encapsulation.

[Rob 3,106]

We need a 'cynical squint' smiley, I think.

Or maybe that's just me ...

Not at all. A GCS redefinition as proposed is by far the cheapest way to get an upgrade to the collection - it would have cost me 100s to upgrade my (sorry, EF78 and not AU78) P1133A penny (ref. 000057-PE.G3.1797.03) by the traditional route of acquiring a coin in a better grade/condition. And it has the further added bonus of upgrading from the good EF assigned by Spink in the Adams sale (lot 36). A lot can happen in 10 years.

The proposal by CGS to remove the prefix qualifier on its numbering system is to allow different players interpret as they believe is best so now if you feel CGS coin rightly UNC - you do not have a contradiction from CGS saying it is AU (or one time EF). I have written elsewhere about grading creep and how the older or scarcer a coin is the the 'higher the perceived grade' that may be allocated to it by a collector / dealer / auction house.

You were fortunate that your coin from Spink graded as CGS 78 - some coins I bought from Spink over the years (and numerous other dealers) as UNC have been rejected by CGS (normally for having been cleaned). Of course, others I have bought as UNC have graded in the CGS 80's but alas some at lower than CGS 70. I am grateful to the CGS service for showing me how to better judge coins I now buy in the raw.

Not necessarily fortunate. The example in question was graded as gEF in the Spink sale - full lot description below.

Auction: 3011 - The Colin Adams Collection of British Pennies, Foreign Coins & Medals

Lot: 36

George III, Copper Penny, 1797, laureate and draped bust facing right, wreath of 11 leaves and 2 berries, upper berry with only a trace of stem, top tie riband at rear points outwards, K.: on shoulder, within broad raised rim with large incuse legend, georgius iii . d : g . rex. rev.inverted die axis, Britannia seated to left on rock amidst waves, .: raised on rock, olive branch of 10 leaves in right hand, left hand clasps trident with shield, soho raised below shield, ship sailing at left with 6 incuse gunports, ensign at stern, all within broad raised rim with date below and large incuse legend, britannia (Peck 1133A KP22 VS; S.3777), toned good extremely fine and very rare, the finest specimen we can recall seeing of this variety Estimate £ 400-500 Croydon Coin Auction, 20 February 1996, lot 729

Sold for £420

I would concur with the description as I have not seen better of this variety to date. There may well be a mint state piece somewhere, but I don't know how or where to find it. One significant point that can be taken from the sale is the potentially detrimental effect a slab number and grade can have on the value of a coin. In the 2003 sale it realised about £500 all in. I bought it 4 years later at a London Coins sale for about £200 all in. The first price reflected the fact that it was exceptional for the type, whilst the second reflected it didn't have much/any appeal for those that collect by numbers being only EF78 whilst there are many uncs (of the general type) in existence. The price in the Adams sale was probably about right for the conditional rarity, the price in the London Coins sale was a no-brainer even at double the hammer.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Rob

[Rob 3,106]

The inability to examine the edges is a serious problem in my view. I've bought a few things over the years which have had edge damage visible on removal from the slab but not before. There was a proof 1817 shilling which had to go as a result of the edge nick (image available in a CC list in the last year or two) was slabbed PF63, an otherwise delightful 1723 halfpenny slabbed MS65 had a huge flaw hidden by the holder, an 1844 halfcrown had a large rev. nick despite being graded MS64, plus a few other disappointments. The thing is, those flaws/damage were either seen and ignored, or not seen because the coin was graded with only a cursory check. If you are going to assign a grade based on an inspection, then it is only reasonable to give a report on anything that is not visible from outside the slab. Although the TPGs depend on customer confidence, they also appear to misguidedly believe that nobody will call their bluff and check the slab contents. Unfortunately, they can also claim that the deslabbing nullifies their grading exercise, which is another way of saying that if they can hide a coin's faults, it need not be registered as damaged. Not good. Confidence is paramount, and whilst Bill and a few others will sing their praises, for anyone who has done a number of autopsies on slabbed coins the grades are inconsistent and as such not good for confidence.

[VickySilver 806]

Rob, I think PCGS and NGC have largely now cured this malady if you check the mountings in the holders now...

[Rob 3,106]

Rob, I think PCGS and NGC have largely now cured this malady if you check the mountings in the holders now...

Maybe, but not before I had spent a few thousand on coins that would not have been purchased had I known, and the vast majority of things are still in their original slabs.

[Colin G. 147]

Rob, I think PCGS and NGC have largely now cured this malady if you check the mountings in the holders now...

They may have done, but I find the "edge view" holders ugly, if CGS go down this route Bill, please ask them to look at a more attractive alternative!!

[Bill Pugsley 0]

We need a 'cynical squint' smiley, I think.

Or maybe that's just me ...

Not at all. A GCS redefinition as proposed is by far the cheapest way to get an upgrade to the collection - it would have cost me 100s to upgrade my (sorry, EF78 and not AU78) P1133A penny (ref. 000057-PE.G3.1797.03) by the traditional route of acquiring a coin in a better grade/condition. And it has the further added bonus of upgrading from the good EF assigned by Spink in the Adams sale (lot 36). A lot can happen in 10 years.

The proposal by CGS to remove the prefix qualifier on its numbering system is to allow different players interpret as they believe is best so now if you feel CGS coin rightly UNC - you do not have a contradiction from CGS saying it is AU (or one time EF). I have written elsewhere about grading creep and how the older or scarcer a coin is the the 'higher the perceived grade' that may be allocated to it by a collector / dealer / auction house.

You were fortunate that your coin from Spink graded as CGS 78 - some coins I bought from Spink over the years (and numerous other dealers) as UNC have been rejected by CGS (normally for having been cleaned). Of course, others I have bought as UNC have graded in the CGS 80's but alas some at lower than CGS 70. I am grateful to the CGS service for showing me how to better judge coins I now buy in the raw.

I don't think there is much point in removing the prefix qualifiers on the slabs if CGS then publish a table converting numbers to traditional grades. Now a CGS 75 coin can be EF or AU on the slab or "unc or near so" according to the proposed table. Confusion is not a good thing for credibility. Some of the conversions on the table are rather questionable too in my view E.g. AU 58 = CGS60, or AU55 = CGS55.

Grade inflation (which happens over a long period of time) is one thing but grade "revaluation" or "redefinition" is another. CGS has only been around for 6 years and it is difficult to persuade collectors that grading has changed significantly since.

Most of the above has already been said by others. It is almost impossible to please everyone with any "proposal". But one very helpful thing they can do is to promise to post coins back within one week of encapsulation.

I have raised your (and others) points about returning coins from CGS when completed directly with them. I normally make my own arrangements to collect coins from them but that is my decision. It is reasonable that when you see the coins have been completed that you get them back within a few days (allowing for post).

The point that CGS were trying to get across (in my understanding) was that their numbering system does not change and that a coin graded as 80 today should grade at 80 in ten years or twenty years time. What they were trying to recognise is that a 1953 shilling that grades at 80 is accepted as being UNC whereas a 1953 shilling that grades at 75 may be at best GEF. However, from my own experience I have seen dealers attribute a 1858 shilling as being UNC yet when I had it graded it came out as CGS75. Most dealers would say the coin was UNC but using the previous interpretations applied by CGS it would have been at best AU (or the earlier EF). Removing the prefix CGS leaves the decision to the collector/dealer. I have a number of CGS coins graded as AU78 that I believe are really UNC (but I accept the CGS attribute of 78). All it does is ensure that I look for better quality versions of the coins in the future.

[Bill Pugsley 0]

Rob, I think PCGS and NGC have largely now cured this malady if you check the mountings in the holders now...

They may have done, but I find the "edge view" holders ugly, if CGS go down this route Bill, please ask them to look at a more attractive alternative!!

Your comment has now been passed to CGS as I agree with you. The original CGS idea hid a tiny part of the coins edge but for various reasons (like bad handling) the spokes would move or break and the coin came loose - hence reverting to a full seal. Six years on their may be a better solution to look for and I will keep you posted.

[Bill Pugsley 0]

Rob, I think PCGS and NGC have largely now cured this malady if you check the mountings in the holders now...

Maybe, but not before I had spent a few thousand on coins that would not have been purchased had I known, and the vast majority of things are still in their original slabs.

Both NGC and PCGS offer a 're-encapsulation' service into their new super showing edges etc capsules. Of course there is a cost. One would hope that during that process that they might identify problems and refund their valuations (we can but hope).

In time I believe that those UK coin collectors who want their UK or commonwealth coins encapsulated will use the CGS service rather than any other service. It will take longer I believe for US collectors to buy into the CGS service for UK coins (although some have started to). There is still this (in my view false) expectation by Norther American Collectors that PCGS and NGC know all there is to know about every coin out there.

[VickySilver 806]

Sorry to bring up a dead horse, but I was thinking this morning that I do have a bit of a problem that CGS apparently grades ALL coins as though they were on the same scale (i.e. an 1838 shilling graded on same standards as a 1967), when in fact minting methods have changed drastically in the interim and they might require different approaches.

What does the grade represent on a coin, numeric or not? Should a coin that is perfectly as it leaves the mint with NO post mint damage, handling, or marks be considered perfectly mint state - MS70 or 100? Technically, I think they must be. Aesthetically, the coin may be less than desirable.

So a hammered coin may be quite ugly and mint state at the same time I would think. In fact a CGS78 coin, as I understand it, may be quite a gem uncirculated coin technically but then be a bit less than appealing for other reasons - this seems to lack a bit of sense IMO.

[TomGoodheart 380]

Sorry to bring up a dead horse, but I was thinking this morning that I do have a bit of a problem that CGS apparently grades ALL coins as though they were on the same scale (i.e. an 1838 shilling graded on same standards as a 1967), when in fact minting methods have changed drastically in the interim and they might require different approaches.

What does the grade represent on a coin, numeric or not? Should a coin that is perfectly as it leaves the mint with NO post mint damage, handling, or marks be considered perfectly mint state - MS70 or 100? Technically, I think they must be. Aesthetically, the coin may be less than desirable.

So a hammered coin may be quite ugly and mint state at the same time I would think. In fact a CGS78 coin, as I understand it, may be quite a gem uncirculated coin technically but then be a bit less than appealing for other reasons - this seems to lack a bit of sense IMO.

I think hammered coins present their own unique problems for graders Vicky!

But I agree that early milled coins are different from, say, Victorian ones. Just look at William III. Weak strikes, haymarking, sometimes all the edge rim, sometimes not. Should those detract from a numeric grade if that is how the coin left the mint?

I guess I'm still not quite sure what a grade is for. OK, coins have for a very long time been described at least in part as being 'very fine' or whatever. And certainly when dealers issued typed lists, that helped buyers select coins they would like to inspect.

But nowadays most coins are illustrated and (providing the picture is decent) buyers can surely make up their own minds whether it meets their requirements?

... sorry. Just wondering aloud here.

[Peckris 579]

Sorry to bring up a dead horse, but I was thinking this morning that I do have a bit of a problem that CGS apparently grades ALL coins as though they were on the same scale (i.e. an 1838 shilling graded on same standards as a 1967), when in fact minting methods have changed drastically in the interim and they might require different approaches.

What does the grade represent on a coin, numeric or not? Should a coin that is perfectly as it leaves the mint with NO post mint damage, handling, or marks be considered perfectly mint state - MS70 or 100? Technically, I think they must be. Aesthetically, the coin may be less than desirable.

So a hammered coin may be quite ugly and mint state at the same time I would think. In fact a CGS78 coin, as I understand it, may be quite a gem uncirculated coin technically but then be a bit less than appealing for other reasons - this seems to lack a bit of sense IMO.

I think hammered coins present their own unique problems for graders Vicky!

But I agree that early milled coins are different from, say, Victorian ones. Just look at William III. Weak strikes, haymarking, sometimes all the edge rim, sometimes not. Should those detract from a numeric grade if that is how the coin left the mint?

I guess I'm still not quite sure what a grade is for. OK, coins have for a very long time been described at least in part as being 'very fine' or whatever. And certainly when dealers issued typed lists, that helped buyers select coins they would like to inspect.

But nowadays most coins are illustrated and (providing the picture is decent) buyers can surely make up their own minds whether it meets their requirements?

... sorry. Just wondering aloud here.

You'll have noticed that Spink don't list grades higher than EF for pre-1797 coins. And they have different grading guides for early milled and later milled. Got to be something in that.

[Paulus 1,954]

As I understand it, different grading strictness for different periods (hammered/early milled/milled/late milled) and even years and types is accommodated by CGS having many sets of benchmark coins. I was shown many of these coins but I don't know how many they have in total (certainly not every year/type/monarch/denomination) but the total value of the coins I was shown certainly runs into 100s of £ks) - probably more than their total revenue to date! There were many very rare early milled proofs among the benchmark coins.

Obviously, as at least 2 people have highlighted on here, whoever graded the benchmark coins, and how they graded them in the first place, will be one of the keys here!

[Paulus 1,954]

I asked if the benchmark coins CGS use constitute part of the population report, and was assured that they do ... which means that we can look at them on line! However, they are not tagged as to whether they are benchmark coins are not, which might be a nice idea -- Bill?

This is typical of one of the rare proof coins I was shown, but I don't know whether this particular one is a benchmark coin.

It is a 1718 silver proof farthing struck on a thin flan (Peck 790), and graded CGS 92:

I felt a bit privileged to be handling some of these coins, perhaps for the first and ony time, and needless to say, I wish I was posting in the 'Coin Acquisition of the Week' section!

[TomGoodheart 380]

You'll have noticed that Spink don't list grades higher than EF for pre-1797 coins. And they have different grading guides for early milled and later milled. Got to be something in that.

Yes, but .. what? If a coin was struck in 1640 and handed straight to someone who put it in a box, it's clearly uncirculated. Same as if Bolton handed a halfpenny to someone in 1797 or a mint employee pocketed 20p tomorrow, the amount of wear those coins have been subject to is zero. So ... why aren't they the same grade?

As for using proofs for benchmarks, well that suggests to me that the grading is less about wear and more about how well a coin measures up against an idea. The idea of what a 'perfect' coin will look like.

Seems to me to be a bit of arbitrariness here ... which brings me back to .. why do we grade coins? If it's a measure of 'perfection', well, OK. Though there are problems with that, I can accept the concept. But if it's to do with wear, why are we using different grade ceilings just because a coin is older?

Yeah, I know. Not strictly about CGS is it? But I'm curious now what people think.

[Peckris 579]

You'll have noticed that Spink don't list grades higher than EF for pre-1797 coins. And they have different grading guides for early milled and later milled. Got to be something in that.

Yes, but .. what? If a coin was struck in 1640 and handed straight to someone who put it in a box, it's clearly uncirculated. Same as if Bolton handed a halfpenny to someone in 1797 or a mint employee pocketed 20p tomorrow, the amount of wear those coins have been subject to is zero. So ... why aren't they the same grade?

As for using proofs for benchmarks, well that suggests to me that the grading is less about wear and more about how well a coin measures up against an idea. The idea of what a 'perfect' coin will look like.

Seems to me to be a bit of arbitrariness here ... which brings me back to .. why do we grade coins? If it's a measure of 'perfection', well, OK. Though there are problems with that, I can accept the concept. But if it's to do with wear, why are we using different grade ceilings just because a coin is older?

Yeah, I know. Not strictly about CGS is it? But I'm curious now what people think.

What you say is perfectly true. I wonder if it's something to do with the fact that minting imperfections were almost inherent pre-Boulton & Watt? Or maybe it's more to do with the fact that people didn't tend to put coins aside in those days, as they were valuable things as money and only kings collected coins numismatically? It's certainly true that there are ARE early milled UNC coins, and I would grade my 1708 shilling as virtually that, also my 1697 sixpence. Both are quite common in those grades, so maybe there was a bag stashed away in a bank that didn't come to light for a couple of centuries.

ETA: even in the early 20th Century, collectors weren't obsessive about high grades, as long as they could see the "fine detail" they were happy enough apparently.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Peckris

[Paulus 1,954]

Or you might be taken by this pretty 1729 Halfpenny copper proof with no stop (Peck 835):

The great thing was, I was allowed to handle these coins at my leisure, in the raw (ironically!)

[Peckris 579]

Or you might be taken by this pretty 1729 Halfpenny copper proof with no stop (Peck 835):

The great thing was, I was allowed to handle these coins at my leisure, in the raw (ironically!)

Surely you at least wore a pair of cotton gloves?

[Paulus 1,954]

You'll have noticed that Spink don't list grades higher than EF for pre-1797 coins. And they have different grading guides for early milled and later milled. Got to be something in that.

Yes, but .. what? If a coin was struck in 1640 and handed straight to someone who put it in a box, it's clearly uncirculated. Same as if Bolton handed a halfpenny to someone in 1797 or a mint employee pocketed 20p tomorrow, the amount of wear those coins have been subject to is zero. So ... why aren't they the same grade?

As for using proofs for benchmarks, well that suggests to me that the grading is less about wear and more about how well a coin measures up against an idea. The idea of what a 'perfect' coin will look like.

Seems to me to be a bit of arbitrariness here ... which brings me back to .. why do we grade coins? If it's a measure of 'perfection', well, OK. Though there are problems with that, I can accept the concept. But if it's to do with wear, why are we using different grade ceilings just because a coin is older?

Yeah, I know. Not strictly about CGS is it? But I'm curious now what people think.

What you say is perfectly true. I wonder if it's something to do with the fact that minting imperfections were almost inherent pre-Boulton & Watt? Or maybe it's more to do with the fact that people didn't tend to put coins aside in those days, as they were valuable things as money and only kings collected coins numismatically? It's certainly true that there are ARE early milled UNC coins, and I would grade my 1708 shilling as virtually that, also my 1697 sixpence. Both are quite common in those grades, so maybe there was a bag stashed away in a bank that didn't come to light for a couple of centuries.

ETA: even in the early 20th Century, collectors weren't obsessive about high grades, as long as they could see the "fine detail" they were happy enough apparently.

I really don't know, I must say it surprised me, after all proofs are not a grade anyway. But they had many benchmark proofs, and many with various types and varying degrees of wear and imperfections, of many types, monarchs, dates and denominations, against which to compare submitted coins, and that did impress me ... their benchmark collection, which I imagine they own (along with London Coins!), must be amongst the finest to be found outside of museums

[Paulus 1,954]

Or you might be taken by this pretty 1729 Halfpenny copper proof with no stop (Peck 835):

The great thing was, I was allowed to handle these coins at my leisure, in the raw (ironically!)

Surely you at least wore a pair of cotton gloves?

Nope!!!!! But I must say I was a lot more careful to only handle by the edges than they were!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edit: Ooops, now I've said it!!

Edited April 2, 2013 by Paulus

[Peckris 579]

Or you might be taken by this pretty 1729 Halfpenny copper proof with no stop (Peck 835):

The great thing was, I was allowed to handle these coins at my leisure, in the raw (ironically!)

Surely you at least wore a pair of cotton gloves?

Nope!!!!! But I must say I was a lot more careful to only handle by the edges than they were!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edit: Ooops, now I've said it!!

I suppose the thrill of handling such gorgeous coins made you impervious to the cold, then

[Paulus 1,954]

Or you might be taken by this pretty 1729 Halfpenny copper proof with no stop (Peck 835):

The great thing was, I was allowed to handle these coins at my leisure, in the raw (ironically!)

Surely you at least wore a pair of cotton gloves?

Nope!!!!! But I must say I was a lot more careful to only handle by the edges than they were!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edit: Ooops, now I've said it!!

I suppose the thrill of handling such gorgeous coins made you impervious to the cold, then

Indeed, the requirement to view their coins while stark bollock-naked was a surprise at first, but after the brief initiation ceremony I am now totally converted!