Rob

I'm more concerned about his wasted 50 years. If after all that time he calls the penny EF, he might not quite be on the ball.

We both know there are good and bad TPGs just as we know there are good and bad graders amongst individuals. As said before, this is always going to be a subjective matter. The standards used by NGC and PCGS differ wildly from the guy who trades as centisles(?) for example. You can't stop the latter, because we live in a world where his opinion is his right, and his right to carry on a legitimate business within the law is undeniable. All that matters is that he is consistent. Even the individual TPGs have variable standards for the same type within their own setup, otherwise you would never be able to resubmit until the grade you wanted was obtained. And what about the slabbed dodgy ones? I know of quite a few doctored coins in slabs, or even the odd fake or two. Would I sell my collection slabbed by a US TPG? Probably not. Ancient coinage has vitually all come out of the ground. Therefore cleaned and by default 'xx details, cleaned' if the rules are consistently applied. Most of the time their hammered grading is best avoided and the vagaries of hammered coins don't lend themselves to a consistent numbering system. It boils down to whether I believe the results would be beneficial. That's a definite maybe, maybe not. Given I threw out a coin last year because of the wear which was promptly graded MS66 by NGC , yet Steve has just bought a wonderfully undergraded PF62 penny leads me to think it would be a mixed bag, even for the milled.

My concern is that the focus might (or probably has in some quarters) shift from the coin to the grade. So instead of people looking for a nicer coin, they seek a higher number.This to me is the inherent problem with all TPGS. Whether one is better or not is to me, a moot point. Protection of coins, conservation, authentication? I have no problems with any of those.But fuelling the 'number chasing' craze? They are all bad in that respect to my eyes and as Rob alludes, people need to learn to make up their own minds about a coin, instead of relying on someone else. IMHO..I totally agree that chasing the number is a problem. everyone should learn to grade and judge each coin on it's own merits. I also agree that registry sets tend to attract buyers of the number and not the coin. My argument is for those who are unsure of their grading skills and enjoy the hobby by collecting already graded coins - a universal grading system would be beneficial - as long as consistency in grading applies. I understand where you are coming from, but question the premise that there are many genuine collectors who are that unsure about their grading skills, yet are happy to spend hundred or even thousands on something they know nothing about. The idea that you can rely on an uncalibrated grader to accurately grade across both time and relative to their peers is a non-starter, so the ball is firmly in the court of the collector in my opinion. Why would anyone refuse to spend a tenner on a book which would clarify how to grade, yet spend many multiples on a coin. Frankly, I don't think it is too much to ask the uninitiated to become just slightly initiated. The genuine 'collector' who doesn't care or want to grade is an investor. Different rules apply at this point.Would you walk into a shop and buy a suit simply because it said 38 chest, 34 leg etc without trying it on? I think not. You would see if it was right for you. A few rudimentary ground rules for collectors is therefore not asking too much. Ah, now we move into a different - but closely related topic. What is a collector? Is he purely in it for the pursuit of completing or advancing his collection? Or is he in it not only to advance his collecting interests - but to benefit financially? Isn't every collector actually part collector and part investor? I think the latter applies by default rather than design. Historically, coins have generally drifted upwards in value with a few peaks and troughs. In pure physical numbers, almost any long term collector will make money without any correction for inflation. I just have a problem accepting there might be collectors who are completely ignorant of grading, yet are willing to spend 3,4,5.. figure sums on something they purport to know nothing about. If any such animal exists it should be an endangered species. The casual purchaser is likely to be someone who has bought a coin because it was struck in their home town for example, and they like it for that without being interested in the wider subject of numismatics. Anyone who looks at a number of coins in their pocket cannot fail to notice the differences in condition. Anyone who collects coins will invariably have a reference book which will refer to coin grading, usually with a handful of images. Whether it is current or out of date is not important as grading is not time dependent. There are complete books on the subject such as Derek's. The info is not proprietary and any failure to investigate is not the fault of the market, but the individual. I don't believe that people buy coins but don't even look at them. So it all boils down to whether the individual understands what they are buying. If they have no concept of grading, any system will be meaningless. If they have a rudimentary knowledge of grades, consistency by the TPGs would be paramount, but not entirely reliant on a single unified scale in universal use. The info that MS70 is 'perfect' just has to be set alongside the alternative scale, as is found in any table showing comparative non-numerical grades in different languages. As said before, the big impediment is the inconsistency of the TPGs, who despite having a set of rules, fail to grade consistently. This is a more intractable problem than the individual who can't grade because if the main players are inconsistent, why shouldn't anyone else use their own interpretation of the Sheldon or any other system. Anything becomes acceptable. In the absence of a reliable grading system, it has to be incumbent on the collector to look after their own interests.

My concern is that the focus might (or probably has in some quarters) shift from the coin to the grade. So instead of people looking for a nicer coin, they seek a higher number.This to me is the inherent problem with all TPGS. Whether one is better or not is to me, a moot point. Protection of coins, conservation, authentication? I have no problems with any of those.But fuelling the 'number chasing' craze? They are all bad in that respect to my eyes and as Rob alludes, people need to learn to make up their own minds about a coin, instead of relying on someone else. IMHO..I totally agree that chasing the number is a problem. everyone should learn to grade and judge each coin on it's own merits. I also agree that registry sets tend to attract buyers of the number and not the coin. My argument is for those who are unsure of their grading skills and enjoy the hobby by collecting already graded coins - a universal grading system would be beneficial - as long as consistency in grading applies. I understand where you are coming from, but question the premise that there are many genuine collectors who are that unsure about their grading skills, yet are happy to spend hundred or even thousands on something they know nothing about. The idea that you can rely on an uncalibrated grader to accurately grade across both time and relative to their peers is a non-starter, so the ball is firmly in the court of the collector in my opinion. Why would anyone refuse to spend a tenner on a book which would clarify how to grade, yet spend many multiples on a coin. Frankly, I don't think it is too much to ask the uninitiated to become just slightly initiated. The genuine 'collector' who doesn't care or want to grade is an investor. Different rules apply at this point. Would you walk into a shop and buy a suit simply because it said 38 chest, 34 leg etc without trying it on? I think not. You would see if it was right for you. A few rudimentary ground rules for collectors is therefore not asking too much.

My concern is that the focus might (or probably has in some quarters) shift from the coin to the grade. So instead of people looking for a nicer coin, they seek a higher number. This to me is the inherent problem with all TPGS. Whether one is better or not is to me, a moot point. They are still all bad in my eyes and as Rob alludes, people need to learn to make up their own minds about a coin instead of relying on someone else. IMHO. No probably about it. You often see people on a US forum waxing lyrical because of the number applied, with the compliment applied for the grade assigned rather than the coin. Registry sets are to blame. People leave coins alone if their average slab score is in danger of being reduced. Weird eh? They collect slabs with the right number, which can mean that certain coins must be excluded on the grounds of grades available and it also effectively eliminates any possibility of assembling a collection for researching a series because they are stuck in plastic. e.g. I'm not sure what they would do if they wanted to get the best run of say Charles II halfcrowns given the best 1667/4 is only about a UK Fine or so.

D&H 7 and Atkins 7, but not a clue about its value or rarity.

Same here, though I do receive the coin ones too. I did suggest that I get taken off the banknote list, but the feeling was that this could backfire and I could receive nothing at all.

A common grading scale is irrelevant if whatever is used is consistently applied. The failure to implement the latter is the reason for the scepticismAgree - consistency is the key, but a common scale is also needed for ease of the collector. Not convinced. Do collectors really need to have their hands held to the nthdegree? Somewhere along the line it is reasonable to expect people to utilise the mushy mess found between their earholes. I would view making a ready comparison between two scales to be no different to looking at a coin and assessing the grade by the viewer's standards. Again, it doesn't ,matter what he/she calls it. Their EF can be someone else's UNC and a third person's VF. If someone can't remember less than a dozen numbers for comparison, it doesn't say much about the interest they take in their hobby, particularly if helped by the addition of a traditional grade to the number. People just need to apply a bit of intelligence instead of blindly relying on everyone else. It doesn't matter as long as any grading is consistent for each party and all expect to pay roughly the same amount. A greater problem is that people see what they want to see, call it want they want to have and as a consequence believe that the price paid validates their grading. Many inexperienced collectors overgrade for this reason - and pay through the nose for their ways. Many a Fine coin is presented as EF, and with the recent memory of a noble in Baldwins last year, a TPG AU can also be a good Fine.

I got stung with this not too long ago when I bought some books off a US seller. He had opted for the 'simplified' eBay shipping option in good faith. I looked at it and thought the shipping was x and the duty component y. Knowing there was no duty or VAT on books I duly accepted the shipping method he wanted to use. Silly me. The additional cost is applied whether duty is applicable or not to 'offset the costs of the facilitating company'. Avoid at all costs, or best ask if the seller will ship without using eBay's services. Not funny. £85 of books translated to over £125 all in, or at least £15 OTT.

A common grading scale is irrelevant if whatever is used is consistently applied. The failure to implement the latter is the reason for the scepticism

Slightly high, but by the time you have accounted for ebay's take it is not too much over. Even with the fuzzy pictures it is clearly around the VF mark (which is the same as a US XF45). Spink book for VF is 350 or thereabouts, so not that optimistic. He does say genuine offers considered too. A better than VF C2 halfpenny is worth the money. The relief on these is not great. See my 1675/3/2 in the unlisted variety section for how low it is. That was slabbed MS65. I would say good EF The 1675/3 listed in the CC list for Sept. 2005 (1052) was also mine and previously slabbed PCGS MS 64, but again was only an EF. I have to confess to playing havoc with the TPG populations of these things. Apologies to all our US friends.

As I've said before, the TPGs live in parallel universes. All have finest known allocated to their slabs without any reference or even vaguely mentioning that there might be others slabbed in a higher grade. They are only pushing their own product, and as such should be viewed like any other product/service which has merits or otherwise. eg. German cars are reliable, British ones not, and Fiats just fall apart - leaving aside the Lada which never required the theft part of TPT insurance. It's horses for courses. The simple answer as ever is to buy the coin using your eyes and not the opinion of someone who is driven by £s or $s.

CGS do the best job of grading British coins. If I had to choose between PCGS and NGC, it would have to be PCGS. Snap.

Neither cannot be an answer because there are more than 2 TPGs. CGS do a better job than the US companies for British, just as you would expect the American ones to be better at their own. All make some fairly fundamental mistakes. NGC have produced a greater number of inconsistencies than PCGS, but have also slabbed a larger number of coins. I would still go PCGS in preference to NGC if that is the question you are asking. They could all do themselves a favour if they graded on the coin in question rather than pandering to celebrity status and being lenient when it comes to a hyped up collection. (That's consistency in grading for those who can't follow the above).

I'm not prepared to play ball at current levels. I bid on the one cent pattern in the Spink sale at estimate + 10% and was beaten by $400 on the hammer price. Had I won it would have been just under £1700 delivered including extras which I considered a bit OTT, as last year I picked up the 1857 2 cents for £1K less despite the identical slab grade (and that went unsold in London Coins). The Heritage marketing machine has much to do with this increase IMO. Not everything is priced by Heritage, or for that matter Spink. I believe that there may well be a correction in the near future because the curve is ever steepening and that is unsustainable because it is divorced from both inflation and money supply. Prices are being driven by egos. The early 80s saw a drop of around 30-40% in prices when the recession hit. A similar drop in values would not go amiss.

You have the advantage that they are still legal tender. Things from the Channel Islands, Falklands, Gib etc are occasionally found, but differ only in design from the regular coins. Our old coins in circulation are all demonetised, not to mention the numerous foreign examples that have been passed off as British which never should have entered the system anyway. They can and do come from anywhere.

It's a difficult thing to say what the demand is for anything esoteric. An off metal strike will appeal to many denomination collectors as would a coin struck on the wrong flan (an so possibly off-metal) for an error collector. My collection is built around diversity, so any off-metal strike is potentially collectable if only to avoid repetition. eg. if I needed to tick a box with an example of a unique 50p and also needed an example designed by someone that only appeared on that 50p, then an off metal strike would enable me to avoid two different examples of nominally the same design. If you collect Soho mint pieces, then there are many examples struck in different metals. Similarly with the Taylor restrikes. Ticking the 'Double Florin' box enables me to acquire the gold 1868 piece as the example, leaving the currency piece as a type example. There are many reasons why one might want want to include the oddballs if your collection isn't restricted to currency only.

You certainly get recurring garbage from the Indian subcontinent. The nonsense below appeared two days ago: Good Morning Sir, This is mail, informing you regarding "Rice Pulling Coin"This coin contain Copper Iridium. It is useful mostly in satellites ,and nuclear fussion.100% Genuine, (no fake) found in tribes of Odissa State.I have attached some videos, Have a look. Its is good deal. Cost of coin in Crores and profit also in Crores.Are you interested. Looking for genuine buyer. Test method are1. Coin to Rice 3 inches with in 3 min.2. Colour:- Brown Dust Clour.3. Rice to Rice 1.5inches or less than.4. Torch Bulb get fused, near to coin.5. A candle flame bends towards this coin6. Second Hand stop of Wrist hand watch, kept near of Coin. Any Enquiry, Feel free to call. Awaiting for positive feed back. RegardsPrasanta+91 7569693286 I have not looked at or appended the video so haven't a clue what it is about, but have left his contact details so that any bot can record them for posterity. Moderators please take note.

I had to get one example of the design, because it is the only one done by Bernard Sindall to date. I ended up with a half sovereign because that was the first example I saw, but any denomination would have done. It ticks a few different boxes for people, not least is that it is different.

But it's overgraded, unless GF means generally flat.

The P1087 was way overpriced. Keep your eyes open for the Selig/Adams coin.

My wife switches the TV off when Eastenders comes on. She's wonderful and has a healthy selective taste in programs. My youngest daughter delights in watching lowest common denominator TV just to spite me. She regularly watches these stupid TV celebrity singing competitions and the like. I retire to my coins, but on the plus side, there is sufficient crap broadcast that I can devote many hours to them.

That's quick off the mark. Happy birthdays to all.

Bugger. Only two lots I was interested in tonight were 30667 and 30670. Missed 'em because I was discussing something with the wife. First one I've never seen an example before, nor do I know of any other than the Peck example now in Birmingham Museum. The second was obviously too cheap and the low grade assigned made it a no-brainer. Well done anyway. It's gone to a good home.