Sword

The raised edge proof is also known as the pattern proof. I remember reading somewhere that only the incuse edge versions were considered to be legal tender.

I guess "barista" is somewhat pretentious. But then charging £3 or more for a cup of coffee is also a little pretentious and some places use the term to "justify" their prices. It's easy to see why coffee lovers willing to pay higher prices would object to under-trained people giving themselves that title.

Already sold out!

One thing this discussion highlights is that the predecimal crowns are more tasteful than the modern offerings. They at least don't need legends telling people "why" the coins were minted.

I am not certain if Ebay deserves any credit. The reason for the no sale might have something to do with all the bids looking suspiciously like shills.

What would be your interpretation then? I can't think of another meaning for "faulty striking" apart from "exceptionally weak strike for the series".

I would be very proud to own it! All six lions and the hair well struck and with really nice eye appeal.

I don’t think it matters very much as the grade alone is insufficient description of the coin. So I think GEF, no wear, weak strike means the same thing as UNC, weak strike. It might even be beneficial for a dealer to use the former as it gives an impression of a stricter standard. As has been pointed out previously, the Spink definition of “fine” is “a coin that exhibits considerable wear on the raised surfaces of the design, either through circulation, or damage perhaps due to faulty striking.” Hence, I assume that some would give a lower grade for a coin that is particularly weak strike. Another reason why I don’t think it matters is that most of the grading terms are, misnomers anyway. “Good” means the opposite of what it is reality. “Fine” isn’t fine. “Extremely” as in extremely fine is not extreme. The majority of coins described as “uncirculated” have probably been circulated for however brief periods of time. Even the term “mint state” doesn’t quite work as no one can be certain if the contact marks were in fact caused by circulation or not. TPG have no issues describing toned coins as “mint state” even though coins are of course not toned when there were just minted. In short the coin is the same regardless of the grade assigned by an individual. Personally, I think the phrases like “fully lustrous”, “particularly well struck”, “very few bagmarks”, “minor hairlines” etc are more helpful providing they are given in good faith.

That's super cool! It's easier to judge a coin when you can see it at different angles. It would be nice if they show you 360 degrees of the edge also.

I think it is a very presentable coin. If it were mine, I would ask myself the following questions when considering an upgrade: 1) How well does it sit with the rest of my collection? i.e. how does it compare to similar coins I have in term of grade and eye appeal. 2) If it sits well with other coins I have, then I would ask if I particularly like this coin type. If so, I am more likely to consider an upgrade. If not, then I probably won't, as even having a UNC example is not that satisfying in that case.

I think a circulated coin generally benefits from having a dark tone as details show up more clearly.

The seller was surprising honest to apply that particular proverb to his coin. Doesn't it mean that something which looks good on the surface is not necessarily valuable? Strange choice but honest.

Having took a few deep breaths and making sure there were no coins in the vicinity, I hope this post is viewed as a genuine attempt at reconciliation. I know I should wait until Chris has open up the tread concerned. But I am keen to make a reconciliation attempt sooner rather than later. Although I do not feel that I have been unfair to CGS in any way by the comments I have made, I take PWA 1967’s point that I have forgotten that I have said similar things in the past. In other words, I was possibly being boring and I can apologise for that. The spat has made me air every problem I had with CGS slabs and I don’t think there is anything more I can add. Hence, I probably won’t be able to annoy PWA 1967 with any more CGS specific comments. However, I can promise him that I would not dream of annoying him or anyone else here deliberately. But I don’t think one should be annoyed at comments made towards TPG in general. Let’s be honest, enough people have been giving them all the time. Some people like TPGs, some don’t and that’s the way it is. I still don’t believe that the language in some of his posts was appropriate but I won’t say any more about that. One thing I would like to add and I think many people here would agree. When PWA 1967 said he tries to be a nice guy and wants to help people, he might not believe what was the first thing which came to my mind. He has indeed gained respect for being a real collector. Most people need to sell coins for profit (because they are running a business and have a living to make). Some slab sellers are after excessive profits. But over the years, he has sold coins on the forum with the intention of sharing his high quality spares with fellow collectors. I suspect that he has even occasionally sold coins at a loss simply to move them to good homes. Even though I am not a penny collector, I do appreciate what he is doing. Sword

Thank you very much. That's overly kind. Nobody think you are not intelligent. You generally say something very perceptive whenever you start off a comment with "I don't know anything but ..." My memory is obviously bad for things I do in the evenings when I am tired. Hence I do forget I have said something before and end up repeating it without noticing. Very sorry for the irritation caused. Enjoy the sunny Sunday. Sword

The incident is chilling especially since most of us can remember the story of him finding the error coin. Amazing he wasn't more badly hurt and escaped with just a bump on the head and bruises.

I deliberately waited for a couple of days so that we are both calmer. OK, I will discuss this in more detail. Firstly, the title of the tread is "Shocking Experience from CGS". It is hardly surprising that such a tread would contain negative comments towards CGS. If you think this forum is not giving a balanced view towards CGS, then the sensible thing to do is to start a "CGS: very satisfied customers" tread and forum members can populate it with the positive experiences they have gained. Fighting every negative post on CGS is not the way to do it in my view. This I do find strange because I only posted those photos of the coin concerned as a result of your polite request. I had to take the photos for you. Then you gave a polite thank you before I find your posts offensive. This discussion was on whether the verd spot on a previous coin was there before the coin was slabbed. I have gave my opinion on what caused it. I have indeed mentioned in the past that a carbon spot has developed on my coin after slabbing. But this is the first time I suggested what caused it because it seems appropriate to the discussion. This was uncalled for in my view. I addressed you as Pete because you call yourself Pete on the forum. Indeed you have just responded to my post signed off as Pete. I do not address anyone by their first name unless that's what they use. Many people on this forum like myself choose to use our usernames. We are here to discuss coins. The photos of the damaged slabs I received from CGS are the reasons I suggested why their slabbing process was sloppy. Your response clearly shows you have a problem accepting any legitimate criticisms for CGS. Now we get to an important point in my view. You wrote: "I dont like bullies or people who tell lies..." I am not certain you understand what bullying is. Giving reviews on companies or organisations is not bullying providing their are not deliberately false. We use Google reviews, amazon reviews, tripadvisor reviews etc. Getting reviews is part of running a business. However, name calling is bullying and I am certain everyone understands that is unacceptable behavior on any forum. You will forgive me if I point out you are sounding very juvenile. These are the type of things kids say to each other before a fist fight. I cannot get through to you. I am hoping that others might be able to. I am also not hiding behind a very thick skin and can listen to other people's reasoning. I do want this to stop. Chris owns the forum and he makes the rules. When he next logs in, I would ask him to to give his opinion. If he thinks I am at fault for even if he think your behavior is acceptable, then I will happily leave this forum. Believe me, I am not sulking; if certain type of behavior is acceptable, then this is not the place I want to be in. However, if he thinks you are at fault, then all I suggest is that you should reflect. Please don't refer to or respond to my posts for a period of time and I will do the same for you. Sword

Other forum members can decide for themselves who has been out of order. Everyone is capable of reaching his own conclusion. I will leave it at that.

In all honesty Pete. I wasn't annoyed with CGS when I typed the posts above. What is the point of being annoyed at a defunt company? But I did find some of what you said out of order and patronizing.

I am entitled to comment on the grading services I have paid for. No criticisms can be given for that. I am entitled to say what I suspect has happened and I have gave my reasons. If an organisation don't want people to criticise them, then do a GOOD JOB. Sorry, CGS can't because they have already ceased trading. I know you think it is "unfair" that there are many more negative comments than positive. But everyone is entitled to have their say providing they are not libeling anyone.

Slab 3: crack on reverse

Slab 2: scratches and crack. Unfortunately, the photos don't show the scratches so clearly.

I am somewhat disappointed with your post and think you defence of CGS is slavish. "You mention nothing can be 100% proven and yes i agree so dont feel its fair for you or anyone else to just have a go at someone on a public forum whoever it may be." A forum only works if members give their opinions. We give our reasons for our opinions. It is up to other members and the public to decide if the reasons given are convincing and valid. "Who can we have a go at today as i am pissed off ,have a brew , type some crap in a computer and forget about it and let the person or company pick up the pieces from the damage that may be caused." I do find it somewhat offensive to say what other people have said is c**p just because you don't agree with them. A review or comment can only cause "damage" to a company if the the readers find the reasons for the negative review convincing. The effect of an unsubstantiated comment has about the effect of shooting an elephant with a pea shooter. I wrote: "I strongly suspect the carbon spot was caused by mishandling when the coin was slabbed. It has been problem free for ca 70 years and a spot developing after slabbing is too much of a coincidence. Mike expressed the same view with VickySilver's crown. Obviously, nothing can be 100% proven of course." Why do I suspect the carbon spot was caused by mishandling when the coin was slabbed? Because I believe the slabbing process of CGS was SLOPPY. My reasons: I have slabbed a total of 13 coins with CGS over the years before they ceased trading. One slab had a foreign object which looks like a bit of plastic trapped inside. Another slab was very badly scratched and had a crack on the reverse. The CGS person didn't push the coin enough into the washer first time and so the the back cover cracked slightly when it was put on. A third slab have the same type of crack. The other 9 slabs were fine. For one coin, I had to wait for three months before they told me the coin was too big to be slabbed. If 3 slabs out of 12 have problems, then CGS was unsatisfactory by my standards. Slab 1: Foreign object

Pete, I am not saying such things happen regularly. But let's face it, there is probably some risk (however small) when submitting a coin to any TPG company for grading. As we can see from the videos and from people seeing coins being graded first hand, the graders don't wear gloves for a start. I don't really want to get into any lengthy arguments over CGS again but will give one reply to your post: I have graded 13 coins with them before they became LCGS and before I discovered quadrums. One slab had a foreign object which looks like a bit of plastic trapped inside. It does look fairly harmless but irritating all the same. Another slab was very badly scratched and had a crack on the reverse. The CGS person didn't push the coin enough into the washer first time and so the the back cover cracked slightly when it was put on. A third slab have the same type of crack. The other 10 slabs are fine. I have always avoided buying slabbed coins because sellers often want more money for them. I have brought just 3 low-value CGS coins and one being this 1937 crown. The CGS photo which I used when deciding to purchase: The photo I took of the coin. Because the coin is low value, no great harm was done. It might be a mistake to use CGS photos when making a purchase. But I wonder if London Coins would care to comment on that? Then again people do actually pay TPGs for taking photos of their coins for later use.

I don't think the chemistry is quite like that. I think you are saying that two different metals need to be separated for corrosion to happen. However, a pure metal (iron being the one everyone knows about) corrodes or rusts in the presence of air and water. (The very boring details are: O2(aq) + 2H2O(l) + 4e- → 4OH-(aq) E = 0.4V can be the half equation for cathode for example. Since Cu2+ + 2e- → Cu has E = 0.34V which is smaller, Cu is oxidised to Cu2+ )

Pete, I didn't blame Lockdales in my post. I merely implied that I strongly suspect the carbon spot was caused by mishandling when the the was slabbed. It has been problem free for ca 70 years and a spot developing after slabbing is too much of a coincidence. Mike expressed the same view with VickySilver's crown. Obviously, nothing can be 100% proven of course.