CGS - A customer-facing business?

[azda]

Stephen Lockett owns both LC and CGS so i would say thats 100% Paul

[Sword]

According to the LC website " London coins LTD is part of the London Coins (Holdings) Group LTD which owns London Coins LTD and has 51% ownership of CGS". So London Coins has control of CGS in any case.

I am still waiting for a coin which was submitted in early September. Looks like they won't even make the 90 days turnaround and so I am not very pleased with them at the moment.

[azda]

as i said Sword, paying customers take a baxkseat when it comes to auction fever which personally i think is wrong

[VickySilver]

I have a question:

What is "mint state"?

I am sure many readers here have seen how coins are struck, either through video, photos or other means.

If a coin is struck and then slides down a chute of types and is bagged with other coins, at what point does it cease being mint state? Is mint state not the status of a coin when it leaves the mint?

I say this because wear appears a bit different, at least to my eyes, than bagging marks.

What do others think?

I pose this because of Paulus' comment about coins up to mint state 62 or 63. IMO, there are many coins that are mint state with excellent lustre and only mild bag marks that I have seen and would still call mint state.

Obviously there are many other related topics and questions...

[Colin G.]

I think it is too easy to become bogged down in the literal meaning of words when it comes to grading. Phrases such as mint state, uncirculated and dare I say it "very good" are all phrases that have the potential to create confusion and debate. I should imagine with hindsight many grading companies may have re-phrased their definitions but they are stuck with the system in place.

[Nick]

I suspect Paulus is referring to the perception that a US MS62/63 equates to a UK gEF, and therefore cannot be called mint state. Whether it's accurate or not, I don't know, I've not seen enough MS62/63 coins to be able to judge.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Nick

[Peckris]

Bag marks can be on a modern UNC coin. It's regarded entirely differently than wear.

[Coinery]

Bag marks can be on a modern UNC coin. It's regarded entirely differently than wear.

I'm even struggling to find 2014 coins, heavier than the 10p, without bag marks!

[Sword]

I agree with you Azda, if CGS is really an "independent TPG service", then submissions from London Coins shouldn't always be given immediate priority over other customers.

Something that I have never understood is why wear is treated more harshly than bag marks when grading. For example, a coin with a trace of wear is no longer described as "mint state" or unc if one is strict. The damage to the coin's surface might only be as little 1 percent. (i.e. only 1% of the coin's surface has suffered slight flattening and loss of lustre). However, a coin with a number of bag marks would have suffered a higher percentage of surface damage but such coins are graded as MS or even unc.

For some reason, the "quote" button is no longer working for me. Does anyone know how I can fix it? Thanks

[azda]

Stop using internet explorer

[sound]

I agree with you Azda, if CGS is really an "independent TPG service", then submissions from London Coins shouldn't always be given immediate priority over other customers.

Something that I have never understood is why wear is treated more harshly than bag marks when grading. For example, a coin with a trace of wear is no longer described as "mint state" or unc if one is strict. The damage to the coin's surface might only be as little 1 percent. (i.e. only 1% of the coin's surface has suffered slight flattening and loss of lustre). However, a coin with a number of bag marks would have suffered a higher percentage of surface damage but such coins are graded as MS or even unc.

For some reason, the "quote" button is no longer working for me. Does anyone know how I can fix it? Thanks

Sword,

Good post IMO. The standard guide to coin grading covers similar ground in its introduction. The simple fact is grading is not an exact science, it's subjective. Anomalies exist. The best we can do is aim for consistency and that applies to TPG houses despite how they market it.

Mark

[VickySilver]

And yet (to pitch into the bag marks vs. wear debate), more key detail of the original strike is generally seen when it is bag marks. An example would be the ever-vulnerable cheek of George V on the Wreath Crown. Friction shows at the cheekbone or mustache and is the bane of most coins and is indicative of wear. A bag mark or two IMO not as distracting as wear in these key areas. Even specimen/proof coins are vulnerable in this area (or for that matter the orb atop the crown on the reverse) - this is a real separater if I might use the term and is quite a bit more bothersome than a mild abrasion from a bag mark in the field.

Obviously extreme examples can be pulled out and shown demonstrating extremes from either side.

[Paulus]

I start with eye appeal ... after that I care little whether the state of the coin I am considering acquiring is in the state it is due to circulation, weak strikes, cabinet fiction, bag marks, etc etc, I just decide whether I like the look of the coin, and will enjoy owning and handling it. That does present challenges for some issues!

[VickySilver]

Absolutely!

Edited December 6, 2014 by VickySilver

[Peter]

Paulus

I agree fully

Thats where I have problems with 17C copper.

[Coinery]

Me too!

My classic example, and I'm sorry it's a link to my site, but it's the easiest way, is this Halfgroat of Elizabeth! It has weak centres (as with most of them) but a truly lovely coin, colour, everything, in fact...not a coin I'd be selling, except I have an example with the bust you see as my avatar!

Eye-appeal is everything!

http://george-coins.co.uk/ProductImages.aspx?ProductId=3129578

[Sword]

True, eye appeal is all important. I find it difficult to enjoy owning a coin (even if it is very rare) if I don't like the look of it. I also agree that for some series like the Wreath crowns, friction on the king's cheek is indeed distracting. However, I think a large number of coin designs can tolerate a bit of "cabinet friction" without reducing eye appeal significantly. However, the presence of this cabinet friction should strictly disqualify a coin from UNC / MS. However, a coin can suffer a number of bag marks or have a few deeper contact marks and is still graded as unc. (MS60 can have a huge number of marks!). These marks on the portrait generally lower eye appeal significantly in my view. As Mark said, grading is not an exact science. Eye appeal is probably more art than science.

[Peter]

I have every farthing from 1672 to 1956 (excluding tin) my eye appeal is every thing to me (I do have tin YUK)

It is what you like.My trays are at home and added to and drooled over.I love what I have got.

Mr Colin Goode has kept me on standby.....I must have 20 or more small date 58 farthings and R/E 1856.

Concentrate on your subject enjoy the hobby.

Never an investment but keeps me happy.

Happy collecting.

Probably worth a few Bob.

I also collect type from Celtic onwards

My French & Indian are my main focus now although my Yank collection is getting pleasing....plus my bank note/checque collection is

good...Just lost out on a Beale White fiver.

[Paulus]

True, eye appeal is all important. I find it difficult to enjoy owning a coin (even if it is very rare) if I don't like the look of it. I also agree that for some series like the Wreath crowns, friction on the king's cheek is indeed distracting. However, I think a large number of coin designs can tolerate a bit of "cabinet friction" without reducing eye appeal significantly. However, the presence of this cabinet friction should strictly disqualify a coin from UNC / MS. However, a coin can suffer a number of bag marks or have a few deeper contact marks and is still graded as unc. (MS60 can have a huge number of marks!). These marks on the portrait generally lower eye appeal significantly in my view. As Mark said, grading is not an exact science. Eye appeal is probably more art than science.

I agree with all of these points, especially that TPGs should regard cabinet friction and bag marks as wear, I really don't care how it occurred after it was struck, it is wear. And many MS60-61 coins, as I have alluded to in another post, require quite a leap of faith to be seen as Mint State, even given the dubious latitude of conveniently categorising some wear as 'non-circulation' wear ... my opinion!

I just prefer to take a coin at face value, comments from sellers and dealers such as 'small scratch across the face that doesn't detract' (okay an extreme example!) wind me up and smack of estate agent style listings!

Edited December 8, 2014 by Paulus

[Peckris]

True, eye appeal is all important. I find it difficult to enjoy owning a coin (even if it is very rare) if I don't like the look of it. I also agree that for some series like the Wreath crowns, friction on the king's cheek is indeed distracting. However, I think a large number of coin designs can tolerate a bit of "cabinet friction" without reducing eye appeal significantly. However, the presence of this cabinet friction should strictly disqualify a coin from UNC / MS. However, a coin can suffer a number of bag marks or have a few deeper contact marks and is still graded as unc. (MS60 can have a huge number of marks!). These marks on the portrait generally lower eye appeal significantly in my view. As Mark said, grading is not an exact science. Eye appeal is probably more art than science.

I agree with all of these points, especially that TPGs should regard cabinet friction and bag marks as wear, I really don't care how it occurred after it was struck, it is wear. And many MS60-61 coins, as I have alluded to in another post, require quite a leap of faith to be seen as Mint State, even given the dubious latitude of conveniently categorising some wear as 'non-circulation' wear ... my opinion!

I just prefer to take a coin at face value, comments from sellers and dealers such as 'small scratch across the face that doesn't detract' (okay an extreme example!) wind me up and smack of estate agent style listings!

That's the problem - I agree that bag marks definitely negatively affect the eye appeal, but as they occurred during the production process (i.e. before they left the Mint) then they are, correctly IMO, judged not to have wear.