Rob

I've just taken it to be an April fool's joke as the link goes to the metro news site with no obvious sign of anything coin related.

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.

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.

Eadgar 2 line, NE variant. N 741, moneyer is CAWELIN/CAPELIN depending on whether the Saxon P for W applied in the north-east

Couldnt agree more....if this is an attempt by CGS to sway my opinion on slabbing/grading, it hasnt worked. I would add however that the idea of cgs just grading between 0 and 100 is a good move, for those into such things as wanting the highest in the scale, it will satisfy them. But.....they shot down this fantastic earth shattering change to their system with the inclusion of that table. i wonder Peck how serious they will take your reply.....it would be great to think there may be an alternative route to slabbing.....BUT......i still like to grade my own coins and more importantly ...those i wish to purchase. i get it wrong sometimes, i get it right sometimes, but in both ways i buy what i like not what a number says. And that i wonder is how slabbing/grading companies can ever satisfy those who like to grade our own purchases. Or make our own minds up about what we should be liking or disliking, and not just a grade number to aspire to.

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.

You can miss the k out and claim ignorance, but to miss the n and leave the k makes you a look a bit arborial.

No. It was worth 48d (4 shillings). A florin was a tenth of a pound (24d) or two shillings. Bring forth the abacus and you can deduce that a double florin was 48d or 4/-.

Nor do a lot of people. It is much to do with bragging rights - my average score is better than yours, nah nah nah nah nah etc. I would like to brag that I own one slabbed CGS coin - an 1826 proof shilling graded unc 88 which I left in the slab as it was going into the bank and the box had space left. I also have an eclectic mix of a dozen formerly slabbed coins from AU78 to UNC 90. Or as we must now say UNC78 - UNC90. It's always good to upgrade.

You will need a copy of Derek Allen's Grading Guide, Freeman - bronze, Davies - silver and Dave Groom's silver and bronze books to act as references. Stick your nose into them and learn the identifiers thoroughly and you are set up to collect.

Bad call. With the scrap man paying £4/kg for copper and at roughly 100 pennies to the kg, that's 4p value in scrap. Buying 4p's for 2p's is a no-brainer. Even with the exact figures it works.

A longevity pill so that I am still around when the pieces I would dearly like to acquire resurface. Some pieces could be off the market for a century or more which is longer than I have time to wait.

Oh dear, that table didn't come out too well did it. Try again !!! 100 FDC MS70 99 FDC MS70 98 FDC MS70 97 FDC MS70 96 FDC MS69 95 FDC MS68 - 69 94 AFDC MS68 93 AFDC MS67 - 68 92 AFDC MS67 91 AFDC MS66 - 67 90 NFDC MS66 88 BU - NFDC MS65 - 66 85 Choice UNC - BU MS65 82 Choice UNC MS64 - 65 80 UNC MS63 - 64 78 UNC MS63 - 64 75 UNC or near so MS62 - 63 70 AU MS60 - 61 65 GEF MS60 - 61 60 EF AU58 - MS60 55 NEF AU55 50 GVF AU55 45 GVF AU53 40 VF AU50 35 NVF EF45 30 GF EF40 25 GF F35 20 F F30 15 NF 10 VG 8 VG 5 Good 4 Fair 3 2 1 Sorry, still a bit wonky, but at least readable, just !!! I think the comparison is too heavily tilted in favor of the UK 100 scale, especially in the lower grades. Without going through the whole list, I think the following is a better comparison of grades. UK Fine20 = US F12 GF30 = VF20 EF60 = AU50 At the grade of "Fine" both scales are very close to the same (I think). The biggest variances, are above that grade. IMHO! Ha,Ha. This is going to make a for some interesting conversation. LOL! This still means they have changed their own grading system. A 75 or 78 started out life as EF, then migrated to aUNC because punters like to see references to the word uncirculated in their collections, and now we find the same grades are given as UNC. This is giving collectors rose-tinted spectacles. If sub-80 wasn't uncirculated before, it isn't now. However, if it is a case of keeping the customer satisfied because they think the grading system is too harsh, then clearly the numbers are fairly meaningless when tied to a 'traditional' grade as they can't be translated over time wherever you look on the scales. i.e. is today's unc, also yesterday's unc or not? This has done nothing to enhance the credibility which was somewhat diminished when they changed the labeling to reflect the customer's preference for using aUNC. If you set any standards in stone, the most important thing is to do nothing under external pressure. That is why they are called standards - things you can use for a reference point. I guess it just means that another variable has crept into the mix which we need to consider when assessing what a coin's grade is. It certainly means less reliance on the label is in order. 60 on both scales seems about right. MS60 is absolutely not mint state and yet again is an instance of pandering to customers' vanity. You will rarely see an MS60 better than EF, though owners of MS60 coins (particularly in the US) will proudly tout them as mint state. And as for AU50 whatever, carry on down the grading scale. Most AU grades are gVF or a bit better, though neither VF or EF are unknown. So it's a clear case of as you were chaps. Buy the coin, not the opinion/TPG/attribution/whatever else marketing tool is used.

I doubt anyone would bid with only one side pictured. Caveat emptor, you never know what the other side looks like - could be a bit of a dog and is probably worse than the reverse.

Yep. There's grade inflation for you over time. They used to give a 78 aunc, and before that EF. A grade is as you say in the eye of the beholder and as consistent as a politician's word. But at least it's consistently inconsistent. Every cloud..........

The feed is screwed up most of the time. Not only people on this forum, but others too. Here's an email sent to me shortly after the sale finished. Hello Rob Thought I would have a look at Scottish James V groats (653/654). The software stalled. Then I thought I would maybe have a bid on the Anne 1702, plumes and VIGO shillings (863/4). Guess what, stalled again. As far as I'm concerned I would never trust Spink Live Bidding if there was anything I really wanted. They're getting worse by the minute. Did you have any luck bidding on anything? Best wishes So you see. There are no plus points but a lot of negs. There wasn't a huge amount of material for me in the sale, but it would have been nice to actually manage to bid on the pieces I was interested in.

You didn't miss anything, trust me. You had a day well spent, whatever you were doing.

They could do better if they would buy in the mounds of large flan 5ps and 10ps, and 1947-67 'silver' as the extra weight means way more value in scrap vs face and more importantly a huge supply with nowhere to go - not collectable and mostly sitting in boxes/bags. Surely the RM as a government offshoot can see that this should be a no-brainer given the alloy has already been made. Or am I missing something? Sorry Rob, you are confusing common sense with policy/decision making...fatal!!! Thanks for clarifying the query John. Silly me. Just think how many Churchill crowns could be lost in this way. :) :) :)

They could do better if they would buy in the mounds of large flan 5ps and 10ps, and 1947-67 'silver' as the extra weight means way more value in scrap vs face and more importantly a huge supply with nowhere to go - not collectable and mostly sitting in boxes/bags. Surely the RM as a government offshoot can see that this should be a no-brainer given the alloy has already been made. Or am I missing something?

And yet yesterday I arrived home to find a glossy copy of Spink Insider magazine(?) on my door mat. Seems like maybe they are spending money on the wrong things ...? You were lucky. Besides the Insider, I also now receive banknote catalogues for some reason but not the stamp ones I used to get. Thankfully the coin catalogues are still coming through.

Like Colin G I had walked away by this point. Despite my best efforts to spend some money, it was not to be, so I engaged in an income producing activity.

What a 'pleasing' elephant - 1666 too - I must get me one of those one day, and a CII plumes of course, bit rich for me at the moment - £2,100 as I expect you know I knew what it was currently at because the sound was ok. The problem was the bid button didn't refresh or allow any action which was worse than useless. I wonder if it froze because I hit the bid button immediately the lot came up. Whatever, it was unusable. It was a decent coin too.

Nor me! I don't have an ever increasing bag of unidentified washers either. Unfortunately I have a bag of unidentified washers and another of identified washers. Thankfully the pile gets large enough to weigh in eventually.

I don't have one.

Bought in bulk from Austria: http://myworld.ebay.co.uk/oldtimermonger/ What? Like found in my letter box?