Cgs - New Batch For Slabbing And Selling

[Paulus]

Still strapped for cash, so sadly parting with some more milled silver. This batch I have deemed worth getting slabbed, anticipating that the extra cost involved will be more than recouped in higher-than-otherwise selling prices - my experience with this over the last 15 months or so gives me confidence that that will be the case. Some will go to eBay, others may be private sales.

So once again I invite your comments and speculation as to the CGS grade they might assign, traditional non-numeric grade if you prefer, varieties, problems that might result in rejection, or anything at all!

Coin 1 - 1902 proof half crown

[Paulus]

Coin 2 - 1899 Crown - LXIII - Dies 3E?

[Paulus]

Coin 3 - 1906 Shilling - Dies 2A?

[Paulus]

Coin 4 - 1821 Shilling

[Paulus]

Coin 5 - 1821 Sixpence

[pies]

1,unc

2,aunc

3,aunc

4,might not grade due to scratches , but could be otherwise unc

5,aunc

Thats my guesses

Edited April 19, 2014 by pies

[Paulus]

Coin 6 - 1893 Florin

[Paulus]

1,unc

2,aunc

3,aunc

4,might not grade due to scratches , but could be otherwise unc

5,aunc

Thats my guesses

Thanks Pies, don't you hate it when you discover scratches or other blemishes for the first time when you photograph the coin!

[pies]

Coin six is unc.

Taking a decent photo is a challenge for me theses days:(

[azda]

1,unc

2,aunc

3,aunc

4,might not grade due to scratches , but could be otherwise unc

5,aunc

Thats my guesses

Thanks Pies, don't you hate it when you discover scratches or other blemishes for the first time when you photograph the coin!

This is exactly why i take hi-res images and post here, so that others may find something i have'nt seen

Coin 5 is EF, digs on the OBV, Leaf veins worn, REV left hand thistle has wear along with part of the crown, could be GVF at this rate (sorry) you know how harsh they are

Edited April 19, 2014 by azda

[RLC35]

Nice coins Paulus. I especially like the 1902 Proof Half Crown!

[Paulus]

1,unc

2,aunc

3,aunc

4,might not grade due to scratches , but could be otherwise unc

5,aunc

Thats my guesses

Thanks Pies, don't you hate it when you discover scratches or other blemishes for the first time when you photograph the coin!

This is exactly why i take hi-res images and post here, so that others may find something i have'nt seen

Coin 5 is EF, digs on the OBV, Leaf veins worn, REV left hand thistle has wear along with part of the crown, could be GVF at this rate (sorry) you know how harsh they are

That's ok Dave, I am well aware they are not all top grades - coin 5 is probably the lowest grade of the 6, I umm-ed and ahh-ed about sending it to them!

[azda]

Well Paul, you know better than most of us how CGS operate as you've seen it first hand, but if we can see blemishes on your pics then they'll certainly see them at CGS

[Peckris]

1,unc

2,aunc

3,aunc

4,might not grade due to scratches , but could be otherwise unc

5,aunc

Thats my guesses

Thanks Pies, don't you hate it when you discover scratches or other blemishes for the first time when you photograph the coin!

This is exactly why i take hi-res images and post here, so that others may find something i have'nt seen

Coin 5 is EF, digs on the OBV, Leaf veins worn, REV left hand thistle has wear along with part of the crown, could be GVF at this rate (sorry) you know how harsh they are

Dave, you're only superficially correct. Remember you're looking at a photograph of a sixpence blown up to the same size as pictures of shillings, florins, and on up to crowns. Sixpences are never fully struck up compared to large silver simply due to the physics of getting a complex engraving that small in the first place. That's not say that CGS won't be harsh - they probably will - but we have to make allowances for pictures of small coins where the tiniest flaw is magnified ten times compared to the same size picture of e.g. a crown.

[Garrett]

Nice coins mate, shame you need to sell them.

Hope you get good prices !

[azda]

1,unc

2,aunc

3,aunc

4,might not grade due to scratches , but could be otherwise unc

5,aunc

Thats my guesses

Thanks Pies, don't you hate it when you discover scratches or other blemishes for the first time when you photograph the coin!

This is exactly why i take hi-res images and post here, so that others may find something i have'nt seenCoin 5 is EF, digs on the OBV, Leaf veins worn, REV left hand thistle has wear along with part of the crown, could be GVF at this rate (sorry) you know how harsh they are

Dave, you're only superficially correct. Remember you're looking at a photograph of a sixpence blown up to the same size as pictures of shillings, florins, and on up to crowns. Sixpences are never fully struck up compared to large silver simply due to the physics of getting a complex engraving that small in the first place. That's not say that CGS won't be harsh - they probably will - but we have to make allowances for pictures of small coins where the tiniest flaw is magnified ten times compared to the same size picture of e.g. a crown.

I say it as i see it Peck. If its got digs and scratches then its not AUNC, if it has wear on the thistle and crown then its EF and less. Do you think CGS just eyeball a coin and give it a grade? I'm sure it will be done with microscopic Instruments that are much more magnified than a camera.

So whats your grade for it Peck?

Edited April 19, 2014 by azda

[Peckris]

1,unc

2,aunc

3,aunc

4,might not grade due to scratches , but could be otherwise unc

5,aunc

Thats my guesses

Thanks Pies, don't you hate it when you discover scratches or other blemishes for the first time when you photograph the coin!

This is exactly why i take hi-res images and post here, so that others may find something i have'nt seenCoin 5 is EF, digs on the OBV, Leaf veins worn, REV left hand thistle has wear along with part of the crown, could be GVF at this rate (sorry) you know how harsh they are

Dave, you're only superficially correct. Remember you're looking at a photograph of a sixpence blown up to the same size as pictures of shillings, florins, and on up to crowns. Sixpences are never fully struck up compared to large silver simply due to the physics of getting a complex engraving that small in the first place. That's not say that CGS won't be harsh - they probably will - but we have to make allowances for pictures of small coins where the tiniest flaw is magnified ten times compared to the same size picture of e.g. a crown.

I say it as i see it Peck. If its got digs and scratches then its not AUNC, if it has wear on the thistle and crown then its EF and less. Do you think CGS just eyeball a coin and give it a grade? I'm sure it will be done with microscopic Instruments that are much more magnified than a camera.

So whats your grade for it Peck?

I'll answer that, but first I want to draw your attention to the differences between the shilling and the sixpence, despite the pictures being the same size:

1. the shilling has more evidence of rubbing in the obverse fields - there's apparently none on the sixpence

2. there are fewer hair strands on the 6d, but they are bolder cut, to compensate for the reduced size

3. the laurel wreath leaves are equally unworn, but the raised ribs on the sixpence are less evident due to the smaller design

4. the rose leaves are less complex on the 6d, but equally unworn

5. the 6d crown is much simpler in design - e.g. 13 pearls each side rather than 16; this also applies to the jewels on the headband, almost a different design

6. the lions top left in the small central shield are equally poor, in fact everything is, except for the thing (?) right in the centre

If you look closely, there are small differences all over the design, caused entirely by having to reduce them to the size of a sixpence. The one glaring thing is the left hand fleur de lys on the top crown, but that on its own is not enough to say "it's wear rather than die or design reduction".

Based on all that, and a VERY close inspection, I would say the two coins are comparable in grade and that this would be most evident in hand, rather than the futile exercise of comparing two pictures that are not even nearly on the same scale.

[mike]

1,unc

2,aunc

3,aunc

4,might not grade due to scratches , but could be otherwise unc

5,aunc

Thats my guesses

Thanks Pies, don't you hate it when you discover scratches or other blemishes for the first time when you photograph the coin!

This is exactly why i take hi-res images and post here, so that others may find something i have'nt seenCoin 5 is EF, digs on the OBV, Leaf veins worn, REV left hand thistle has wear along with part of the crown, could be GVF at this rate (sorry) you know how harsh they are

Dave, you're only superficially correct. Remember you're looking at a photograph of a sixpence blown up to the same size as pictures of shillings, florins, and on up to crowns. Sixpences are never fully struck up compared to large silver simply due to the physics of getting a complex engraving that small in the first place. That's not say that CGS won't be harsh - they probably will - but we have to make allowances for pictures of small coins where the tiniest flaw is magnified ten times compared to the same size picture of e.g. a crown.

I say it as i see it Peck. If its got digs and scratches then its not AUNC, if it has wear on the thistle and crown then its EF and less. Do you think CGS just eyeball a coin and give it a grade? I'm sure it will be done with microscopic Instruments that are much more magnified than a camera.

So whats your grade for it Peck?

I'll answer that, but first I want to draw your attention to the differences between the shilling and the sixpence, despite the pictures being the same size:

1. the shilling has more evidence of rubbing in the obverse fields - there's apparently none on the sixpence

2. there are fewer hair strands on the 6d, but they are bolder cut, to compensate for the reduced size

3. the laurel wreath leaves are equally unworn, but the raised ribs on the sixpence are less evident due to the smaller design

4. the rose leaves are less complex on the 6d, but equally unworn

5. the 6d crown is much simpler in design - e.g. 13 pearls each side rather than 16; this also applies to the jewels on the headband, almost a different design

6. the lions top left in the small central shield are equally poor, in fact everything is, except for the thing (?) right in the centre

If you look closely, there are small differences all over the design, caused entirely by having to reduce them to the size of a sixpence. The one glaring thing is the left hand fleur de lys on the top crown, but that on its own is not enough to say "it's wear rather than die or design reduction".

Based on all that, and a VERY close inspection, I would say the two coins are comparable in grade and that this would be most evident in hand, rather than the futile exercise of comparing two pictures that are not even nearly on the same scale.

Here is my example in CGS UNC grade (85), so you can compare ...

[azda]

I never mentioned a grade for the shilling and you still have'nt mentioned a grade for the 6d lol

P.s, the shilling has an edge knock at 12 oclock which will drop it down

Edited April 21, 2014 by azda

[Peckris]

1,unc

2,aunc

3,aunc

4,might not grade due to scratches , but could be otherwise unc

5,aunc

Thats my guesses

Thanks Pies, don't you hate it when you discover scratches or other blemishes for the first time when you photograph the coin!

This is exactly why i take hi-res images and post here, so that others may find something i have'nt seenCoin 5 is EF, digs on the OBV, Leaf veins worn, REV left hand thistle has wear along with part of the crown, could be GVF at this rate (sorry) you know how harsh they are

Dave, you're only superficially correct. Remember you're looking at a photograph of a sixpence blown up to the same size as pictures of shillings, florins, and on up to crowns. Sixpences are never fully struck up compared to large silver simply due to the physics of getting a complex engraving that small in the first place. That's not say that CGS won't be harsh - they probably will - but we have to make allowances for pictures of small coins where the tiniest flaw is magnified ten times compared to the same size picture of e.g. a crown.

I say it as i see it Peck. If its got digs and scratches then its not AUNC, if it has wear on the thistle and crown then its EF and less. Do you think CGS just eyeball a coin and give it a grade? I'm sure it will be done with microscopic Instruments that are much more magnified than a camera.

So whats your grade for it Peck?

I'll answer that, but first I want to draw your attention to the differences between the shilling and the sixpence, despite the pictures being the same size:

1. the shilling has more evidence of rubbing in the obverse fields - there's apparently none on the sixpence

2. there are fewer hair strands on the 6d, but they are bolder cut, to compensate for the reduced size

3. the laurel wreath leaves are equally unworn, but the raised ribs on the sixpence are less evident due to the smaller design

4. the rose leaves are less complex on the 6d, but equally unworn

5. the 6d crown is much simpler in design - e.g. 13 pearls each side rather than 16; this also applies to the jewels on the headband, almost a different design

6. the lions top left in the small central shield are equally poor, in fact everything is, except for the thing (?) right in the centre

If you look closely, there are small differences all over the design, caused entirely by having to reduce them to the size of a sixpence. The one glaring thing is the left hand fleur de lys on the top crown, but that on its own is not enough to say "it's wear rather than die or design reduction".

Based on all that, and a VERY close inspection, I would say the two coins are comparable in grade and that this would be most evident in hand, rather than the futile exercise of comparing two pictures that are not even nearly on the same scale.

Here is my example in CGS UNC grade (85), so you can compare ...

That's a beautiful and well struck up example. However, the two pictures are different sizes, and the toning on yours makes the surfaces less reflective, so it's a little difficult to compare them.

Based on that, and the fact that Paulus's picture is at least 8 times life size, I would say that his sixpence is either from a die that's wearing more than your example, or else has a little wear, but only in one or two isolated spots that aren't the highest of the design. I personally would rate Paulus's sixpence at least EF, probably higher, but CGS will probably see things differently.

[Peckris]

I never mentioned a grade for the shilling and you still have'nt mentioned a grade for the 6d lol

P.s, the shilling has an edge knock at 12 oclock which will drop it down

I did. I said it was "comparable with the shilling". However, you're right about the damage to the shilling - in addition, it has a bad gouge on the truncation, and similar scratching on the cheek to the sixpence.

[azda]

I never mentioned a grade for the shilling and you still have'nt mentioned a grade for the 6d lol

P.s, the shilling has an edge knock at 12 oclock which will drop it down

I did. I said it was "comparable with the shilling". However, you're right about the damage to the shilling - in addition, it has a bad gouge on the truncation, and similar scratching on the cheek to the sixpence.

The earlobe of the sixpence is flat and also the hair to the left of it. I'm sticking with GVF

[Colin88]

I am going to say something a tad contraversial possibly, but it is based on my recent experiences.

Last year I sold my entire 30+ year collection over several months, it was solely a money raising excercise (and yes I did make some good profits...apologies for using the "P" word here as I know it can offend !)..it was a broad selection of mainly UK coins with some quite rare foreign gold too.

I used DNW, London Coins, St James's and Spink....to spread the love....also sold via eBay (a complete waste of time and quite a few non paying buyers or what I call "story, story" buyers...these are eBay buyers who have a story as to why they cant pay straight away or within 2 or 3 days)...plus in retrospect I now know that I would have got more at auction...DNW and London Coins did me proud and the other two were good too....I also sold privately and to a dealer...again, in retrospect should have gone to auction.

What I have to say is that I dont believe that the slabbed coins made any more or any less than they would have done had they been in the raw....if I was selling in the US then it would have been a different story I'm sure but here, I believe that it didnt make much difference, if at all.

[Peckris]

I am going to say something a tad contraversial possibly, but it is based on my recent experiences.

Last year I sold my entire 30+ year collection over several months, it was solely a money raising excercise (and yes I did make some good profits...apologies for using the "P" word here as I know it can offend !)..it was a broad selection of mainly UK coins with some quite rare foreign gold too.

I used DNW, London Coins, St James's and Spink....to spread the love....also sold via eBay (a complete waste of time and quite a few non paying buyers or what I call "story, story" buyers...these are eBay buyers who have a story as to why they cant pay straight away or within 2 or 3 days)...plus in retrospect I now know that I would have got more at auction...DNW and London Coins did me proud and the other two were good too....I also sold privately and to a dealer...again, in retrospect should have gone to auction.

What I have to say is that I dont believe that the slabbed coins made any more or any less than they would have done had they been in the raw....if I was selling in the US then it would have been a different story I'm sure but here, I believe that it didnt make much difference, if at all.

That's very interesting - I'd always thought that my 'probably VF' 1903 halfcrown would make more on eBay than anywhere else, but what you say might force me to change that opinion.

[Paulus]

The results are in