VickySilver

Thanks Gary, hadn't seen that so will look for another specimen maybe. I have a 1953 that has the whole edge overstruck on the edge with garbled legend that looks to be mint done as opposed to post minting damage....

Wow, it rather is nice in appearance I would say to the contrary. Perhaps a photo to follow in the next couple of days....

Darn, somebody was rather pesky on that bit...LOL Gary, how does the edge read on your 1951?

Wow, who had looked at their edges on their 1902 crowns ??? And were the proofs ever effected as that is not in Spink and assume not. I would fight for one if it came for sale....

Although NGC do have a spectoscopy device that CAN measure exact composition of a coin be it Brit, American, Russian or whatever...Wonder if it was run on this coin? BTW, with that device, it would put them rather a leap ahead of CGS...LOL...Just thought I'd ignite the fires here a bit.

The first with a bit of soft strike but I would rate as unc./GEF. The second has way too many scarfs, scratches, etc. and should be values IMO at 50% or less of the first.

Wow, fair only, and authenticity??

Despite occasionally supporting "slabbing", I tend to agree as well. Possibly self-slabbing by putting a coin in a better holder that is removable can at least protect the coin from the hamfisted if not rendering a grade or "guarantee" might be an option. I still think they are a good option for the more valuable later milled bits.

1949 3d - I think the pictures on the Heritage site are fairly good as far as shooting through perspex plastic. What say you?

And of course, what has been hinted at before - what would happen if some of these coins were cracked out and sold to Lockett/LCA/CGS wholesale and were to be slabbed by CGS, and then sold through LCA - would they hold their grade or then somehow (LOL) find their way to an average of a higher grade? I think this distinctly a possibility because of the obvious possibility of conflict of interest, and that is a euphemism most certainly. I think as our own Rob has said, the foibles of slabbing may leave opportunity for the astute collector; know your coins and grade. For the dealer, similar except that it would be with regards to the commercial advantage of buying a coin that is possibly under graded as opposed to what the market may allow.

Funny thing is that I have seen much worse OUTSIDE of holders and that the irony is that holders should help to prevent future such damages. I really must say that at least in my experience a fingerprint on a "red" copper or bronze piece has in fact dinged the grade a point or two on the Sheldon scale...

Ah,yes, the obverse is a bit haggard there. It is harder to tell if the obverse is Maundy but the reverse looks as best I can determin NOT to be and is on that basis impressive. The huge and vast bulk of 1846-48 specimens are Maundies that have been mucked about, some encapsulated.

Wow, count me impressed as the strike does not look like a worn Maundy. Look at areas on the numeral "3" and the border teeth - they look irregular like a currency strike. Do you have an obverse picture? WAG (wild a-- guess) - 75-100 pounds, lean to the later. A Vicky silver person like me might go higher retail....Hint, hint....

I would definitely NOT select ebay as buyers would have to guard themselves in their bidding without being able to see and hold the coin. Possibly (oh, no here we go) without being graded. Difficult to figure an auction price for this as I have seen some imaginative prices that have not found buyers. There likely would be a buyer two here on this forum I would imagine - at the right price. I guess I would admit to being one of them; say, you don't have a spare mint 1845 1/2d hiding anywhere? Not to pirate the thread, and admittedly not the exact same type of coin, but the Baldwin failure to sell the 1953 pattern crown was a bit worrisome.

Definately not Royal Mint IMO, the design crude and not in the style of HP or KG. Lettering rudely done, the bust worse. That would likely have minimal value even to the right buyer. Sorry to rain on the parade....

Bill, will try to contact (poor pun again!) CGS re: the 1935 crown. I think the 1874 2/6 in CGS 78 is a rather nice bit grade wise but not IMO price wise. Not in hand but the rather minimal marks look to be "bagging" marks and less than average. If you look at Morgan dollars, you will see that at least from the pictures, the grade of 64 by PCGS is fairly consistent - thought lustre and strike is rather different between the two series. The "spotting" on this coin is of course not a wear issue and likely could be removed by the aspiring doctor (LOL). These are not technical wear in a coin 139 years of age. The coin has been likely dipped with possibly some loss of lustre. I can not fathom the price of 700 though. So in summary, run with the grade if the price is in line with it on a coin like this - since it is not, run the other way.

I have had rather remarkable problems with NGC on grading of matte proofs, both of the standard 1902 set and the "off year" specimens - they seem incapable of consistent grading. I do think they overall do a rather fine job and doubt you would find a late milled bit graded MS65 or higher that was not a pleasant specimen. I definitely would like to see the AU78 1874 2/6. Post away your pictures of such as I like to compare PCGS with CGS and NGC.

I know it is diverging from the topic, but please do not get carried away by apparent rarity of newly discovered [hyper]varietals of recent vintage as many more are likely to show up.

Perhaps a summertime visit! Less restraints to the pandas...

Hang in there Bill, as you will hopefully forgive us for the "perhaps he doth protest overly?" responses. I think they (CGS) seem alright but feel the jury out. I have not seen many examples save for examining the LCA site as auctions are posted. I do agree that many on the site appear overgraded. Also, I went to the NYINC about 3 years ago and looked at their display - where coins were for sale - and had to decline on the 1875 farthing on sale as there was the unfortunate "H" also on the coin that had not been mentioned. For sale? I just think the appearance was not so good, not to mention the misattribution of a featured coin. Slab number on the 1935 crown is: 5854 - CR.G5.1935.03 I might add that in addition to overgraded the coin appears dipped with the less than fortunate verdigris. I can assure you I have no interest in opening a slab and damaging a coin and replacing it.

Hmmm, might not go over well with "the troops", this site might change over from coins...LOL

wow, the sp. gr. is very close as I recall. If you do that bit with weighing the displaced water & all as I remember...

But the proof incuse 0.500 has the same characteristics as the 0.925 incuse?

Oh lazy me: don't have mine available - 530? Not the 1922 bit?

Bill, I have presented the above example of a "Rocking Horse Crown" that clearly looks to be overgraded by numerous points and has obviously developed a worrisome verdigris spot WITHIN the slab. So that is two severe strikes in my book against them. Another issue I do not think worked out to the satisfaction of many of us is the seemingly too intimate relationship with London Coins - I can not see how this is an issue that they sell coins at commission at auction that have been graded at their site, and that this is an ethical compromise at best. I agree with many of your other points, though have no experience submitting coins through them so can not speak as to Customer Relations, charges, rapidity of service, etc.