Sword

It is potentially a concern but scams like this are not so easy to run. Firstly, there are 2 graders for each coin and you need at least a partner in crime. Also it might be difficult for the rouge grader to ensure that those coins get to him and not another grader not in the scam. You get people in all trades and professions worldwide committing fraud and abusing their positions and we can only hope they get caught sooner or later. Absolutely right that one should buy the coin and not the holder! Sword, you know this from where? we're talking about American/Chinese TPGs and not CGS, so where's your info coming from dude? Azda, I am not certain what you meant by "my information". Like most people, I don’t buy coins originating from dealers based in China because the authorities there have failed to control coin faking. But what is being alleged here? One individual grader in a TPG company is fraudulent. I merely pointed out the obvious that there are fraudulent individuals working in all trades and professions at the cost of clients / consumers. This is of concern of course but not something that can be eliminated. You are less likely to be cheated if you take precautions. Then I merely said that it take more than a one person to make a scam work. TPGs state that 2 or more graders are involved in grading and I have no reason to doubt that information. Then the final point is whether a PCGS office based in China is less trustworthy than one based in American or Paris. (By the way, I didn't even know that there is a PGCS office in China until now). It is quite like asking if it matters whether a SONY is made in China, Japan, Hong Kong or UK (I assume these places make SONY...). If you trust SONY’s reputation in quality control, then you are probably not too bothered. But if you don’t trust SONY’s quality and reputation, then it also hardly matter because you won’t buy anyway. As you don’t like PCGS regardless, then I guess this story makes little difference to you. As for me, I think it is just as likely to find such individuals in anywhere and I am not too excited either. As people are constantly pointing out, trust yourself rather than the slab. There is no better rule than that. (But I won't stay away from a nice coin just because it is slabbed) I have recently brought my first CGS coin from auction and made the mistake of trusting CGS’s PHOTO and not even the grade (The auction photo was poor). The coin turned out to be a turkey as a carbon sport has developed on the nose of the King since encapsulation. As it was a relatively low value coin, I put it down to experience.

It is potentially a concern but scams like this are not so easy to run. Firstly, there are 2 graders for each coin and you need at least a partner in crime. Also it might be difficult for the rouge grader to ensure that those coins get to him and not another grader not in the scam. You get people in all trades and professions worldwide committing fraud and abusing their positions and we can only hope they get caught sooner or later. Absolutely right that one should buy the coin and not the holder! They're all Reds, those Commie Chinese Alright Peck,

It is potentially a concern but scams like this are not so easy to run. Firstly, there are 2 graders for each coin and you need at least a partner in crime. Also it might be difficult for the rouge grader to ensure that those coins get to him and not another grader not in the scam. You get people in all trades and professions worldwide committing fraud and abusing their positions and we can only hope they get caught sooner or later. Absolutely right that one should buy the coin and not the holder!

London Coins is grading this CGS 80 crown as "choice aFDC". Bit optimistic with the marks in the field? Also, the grading table on the CGS website equates CGS 91 to 94 as aFDC (not that I agree some of the conversions in the table in the first place) The June 2013 Auction catalogue from London Coins themselves has a 'conversion table' at the back, which shows that, in their (or someone's) opinion, CGS 80 equates to Choice UNC, and confirms that, as Sword points out, a coin has to reach CGS 91 to be attributed 'aFDC'. I also find the description "choice aFDC" a bit of an oxymoron, mind you there a many of those around! In my book, "Choice UNC" means a good sharp strike with attractive tone. Whereas FDC needs to be a proof. If we're talking "proof vs non-proof" I can well understand an 11 point difference, but otherwise, the two grades would mean just about the same thing. I mostly agree. I interpret UNC as good strike, almost fully lustrous, some contact marks and/or with a trace of cabinet friction. "Choice" would mean to me very few light contact marks , lustrous and no friction. A percentage of newly minted coins are choice UNC and have suffered no damage after production. FDC for proof coins also mean no damage after production. So I agree that a (very) "choice UNC" for a currency coin is similar to a "FDC" proof coin in term of the lack of damage they might have suffered after production. However, for a proof coin to pick up the contact marks in a "choice unc" coin, it needs to have sustained a substantial amount of damage. So I do not equate aFDC as the same as choice UNC for proof coins. London Coins / CGS have published a table equating CGS 91 as aFDC. The amount of damage for CGS 91 is minimal (e.g. nothing beyond a few tiny hairlines under magnification.) As they have published such a table, I think they should stick with it and not then grade a CGS 80 coin as aFDC as it has significant contact marks. If the coin in question is not valuable, e.g. a rocking horse crown, then I don't think they would have described it as aFDC It might be noted that CGS80 was the minimum CGS standard for UNC until a few months ago. You see, for me, "Choice UNC" implies virtually no visible damage or marks either during or post-production. If it's "choice" (which is a meaningless kind of label used by advertisers, but taking it at face value..) it should be superior to an 'ordinary' UNC. "aFDC" to me means there is the very slightest sign of handling - anything more, and you couldn't apply any kind of FDC to it. In that light, "aFDC" would be just slightly inferior in terms of handling, to a choice UNC. However, it would deserve its 11 point advantage simply through being a proof, with all the extra detail and care that implies. In other words, I'd take a genuinely "aFDC" over a "choice UNC", as it should still be a better coin. I didn't realise that your definition of "choice UNC" is so strict Peck. (Would be a very good thing if more auction houses are like thtat!) CGS's definition is less so if it is CGS80. There are quite a few currency coins for sale in the London Coins Website and even CGS 85 have obvious contact marks. I would grade a currency coin with virtually no visible damage much higher than 80. The problem is that the same scale is used for both proof coin and currency coin. If a proof coin is graded CGS91 aFDC, then how much damage does it have to sustain to drop 11 points? Probably a fair bit at least.

London Coins is grading this CGS 80 crown as "choice aFDC". Bit optimistic with the marks in the field? Also, the grading table on the CGS website equates CGS 91 to 94 as aFDC (not that I agree some of the conversions in the table in the first place) The June 2013 Auction catalogue from London Coins themselves has a 'conversion table' at the back, which shows that, in their (or someone's) opinion, CGS 80 equates to Choice UNC, and confirms that, as Sword points out, a coin has to reach CGS 91 to be attributed 'aFDC'. I also find the description "choice aFDC" a bit of an oxymoron, mind you there a many of those around! In my book, "Choice UNC" means a good sharp strike with attractive tone. Whereas FDC needs to be a proof. If we're talking "proof vs non-proof" I can well understand an 11 point difference, but otherwise, the two grades would mean just about the same thing. I mostly agree. I interpret UNC as good strike, almost fully lustrous, some contact marks and/or with a trace of cabinet friction. "Choice" would mean to me very few light contact marks , lustrous and no friction. A percentage of newly minted coins are choice UNC and have suffered no damage after production. FDC for proof coins also mean no damage after production. So I agree that a (very) "choice UNC" for a currency coin is similar to a "FDC" proof coin in term of the lack of damage they might have suffered after production. However, for a proof coin to pick up the contact marks in a "choice unc" coin, it needs to have sustained a substantial amount of damage. So I do not equate aFDC as the same as choice UNC for proof coins. London Coins / CGS have published a table equating CGS 91 as aFDC. The amount of damage for CGS 91 is minimal (e.g. nothing beyond a few tiny hairlines under magnification.) As they have published such a table, I think they should stick with it and not then grade a CGS 80 coin as aFDC as it has significant contact marks. If the coin in question is not valuable, e.g. a rocking horse crown, then I don't think they would have described it as aFDC It might be noted that CGS80 was the minimum CGS standard for UNC until a few months ago.

London Coins is grading this CGS 80 crown as "choice aFDC". Bit optimistic with the marks in the field? Also, the grading table on the CGS website equates CGS 91 to 94 as aFDC (not that I agree some of the conversions in the table in the first place)

Alright, 81K can be used as a deposit for a flat

Just a guess, but every generation will have thought them very beautiful coins, so they probably got passed around and shown off a great deal. That makes sense. They are beautiful indeed.

Can't blame people for trying with their asking prices, esp on Ebay! Just curious, UNC / aFDC gothic crowns are rare. Is this partly because they weren't issued in boxes? (or did the proof versions have boxes?)

There's not a bag of them but about 25 of them were struck (forged) during that period in the 70's/80's by the same person(s)....who, I am told, is alledgedly still around. Do you know why he did not make more? If he could make such good fakes in the 70's / 80's, then I dread to think what will happen in 50 years time. Nothing given he should be pushing up the daisies I didn't mean him, but what forgers in gerneral can do in the future. What worry me is that one day, forgeries will be so good that they can no longer be distinguished from the real thing by visual inspection or weight. Then will all rare coins have to be sold in "slabs" after expensive analysis have been done in labs? Scary! Bear in mind that a few years ago, people were willing to pay a few hundred for a superbly done silver proof repro of a Gothic Crown. Maybe that is the future - affordable repros for those who can't afford originals? Better by far than fakes IMO. I wasn't aware that people were willing to pay such money for a repro. For me, the main attraction of coin collecting is the feeling of owning some history. I like admiring 19 century unc currency coins thinking how lucky they have been. A repro has little more attraction than a photo of a real coin as far as I am conerned! Modern fakes are of course revolting but contemporary fakes can potentially be interesting (not that I collect them). Just one question - how much would you run to for an expertly done 1933 penny? eBay seems to prove they fetch well into three figures. 50 or 60% of what I can sell it for. I normally buy coins for keep and don't worry too much about profit. But I have no interest in owning a repro and so want to get money for my trouble of buying and selling.

There's not a bag of them but about 25 of them were struck (forged) during that period in the 70's/80's by the same person(s)....who, I am told, is alledgedly still around. Do you know why he did not make more? If he could make such good fakes in the 70's / 80's, then I dread to think what will happen in 50 years time. Nothing given he should be pushing up the daisies I didn't mean him, but what forgers in gerneral can do in the future. What worry me is that one day, forgeries will be so good that they can no longer be distinguished from the real thing by visual inspection or weight. Then will all rare coins have to be sold in "slabs" after expensive analysis have been done in labs? Scary! Bear in mind that a few years ago, people were willing to pay a few hundred for a superbly done silver proof repro of a Gothic Crown. Maybe that is the future - affordable repros for those who can't afford originals? Better by far than fakes IMO. I wasn't aware that people were willing to pay such money for a repro. For me, the main attraction of coin collecting is the feeling of owning some history. I like admiring 19 century unc currency coins thinking how lucky they have been. A repro has little more attraction than a photo of a real coin as far as I am conerned! Modern fakes are of course revolting but contemporary fakes can potentially be interesting (not that I collect them).

There's not a bag of them but about 25 of them were struck (forged) during that period in the 70's/80's by the same person(s)....who, I am told, is alledgedly still around. Do you know why he did not make more? If he could make such good fakes in the 70's / 80's, then I dread to think what will happen in 50 years time. Nothing given he should be pushing up the daisies I didn't mean him, but what forgers in gerneral can do in the future. What worry me is that one day, forgeries will be so good that they can no longer be distinguished from the real thing by visual inspection or weight. Then will all rare coins have to be sold in "slabs" after expensive analysis have been done in labs? Scary! As Rob has said that is where provenance is going to play a major part in putting minds at rest on un-slabbed coins. Provenance will certainly play a major part but many qualtiy coins on the market today have no provenance. It is difficult to know if the provenance claimed is genuine unless photos are available.

If it is solder, then the person who did it was a bit sloppy as he put the mount on 10:30 rather than 12 o'clock of the coin

There's not a bag of them but about 25 of them were struck (forged) during that period in the 70's/80's by the same person(s)....who, I am told, is alledgedly still around. Do you know why he did not make more? If he could make such good fakes in the 70's / 80's, then I dread to think what will happen in 50 years time. Nothing given he should be pushing up the daisies I didn't mean him, but what forgers in gerneral can do in the future. What worry me is that one day, forgeries will be so good that they can no longer be distinguished from the real thing by visual inspection or weight. Then will all rare coins have to be sold in "slabs" after expensive analysis have been done in labs? Scary!

There's not a bag of them but about 25 of them were struck (forged) during that period in the 70's/80's by the same person(s)....who, I am told, is alledgedly still around. Do you know why he did not make more? If he could make such good fakes in the 70's / 80's, then I dread to think what will happen in 50 years time.

How easy is it to tell if a coin has wear or simply was weakly struck from an auction photo? With coin in hand, I would check a) if the lustre is continuous loss of toning on the weak areas (with my limited experience, I would be catious and assume it is wear except in clear cut cases) However, this is often not possible from a photo. I suppose if a feature is abnormally weak but the rest of the coin is sharp, then it is probably weak strike. A knowledge of the years / features that are particularly prone to weak striking would be very handy but I have little such knowledge. Hence I have avoided coins described as "weak on high points probably due to striking rather than wear" just to be safe. How can experts tell? Is there just no substitute for experience? Are there many cases which you just can't tell from photos? How much premium is a particularly strong struck unc worth compared to "normal" unc? E.g. most Victorian Old Head currency crowns (even those graded as unc) have lost some detail on the strap across St George's chest due to striking. Would an example with the strap (and other details) fully struck up be a lot more desirable?

I wish things could have stayed that way: it would have made things a lot easier. I guess it still wouldn't have been easy, as you would then be required to choose between a matt-coloured, uninspiring-looking, Fine, and a weakly-struck UNC, which would likely have that bejewelled look of a lustred coin. Even beneath a deep tone, the full-lustred coin is supremely prettier, and a far nicer coin! Which would you choose, how much more would you pay for that? Also, a weak strike isn't an absolute thing - it could range from horribly noticeable which might result in a Fine downgrade, less horrid (VF) or barely noticeable (EF). I wonder how serious weak strucking is compared to the other "defects". For example, if you were keen to get a George VI or William VI halfcrown in unc condition and you have a choice of: 1) Nicely struck example with a trace of cabinet friction (but would still just grade as unc by modern day standards) 2) A weaker struck example with full lustre and no wear (but would only grade as EF or GEF if the loss of details is actually due to wear rather than stricking) 3) Nicely struck example with no wear but has some contact marks (and hence also just grade as unc) Hypothetically, which one would you prefer? I'm not sure who William VI is, but as far as George VI goes, his halfcrowns are common enough in perfect state without having to settle for one of those 3 options. However, if it was a 19thC halfcrown, I think I would go for option 1. No, DEFINITELY option 1! Option 3 might be ok, but it would depend on exactly how the contact marks look. I guess that's true of all coins though - how it looks in hand. Sorry, I meant William IV and George IV. :D I would choose option 1 too. Mainly because of eye appeal

I wish things could have stayed that way: it would have made things a lot easier. I guess it still wouldn't have been easy, as you would then be required to choose between a matt-coloured, uninspiring-looking, Fine, and a weakly-struck UNC, which would likely have that bejewelled look of a lustred coin. Even beneath a deep tone, the full-lustred coin is supremely prettier, and a far nicer coin! Which would you choose, how much more would you pay for that? Also, a weak strike isn't an absolute thing - it could range from horribly noticeable which might result in a Fine downgrade, less horrid (VF) or barely noticeable (EF). I wonder how serious weak strucking is compared to the other "defects". For example, if you were keen to get a George VI or William VI halfcrown in unc condition and you have a choice of: 1) Nicely struck example with a trace of cabinet friction (but would still just grade as unc by modern day standards) 2) A weaker struck example with full lustre and no wear (but would only grade as EF or GEF if the loss of details is actually due to wear rather than stricking) 3) Nicely struck example with no wear but has some contact marks (and hence also just grade as unc) Hypothetically, which one would you prefer?

I wish things could have stayed that way: it would have made things a lot easier. I guess it still wouldn't have been easy, as you would then be required to choose between a matt-coloured, uninspiring-looking, Fine, and a weakly-struck UNC, which would likely have that bejewelled look of a lustred coin. Even beneath a deep tone, the full-lustred coin is supremely prettier, and a far nicer coin! Which would you choose, how much more would you pay for that? For me, probably neither. If the weak-struck UNC example cost twice or more compared to the ciculated fine, then I would prefer to get an honest VF example. For me the VF would have better eye appeal.

Wow! She must be delighted!

Depends on what you are paying. It is given on this link: http://www.coingradingservices.co.uk/?page=service_charge It can take up to 90 days which is far too long in my view. However, at least they are now promising to post promptly after encapsulation.

One significant improvement with CGS is that you now receive an e-mail when your coin has been encapsulated saying that it will be dispatched "within a few days". (I have once waited for more than 3 weeks in the past for coins to get posted.) Thank you Bill if this is due to your feedback to CGS.

Name your price! Here's my 1964 sixpence... That well-known variety "I in GRATIA missing" (still trying to get it accepted as a variety - I live in hope) Very nice! I can trade you my steel two pence without the copper plating variety for it (I made one sometime ago by leaving a 2p in acid for just the right amount of time and ended up with removing all the copper and without damaging the steel at all) Seriously, there is obviously a curiosity value as Gary said earlier. If that were to happen to say a unc. young head crown that would otherwise be worth 2K plus, do you also think the value would be reduced significantly. (I don't have any coin like that but is just curious)

I have dropped a fair number of copper coins into acid over the year (for serious purposes at work and not fooling about). I used concentrated nitric acid which can reduce the weight and size to a fraction within a few minutes. In this case, it does look like that something has reacted with the coin judging by the shape of the letters and colons in the legend and an oxidising acid seem very plausible to me. Proving that it is due to acid is of course (very) difficult. You need to be lucky with guessing the concentration of the acid and time scale, etc etc. that might have caused the desired effect. On a different note, if you have a high grade milled coin (say EF or unc) that is "missing" a letter or has a weak letter in the legend due to say greese, how would that affect its value?