Paulus

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

Thanks for that Benny ... I will be selling all apart from the 1823 and 1834, as I either have better examples of the type, or they fall outside my current focus

Interesting that you say more wear on that one. I would say less wear, but more weakness. Those lions are notoriously weak on some of the Gothic florins. I'll stick my neck out, with an AU78 prediction. Thanks Nick, that's just my ignorance for you!

Thanks for all your comments so far Whether I submit any further coins to CGS will depend on a whole range of factors, including: what I think of the products and services they offer once I have my coins returned what I and you all think about the future for slabbed English coins, especially taking in to account the fascinating debates in the 'other' CGS topic what I think of them after visiting their offices and witnessing their grading process (taking place very soon) what the coins I am selling realise what I feel about the coins I am keeping once they are 'entombed' and therefore 'separated' from the rest of my collection As I have said, this is a trial run, a kind of experiment, as I wanted to witness and experience this side of collecting first hand

Close up of the 5

Thanks Sword! I love the 1834 too, it is one I will be keeping Last one of this trial batch. #8 CGS UIN 25580 Bought from Michael Gouby as a 5 over <yet to be established> variety, and currently attributed by CGS as a new (?) variety being '5 over higher broken 5 in date'

Close up of the B:

A couple of varieties to finish. #7 CGS UIN 25581 Bought as a B/E Sixpence from the London Coin Fair, but CGS so far not attributing it as such.

#6 CGS UIN 25578 Another Viccy Florin, bit more wear on this one

#5 CGS UIN 25579 An early milled (shilling) for a change

#4 CGS UIN 25577

Thanks Nick I don't know what 'score' I would give the G4 HCs but the 1823 is half a grade better than the 1820 imo

#3 CGS UIN 25576:

#2 CGS UIN 25575: Peter has already commented on these, saying "Nice coins. The 1820 has a few edge dings at 12 o'clock on the reverse and both have a few digs. They are practically as struck and IMO GEF+. From the pictures I cannot see evidence of cleaning. " Anyone with a CGS log in can of course track these on their site

Thanks Peter! I will post the pics on a new thread 'CGS Trial'

Second coin (0025575): All comments welcome, this is a trial run! CGS completion expected/hoped by the end of this week. More later!

Okay, well I have submitted 8 coins, not my very best grades but a cross-section, some of which I am going to be selling in the next month or 2. Here are the first 2 (CGS Photos), just in advance of CGS completing their grading (or not, if they turn out to be cleaned or forgeries!) (0025574)

It certainly doesn't, it makes the coin AUNC/EF...but each to their own! Please help me out here. When I started collecting the concept was the 'coin'. Now I may be old(er) but to me it is still the coin. It has only been in recent years (the last two) that I have begun to see descriptions as in AUNC/EF. I did suggest elsewhere that perhaps we should also grade the edge as in AUNC/EF/EF but that was very much tongue in cheek. I suppose there are collectors out there who may only have an interest in obverses or reverses and as such may not care what the 'other side' looks like. That is great and if collectors want AUNC/EF as a description that is also great. I actually wonder how many collectors out there are interested in the 'coin' as a whole (because that is what it is) or the AUNC/EF designation. As you say, each to their own. I'm not really sure about helping you out here, Bill, as I too see a coin as a whole, in all its ugliness and honesty, which is why I can't see an issue with looking at one side and going 'wow,' but turning it over and going 'ugh'! That's the grade for me... 'wow' and 'hmmmm', which humanly transcribes as lovely, and not so lovely, at least for me! This is straight truth for me, not calling it an EF or something on balance of its faults or strengths! Of course, I should say I don't just live by 'wow' and 'hmmm', there is also 'blindingly good' and 'amazing', as well as 'Jesus' and 'doh'! Always going to be a toughy! Edit: we all seek out the coin we can turn over and over without being detracted by a badly placed dig, or rim nick, and is hopefully UNC/UNC in its aesthetics! With you completely Stuart, also comes back to the eye appeal factor to the beholder again ... to be honest though, coins are not graded separately for obv/rev (let alone the edge), as a norm, by dealers, on web sites, or in auctions, it's a relative rarity ... I have just checked all my favorite dealers and it's true! So while I agree there can be important distinctions that should be made (especially if a grade or more difference), I don't think this is an enhancement that should only be applied to slabbed coins ... thoughts? As I understand it, genuine UNC coins are marked down by TPGC's for bag marks and rim damaged, and no longer qualify for UNC status! To clarify, if I took a perfect G3 UNC coin and dropped it, bruising the rim, and putting a dig on the bust, it would no longer be UNC according to a TPGC, whereas, in reality, it's still an UNC coin that now has a bruise and an unfortunate dig to the bust (in my eyes)! Now I totally understand it's impossible to have an UNC reverse and an EF obverse, because the obverse didn't have a merry time circulating without the reverse! So, whenever we are using these terms, we can only ever be saying that 'this particular reverse is in a state comparable to that of an uncirculated coin'! We know it can't truly be uncirculated, as the obverse has circulation wear. In some respects the term uncirculated has given the collector/market a real headache. The term 'pristine,' 'exemplary,' or similar, would have been much less complicated! I think there are a few misleading terms used by all numismatists, be they collectors, dealers, buyers, sellers, investors, and TPGs ... just not sure I would single out TPGs for being more guilty on this particular one ... given that most English coins are sold with a single grade, and 99% are not slabbed, how then are the Obv/Rev being assessed? There could be 3 (or more) obvious approaches ... an average of some sort, the best side, or the worst, and if numbers are used, as with TPGs, who knows! Misleading terms I have come across in just 18 months of 'serious' collecting: UNC - and to your point Stuart - very often (to the seller/TPG/dealer/collector) means AS (As Struck), not 'Uncirculated' in the sense of never being used as currency - I think AS is a better description, Michael Gouby uses this in preference to UNC (as do many others, PAS (Practically As Struck being far more meaningful to me - as long as it's true!)) ... (after all, who in the end really knows if it has been circulated?) Bag marks (don't know exactly what they look like, and to me it's still wear) Cabinet friction (as above) Condition: Proof (not a grade) aFDC (an oxymoron, to me) aUNC (for an unopened coin still in it's Royal Mail packaging) I have an open mind on all the fascinating issues that pertain to CGS in particular, and will be formulating my own opinions based on personal experience during this month!

It certainly doesn't, it makes the coin AUNC/EF...but each to their own! Please help me out here. When I started collecting the concept was the 'coin'. Now I may be old(er) but to me it is still the coin. It has only been in recent years (the last two) that I have begun to see descriptions as in AUNC/EF. I did suggest elsewhere that perhaps we should also grade the edge as in AUNC/EF/EF but that was very much tongue in cheek. I suppose there are collectors out there who may only have an interest in obverses or reverses and as such may not care what the 'other side' looks like. That is great and if collectors want AUNC/EF as a description that is also great. I actually wonder how many collectors out there are interested in the 'coin' as a whole (because that is what it is) or the AUNC/EF designation. As you say, each to their own. I'm not really sure about helping you out here, Bill, as I too see a coin as a whole, in all its ugliness and honesty, which is why I can't see an issue with looking at one side and going 'wow,' but turning it over and going 'ugh'! That's the grade for me... 'wow' and 'hmmmm', which humanly transcribes as lovely, and not so lovely, at least for me! This is straight truth for me, not calling it an EF or something on balance of its faults or strengths! Of course, I should say I don't just live by 'wow' and 'hmmm', there is also 'blindingly good' and 'amazing', as well as 'Jesus' and 'doh'! Always going to be a toughy! Edit: we all seek out the coin we can turn over and over without being detracted by a badly placed dig, or rim nick, and is hopefully UNC/UNC in its aesthetics! With you completely Stuart, also comes back to the eye appeal factor to the beholder again ... to be honest though, coins are not graded separately for obv/rev (let alone the edge), as a norm, by dealers, on web sites, or in auctions, it's a relative rarity ... I have just checked all my favorite dealers and it's true! So while I agree there can be important distinctions that should be made (especially if a grade or more difference), I don't think this is an enhancement that should only be applied to slabbed coins ... thoughts?

Is this a positive slab-related comment by our Peter??

I am going to try and arrange to meet with them

Yeh, but it's going some when the contents of a slab are worth less than the few pence value of said slab. I would suggest that 61 or the 62 slabbed 1967 pennies are samples and that Bill's coin is the only one in a collection. Indeed Rob, which makes me further wonder how many of the rather meagre 25,000 that CGS have slabbed are samples still in their slabs slabbed for London Coins I still have an open mind though!

The slab plastic costs pennies! Even at non-commercial rates, you can buy the plastic shells for around 50p (I think it was something like that, I do remember it being insignificant when I looked) from the US (made me consider encapsulating my own coins, if the main argument is 'protection'). Without the post, £11 fee, or petrol costs involved, it wouldn't be a such bad day-job, sticking a £2 coin in a slab and calling it AU/UNC etc, and then firing it out to the masses at £20+ a throw. In my view it's only economically viable for one source! I've never heard of any collector submitting a 1967 1d for encapsulation, but I bet they're out there! I bet someone somewhere once had a mint roll of them, and just sat up all night with a tube of glue and a cup of coffee, just before a holiday in Mauritius? According to the CGS population report, they've slabbed 62 of them. So I see! How on earth does that work then?? Bill???

I think this is a major issue. If people are relying on their grading then they need to be independent and seen to be independent of both buyers and sellers. As the Americans might say ... it is Ethics 101. I have my high grade coins slabbed by CGS mainly for protection and ease of viewing. I do find their grading generally strict but I think that's probably a good thing. I too find their intimate relationship with London Coins of some concern. As stated on their website, London Coins (Holdings) Group Ltd owns 51% of CGS. I don't have a real problem with that or the fact that London Coins auctions CGS coins on behalf of clients. However, I just think that the selling of CGS slabs on the London coins website (and the auctioning of these slabs when they fail to sell) raise questions of on the independency of CGS. The problem here is not whether CGS act ethically or not - and I have no doubt that they are entirely ethical and above board. It is the perception that matters. While there is a link to a major vendor - in this case London Coins - there will always be a suspicion that they grade higher to get better prices and therefore higher commissions or profits. And it only takes a couple of unhappy customers to start that ball rolling. I have an open mind at the moment, and waiting on my first consignment to be graded and slabbed (hopefully) and returned, a trial run if you will. One of the questions in my 'open mind' at the moment is how on earth there are so many coins worth less than, say £25, that have been slabbed by CGS when it costs a minimum of £11.99 plus 2-way postage (or petrol!) for each coin? Lots of optimists or some preferential discounts?? Any thoughts? I am not saying £11.99 isn't good value, but how can it be economically viable for coins worth less than even £40? Even Bill says he pays the going rate .. I spoke with Andrew of AJW Coins and he says he pays the going rate too, but was offered "25 for the price of 20" at some point.

That rim by the date might be damage? Nope, thankfully just oxidation; nice coin overall as were it's mates - I tried to pick out decent ones but was more interested to get the inferior CGS specimen just for comparo & sad to see its getting worse with time as one would think. Was referring to the eBay link by Paulus! I did think it looked a little 'edgy', not interested in owning one myself ... it went for £406 ... mind you, I would be very proud if I owned the one Dave has just acquired! How the smeg do you get pictures like that (Dave Azda's) anyway??