Peckris

The grading sounds courtesy of CC too - I wouldn't rate it higher than EF maximum myself It's what known as a "rarity default enhancement", or "sellers privilege" Peck........ ......and yes, I've just made up those BS phrases !!! Just as a matter of interest, how would you grade this one:- That again I would grade EF, though it's a much clearer picture than CC's.

As someone established in a recent thread, 'cabinet friction' is a myth traditionally perpetuated by some dealers to account for very slight wear on a supposedly UNC coin. Some of us who own cabinets and love our coins have never seen this effect even after many years. Most antiques are neither unique nor entombed. Actually, I was only responding to the Coin News article (above) that said how slabbing would protect a coin and its value for years to come. As Dave said, people have collected coins for centuries without slabbing, and there has always been provenance - just ask Rob. Yes, but neither an artwork nor an antique is housed in a plastic slab, which was my point. Unless you're Damien Hurst, of course!

This was my favourite : "Mint State Also Uncirculated. A coin in the condition in which it left the mint. Never circulated. IN THE BEGINNING there was the word Uncirculated, and it was good. Then, over time, God created adjectives to modify His word. At first he proposed but two: Choice and Gem. Apostles, like Q. David Bowers, hoped to affix a third: Select. However, Select failed to adhere. Then, when God's adjectives proved inadequate, a numbering system was devised. This numbering system the Apostles borrowed from the Order of Large Cent monks. Up to 1976, Mint State numbers for Large Cents included 60, 65, and 70, with 70 meaning full mint red. These numbers were pressed into service on other coin types, then modified and augmented over time. Mint State was called 60; Choice, 65; and Gem became 70. Later, 70 transmuted into Superb Gem (a glorious new adjective). Finally, the ultimate grade of 70 evolved to mean God's Own Perfection. Intermediate numbers therein followed: 63 arose earliest, in the later-1970s; a few years on followed 64 (when 65 proved too weak to distinguish the fine quality shifts in a Mint State coin). Eventually, all eleven integers found their way into the numismatic liturgy: Mint State 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, and (now rarely seen) 70. IT CAME TO PASS that other disciples hit upon the idea of adding a small 'PQ' to the number to signify Premium Quality. Still others bethought they could see thine selves reflected in the field of certain Morgan silver dollars. With this, prooflike was born. Eventually, those wanting separation from the rabble of everyday prooflike collectors enlarged the term to include 'deep mirror' prooflike as well. And so, from its lowly beginnings as a single usage, the grade Mint State--in the case of silver dollars at any rate--has come to include one of sixty-six possible permutations. Is that, or is that not, progress?"

Yes, but neither an artwork nor an antique is housed in a plastic slab, which was my point.

The grading sounds courtesy of CC too - I wouldn't rate it higher than EF maximum myself

As someone who remembers the CloudCuckooLand absurdities of the late 60s (in hindsight), then the answer is patently NO, not necessarily. Damn right, Dave. And do we see art buyers demanding a picture be authenticated and sold in a plastic tomb? No, we do not. Antiques buyers? Nope. Stamp collectors? Nope. It seems only coin collectors cannot be 'trusted' to do their own research, and hence are 'sold' the notion of slabbing. Even the idea that 'slabs give confidence' is a piece of hype that on closer scrutiny (i.e. comparison with just about any other sphere of collecting), simply doesn't hold water.

Maybe I'm showing my age (shaddap Dave ) but what's Casdon Soccer? Sort of like Subbuteo?

NOW they show. What the f.......?

To give you some idea of what a high grade (and therefore valuable) 1864 penny looks like (courtesy of Google Images) : This is weird - both attachments are there when I "Edit" the post, but they don't show when I "Save Changes". What's going wrong?

Richard the brutal terroriser of French towns, never in his own kingdom, "lionised" by later generations, and a right bastard by all accounts

I'm sure Mrs Peter would have something to say about that At the risk of sounding stupid how does a coin end up with a reverse which wasnt used for another five years Not stupid at all. We had a long thread a year or so ago where we discussed this very thing. There was no firm conclusion reached, but the mystery is how there are both extremely rare 1922 and possibly unique 1926 ME pennies with that reverse. There was a new reverse introduced with the 1925ME halfpenny, and they also experimented with a modified reverse on 1925 sixpences. So the big question is not WHY, but WHEN. The main 'why' is - if that reverse was being experimented with as early as 1922 - that it didn't get put into general use until 1927. However, bear in mind that no pennies were minted in 1923,24,25, and there was only an interim low mintage in 1926. It's quite possible that with all the work being done to get the 1927 issues ready, the penny reverse was made low priority. Halfpennies were a higher priority with continuous demand, hence the 1925 reverse, and farthings weren't affected. So I'm guessing they experimented with pennies over a long low-demand period.

Oh wow, oh wow, oh WOW Mind you, have you tested it for gold - I believe there's a gold one out there somewhere?

Me too. That well and truly trumps my ABU 1951 brass 3d and GEF 1888 sixpence in a 20p box at the Midlands Fair.

It would be very very very difficult to choose just one. But the GEF (AUNC?) 1797 twopence would make a strong case for itself as it's probably my favourite design.

The 1945 halfcrown is UNC (no visible wear) but possibly not the strongest strike I've seen. It's also a bit 'spotty'. Bear in mind that these are quite common in BU condition, and not expensive as such, so well worth looking for. The 1925 florin is About Fair, and although a scarce date, is worth only scrap silver in that grade. My thoughts FWIW.

Obverse looks cleaned, but also looks to have the remnants of another numeral under the second one in the date (1 over 8 ?). Now that I know it's a 6d, I would suggest it's better than EF - in fact, there is barely any sign of wear. The lack of detail is simply caused by trying to get too much design onto a small die, and is a common feature of the sixpence. I at first thought the 'overdate' was just a toning spot, so I zoomed the screen and there definitely seems to be something there. It does look like a 9, though that's open to debate. Have you also noticed the right hand side of the second 8? It looks rather different from the left hand side.

Farthings have a big fan club here, sixpences (for no good reason I can see) don't. But both series offer amazing value for money, providing you have either good eyesight or a good magnifier. Next up, you have the similarly sized halfpennies and shillings. The former are less popular than the latter, though I'm talking post-1860 - earlier, they are both equally collectable. The largest denominations - crowns, halfcrowns and pennies, have always been very popular and certainly won't come cheap. Or, as someone else said, you could try a single monarch. Elizabeth II and George VI are both easy series, particularly if you start as a type collector not a date run obsessive George V is also a good starting point (a fascinating reign) but prices for the higher grades are getting eye watering. However, 1936 for the final series, or 1915/1916/1918 for the earlier, you can still get bargains. The most difficult period is the 'middle' one, 1920-1926, in all denominations. Edward VII is hard in high grade though 1902 is affordable. Earlier, Victorian Jubilee Head is very easy especially 1887, and Old Head is fairly easy especially 1901. But to echo what's been said - always get the best quality you can afford. Better, in my opinion, to buy one coin in EF than 20 in Fine for the same money.

Totally agree! It's impossible to not just read VF, the psychology of it is just too much...especially so if you've sent the raw coin off! It would make good business sense for CGS to make this change (maybe one for you to feed back, Bill?)! My point being, would Paulus use CGS again? Would I? CGS won't have compromised their tough standards in adopting the above suggestion! I don't know why they bother with the grade prefixes at all. Why not just stick with the percentages as a measure. Then those who think that a 70 is an EF and those who think it is an AU can both be happy. That's another excellent idea. Isn't that what the Sheldon scale does?

It's very difficult to judge these coins independently as the pictures are all different size and quality, and we don't know the denomination in all cases (i.e. what would be marked down as wear on a shilling, would not be on a sixpence, as you wouldn't expect as much detail on a sixpence). A few coins also look 'buffed' in that they display fine hairline marks that are a clear sign of cleaning attempts. However, given all that, and grading purely for wear, nothing else, these are what I came up with: 1 AVF/VF 2 GF/AVF 3 EF 4 GVF 5 weak EF (EF from the ribs on the laurel leaves on the obverse, but probably a weak strike) 6 NEF/GVF 7 EF+ 8 FAIR+ I hope that helps.

I am all for them being conservative on the higher grades but I just have a sneaking feeling (and my experience is more London Coins than CGS in fairness) that they leave the lower grades, particularly fine, with too much ground to cover. There was one rare and expensive coin I recall that they slabbed as 'fine' which I thought was nearer to 'fair'. On the other hand there have been occasions when I thought they might have been one-third of a grade low which at least is erring on the right side. These are just observations on my part and really shouldn't be given too much weight. Ah, the burden of being the author of a highly considered hobbyist book! Your observations are very fair though. I'd only add that a coin that is "all but EF" and would be classed as EF by many dealers, should not be given a VF grade. Considering how much lower the values are for VF compared to EF, and how many collectors would simply see the "VF" and then ignore the number, it is not a good system. This would be much better: have a range of numbers from - e.g. - 60 to 70 that is the EF grade, and assign the two or three numbers before it to AEF, i.e. 58 - 59. So VF would run from 50 - 57, AEF would be 58 and 59, "just EF but no more" would be 60, and so on. There is absolutely NO good reason why CGS shouldn't adopt something like this as they've now incorporated AUNC into their system.

I think their strictness could well have the reverse effect than that intended : as a result of how they graded your coins there is absolutely no way I would ever risk sending any of my best coins to them, to be marked down in the same way. So if I was ever likely to reverse my attitude to slabbing, there is now no way I would do so. I believe I can grade quite well, and I find I am very often in agreement with Derek (who wrote the book).

The "Celtic" Half must be the half we can't see

An 1894 penny. Quite nice - except for the fingerpriints. They gave it an AU78. Can I ask which TPG it was? Transferred Print Grubbiness?

My biggest fear when receiving back slabbed coins is fluff. You send off a 100% lint free specimen only for it to come back to you with a piece of what can only be described as belly button fluff stuck to the coin. Almost invariably this problem occurs with a prized coin which the grading company have duly recognised as such by giving it a high grade and valuation. There lies the dilemma... do I de-slab it and lose the grading, do I send it back and risk coming across as an OCD complainer, or do I just learn to live with it? OCD complainer every time, if I saw something wrong with a coin I had submitted, I would expect it to be slabbed correctly and therefore would complain and return it Agreed. It's not OCD to expect the high standard you're paying for.

That was just about how it was!