Nick

Well that is what is I hoped someone would say, otherwise what is the point of a 1-100 scale if only the top grades can be achieved by proof coins, while proof is not a grade? Does anyone have an example of a non-proof CGS 'fdc' coin? Still feels like a bit of an oxymoron ... Edit: our posts crossed Nick, do you have a take as to how an fdc description can apply to a non-proof coin? If you look at CGS UIN 2043. It is an 1816 shilling and has been graded as a 91. However, if you're expecting to be dazzled by the quality of the photograph, you may be disappointed. CGS UIN 8978 is an interesting one. It's an 1884 shilling that is ex-Cheshire collection, previously NGS MS-64. CGS has graded it as 90.

Not for me, no. Imagine the exact same situation with brand new proof dies and a polished blank. It's still going to be slightly sharper than your currency piece and should get a higher score.

Well that is what is I hoped someone would say, otherwise what is the point of a 1-100 scale if only the top grades can be achieved by proof coins, while proof is not a grade? Does anyone have an example of a non-proof CGS 'fdc' coin? Still feels like a bit of an oxymoron ... Edit: our posts crossed Nick, do you have a take as to how an fdc description can apply to a non-proof coin? If you look at CGS UIN 2043. It is an 1816 shilling and has been graded as a 91. However, if you're expecting to be dazzled by the quality of the photograph, you may be disappointed.

Well that is what is I hoped someone would say, otherwise what is the point of a 1-100 scale if only the top grades can be achieved by proof coins, while proof is not a grade? Does anyone have an example of a non-proof CGS 'fdc' coin? Still feels like a bit of an oxymoron ... Edit: our posts crossed Nick, do you have a take as to how an fdc description can apply to a non-proof coin? I hear what you say, but all things being equal an early strike proof should be better than an early strike non-proof. Therefore, if you measure them on the same scale, there must be a region at the top of the scale that a currency strike cannot reach.

Well that is what is I hoped someone would say, otherwise what is the point of a 1-100 scale if only the top grades can be achieved by proof coins, while proof is not a grade? Does anyone have an example of a non-proof CGS 'fdc' coin? Still feels like a bit of an oxymoron ... Edit: our posts crossed Nick, do you have a take as to how an fdc description can apply to a non-proof coin? I would only use FDC in respect of a proof coin myself, and would use 'mint state' or 'as struck' for a top drawer currency example.

What's more, their top 4 numbers all equate to Sheldon 70 - would the Americans accept their absolute pinnacle can be further subdivided by 4? And strictly, should only be applied to proofs. The highest grade for a non-proof is BU or UNC. Which would prompt me to ask whether CGS 88 is the highest achievable grade for a non-proof! No, it isn't. A quick look at the population report shows the occasional 90 or 91 for a non-proof.

It seems pretty odd to me that the absolute pinnacle that is FDC can manage to span 6 grade numbers at the top of the table. So that's FDC, FDC and a bit, FDC and some, FDC with knobs on, ...

They can't wash their hands quite so easily though as there are still hundreds (perhaps thousands) of CGS slabs out there labelled with grade qualifiers. I notice that they didn't offer to re-label all old slabs with the new style when they changed the nomenclature.

It's not the first time they have changed the number to grade equation either. I seem to recall they changed EF 75 & 78 to AU 75 & 78 a few years back.

They are the surname initials of the designer of the reverse: George Kruger Gray.

The CGS guarentee is almost worthless. Their coin submission terms and conditions state: "Should any English Milled coin authenticated as genuine and encapsulated by CGS UK be proved subsequently to be fake and is returned to us by the original submitter, intact in the original holder with no evidence of tampering CGS UK will pay the submitter an agreed market value of a genuine example in a similar grade." There are a couple of obvious scenarios: 1) You buy the coin slabbed. The guarentee does not apply as you are not the original submitter. 2) You are the original submitter and you think the coin is fake. Try proving that conclusively without tampering with the slab.

DNW sold one: Lot 268, 28 Jan 1997. Graded fine, sold for £25.

I recall that some of the early census transcriptions were done by prison inmates. When checked, it transpired that some inmates had replaced occupations related to the criminal justice system with particularly fruity Anglo-Saxon language alternatives.

Let me try. 1st and 2nd. Hmm. I think you'll find it's your browser not the forum software. You're not using the dreaded IE by any chance? But that's not a thread title, is it! You're right Nick, it's a peculiarity of the thread title, which is automatically capitalised by the software. Not a problem in posts. I happen to use Safari, but it's not a browser issue. Try starting a thread with the title "This is the 1st time I've tried to not type 1St", Peckris. Sounds like Peck was so eager getting in a dig at Microsoft that he neglected to actually read your post.

Let me try. 1st and 2nd. Hmm. I think you'll find it's your browser not the forum software. You're not using the dreaded IE by any chance? But that's not a thread title, is it!

It might simply be that the 1787 issues were the first official shilling and sixpence of George III issued for use in Great Britain and therefore saved as a souvenir.

I think it's just a trick of the light on that first photo. If you look at the other pictures, there is no sign of it.

That has CAROLI FORTUNA RESURGAM inscribed around the centre. Thanks Rob. Just goes to show the benefit of a high quality picture and also how easy it is to fool oneself that something is visible when it isn't.

They are usually pretty good with identifying varieties, but on that occasion they cocked up.

The obverse dies typically wear out more quickly, so if reverse die 23 was in use when the change occurred from obverse 4 to 5, it is likely that some of both exist.

It is a known, but rare, die pairing for the 1867 shilling. London Coins sold one 5 years ago.

Looks like item 2588 in Rob's catalogue also has something like R. D. stamped into it above the castle.

You're right Nick, I was rather fortunate, especially as the survival of early parish records in many areas is perhaps only 50%. There are, of course, many other records, manorial rolls, hearth tax returns etc, etc. but linking these to specific ancestors is often very difficult indeed. It did help that I stuck to researching only the male line (i.e. followed my surname) rather than branching off down any maternal lines. One big tip is not to rely on indexes, but to check original records wherever possible. It's amazing what contemporary pencil notes and anecdotes you can find in the margins or parish registers that help to add context to the bare facts. Indexes are valuable, in that they are more easily accessible, but any information gained from them must be confirmed in the original registers which, as you say, sometimes contain notes regarding the individuals concerned (often less than complimentary).

Good luck with that. I too have ancestors from the North-East, most of which have fairly uncommon surnames but my most troublesome line is named Robson.

I think most people will not be as fortunate as Accumulator to get back as far as 1560. I have traced all branches of my ancestry and all paths have run out of steam in the first half of the 18th century. More work is definitely required and probably some lateral thinking as to where to try next.