Prax Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Did you find anything you fancy. For me just the F6 and perhaps the 1876 H wide dates.Good luck all. Quote
Nick Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 There are another couple of fake 1818 halfcrowns up for auction, if anyone is interested (Lots 1990 and 1991). They exhibit the same nicks and dents etc as previously noted (see LCA Auction 02/03/2014, lots 1652 and 1653). Quote
Paulus Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 (edited) There are another couple of fake 1818 halfcrowns up for auction, if anyone is interested (Lots 1990 and 1991). They exhibit the same nicks and dents etc as previously noted (see LCA Auction 02/03/2014, lots 1652 and 1653).Not again, they really need to get their act together! Most of these have an incorrect die axis, so should be easy to spot! Edited February 5, 2015 by Paulus Quote
jacinbox Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 There are another couple of fake 1818 halfcrowns up for auction, if anyone is interested (Lots 1990 and 1991). They exhibit the same nicks and dents etc as previously noted (see LCA Auction 02/03/2014, lots 1652 and 1653).Not again, they really need to get their act together! Most of these have an incorrect die axis, so should be easy to spot!More of the same I guess. Their catalog has so many certified coins that don't conform to their grading guidelines (ummmm I wonder what's happening there)http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?searchlot=1679&searchtype=2&page=Catalogue - PCGS 63 - CGS 82http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?searchlot=1771&searchtype=2&page=Catalogue - NGC 63 - CGS 80http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?searchlot=1729&searchtype=2&page=Catalogue - NGC 65 - CGS 85http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?searchlot=2184&searchtype=2&page=Catalogue - PCGS 64 - CGS 82abc coin was graded MS 63 and was regraded by CGS as 82 --- Quote
jacinbox Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 CGS Numerical Grade Average Raw UK Grade Average Standard USA Sheldon 100 FDC MS70 99 FDC MS70 98 FDC MS70 97 FDC MS70 96 FDC M69 95 FDC MS 68 -69 94 AFDC MS68 93 AFDC MS 67 -68 92 AFDC MS67 91 AFDC MS66 -67 90 NFDC MS 66 88 BU -NFDC MS65 -66 85 Choice UNC - BU MS 65 82 Choice UNC MS 64 -65 80 Choice UNC MS 64 78 UNC MS 63 -64 75 UNC or near so MS 62 - 63 70 AU MS60 -61 65 GEF MS60 -61 60 EF AU58 - MS60 55 NEF AU55 50 GVF AU55 45 GVF AU 53 40 VF AU 50 35 NVF EF 45 30 GF EF 40 25 GF F35 20 F F30 15 NF 10 VG 8 VG 5 GOOD 4 FAIR 3 FAIR 2 FAIR 1 FAIR Best of them all is the 1868 penny which even according to them is nearly UNC but gets a CGS 80. KUDOS!!!!!!!!!! Quote
azda Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 They are far from consistent in their grading standards. I quite liked the attached coin in their sale, described as: 1839 No W.W. Plain edge Proof, Reverse upright, ESC 1284 nFDC with hints of green and gold toningFailed to mention the edge knock at 11 oclock though Quote
Nick Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 They are far from consistent in their grading standards. ... and this is UNC apparently. http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?searchlot=1995&searchtype=2&page=Catalogue Quote
azda Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 They are far from consistent in their grading standards.... and this is UNC apparently. http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?searchlot=1995&searchtype=2&page=CatalogueLooks like they have some new graders at CGS, from the blind school. Quote
jacinbox Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 They are far from consistent in their grading standards. I quite liked the attached coin in their sale, described as:1839 No W.W. Plain edge Proof, Reverse upright, ESC 1284 nFDC with hints of green and gold toningFailed to mention the edge knock at 11 oclock thoughit was an oversight. you do recognise that don't you Quote
jacinbox Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) They are far from consistent in their grading standards.... and this is UNC apparently. http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?searchlot=1995&searchtype=2&page=CatalogueAt least it did not get a CGS 95, which it may if sent for grading based on who sent it Edited February 6, 2015 by jacinbox Quote
pokal02 Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 Some strange undergrading as well as overgrading. See the two 1666 crowns, I'd agree VG for the second but 'VG, rev slightly better' for the first? Some dealers would grade it VF!! I'd say Fine or perhaps 'about Fine'. (How can the 2 obverses possibly be considered identical?) Quote
VickySilver Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 I agree with jacin that the submitter is all-important if they have the money, influence or connection based on their own graded coins coming up for sale. I think PCGS may do likewise on occasion as well; NGC not sure, but see that they don't seem to be able to identify even milled patterns and proofs. And sadly, we have but the pictures to go by that are occasionally misleading.That having been said, I did see a couple of coins of marginal interest if no have-to-haves... Quote
Nick Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 Some strange undergrading as well as overgrading. See the two 1666 crowns, I'd agree VG for the second but 'VG, rev slightly better' for the first? Some dealers would grade it VF!! I'd say Fine or perhaps 'about Fine'. (How can the 2 obverses possibly be considered identical?) Are you not confusing the 1666 description with the 1664 picture? The VG 1666 crown obverses don't look far apart in grade to me. Quote
pokal02 Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 Lot 1627 is the under-graded one, lot 1629 is the one that looks about right? Quote
Coppers Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 In their prior auctions, didn't the the "single English coins" section only contain unencapsuated (non-CGS) coins? Looks like this time it now includes both those which are encapsulated and those which are not. Quote
Nick Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) Lot 1627 is the under-graded one, lot 1629 is the one that looks about right? Those are the two I was looking at, but neither obverse is better than fair to my mind. However, I only usually look at later milled coinage and have no knowledge of earlier series. Edited February 6, 2015 by Nick Quote
jaggy Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 Lot 2369 looks like it might have been dipped. What do the rest of you think?http://www.londoncoins.co.uk/?searchlot=2369&searchtype=2&page=Catalogue Quote
Colin88 Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 They are far from consistent in their grading standards. I quite liked the attached coin in their sale, described as:1839 No W.W. Plain edge Proof, Reverse upright, ESC 1284 nFDC with hints of green and gold toningFailed to mention the edge knock at 11 oclock thoughThat is worrying though ...that no mention is made of this very obvious edge knock....they cant have missed it... Quote
azda Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 I don't think they could have either Colin, must belong to someone they know. Standards are dropping Quote
Coinery Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 I think there's a tendency to think that you devalue the coin by being brutally honest? However, the types of collectors that buy at this level are hardly going to miss such a significant problem...why don't they just say it as it is! Quote
azda Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 I think there's a tendency to think that you devalue the coin by being brutally honest? However, the types of collectors that buy at this level are hardly going to miss such a significant problem...why don't they just say it as it is!Exactly Stewie Quote
Peter Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 Once it is a slab you won't see it.I've witnessed this before.Trust and integrity is missing in my opinion. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.