Bill Pugsley

Would I be correct in thinking this is only the second one to come to market, the other being the CGS 85. I like the idea that it's still in it's set and would perhaps increase it's desirability if not it's value. I shall be looking on with interest. Yes - that's why I've kept my proof 2+A farthing in the set it came in. I would have preferred to have bought the set containing my 1+A proof halfcrown, but it was only offered as a singleton. Was it identified as a 1+A when you bought it. Freeman rates the 2+A farthing as R9 and 2+B as R6 so out of 40,000 sets that's 30,000 2+B and 10,000 2+A. In my opinion he should perhaps put the 2+A up a notch or two to R11 at least which would make them about 10:1, even then they don't come up very often. Could the Half Crown be as common as the 2+A Farthing and has any of the other denominations ever come to light. I thought I had the Obv 1 Scottish Shilling but I now think it's more likely to be a very early strike akin to the proof-like Crowns you occasionally see. Colin cooke farthing catalogue cites the 2+A farthing as extremely rare and I think they have only sold two in the last ten years or so - the second one around £300 if I recollect correctly.

I know of another three for certain, so the population will eventually turn out to be in double figures (if not three figures). I've got two, one of which I've had for several years without realizing they were that scarce. Hi Nick - two of what? The Halfcrown, Crown or the mule penny? Or two proof sets? There are (now I believe) three different proof sets - the standard set issued for general population (40,000 made); the VIP Set (as names implies) for special gifts and I suspect less than 100 made but could be as low as 20 and the (as far as I have been able to find) pre-production proof set that was given to advisers to the Bank of England. For the latter it is estimated that there are no more than six produced (but finding out details is quite difficult). Hi Bill, I highlighted in bold the relevant part of the reply, but in case it isn't that clear on some displays - I know of three (in addition to those known to CGS) of the 1+A proof halfcrowns. Gary D has two of them and I have another one. I find it hard to believe that there are so few of them. I found one within a few weeks of starting to look. Baldwins have a 1953 proof set containing a 1+A proof halfcrown in their forthcoming May auction. Estimate £1500-£2000. With the Baldwin half crown (in their set) that makes seven so far - CGS have attributed three - the one sold at the last London Coin Auction at CGS 85 and two others at CGS 88 and there are obviously others out there. Still a nice scarce piece (so far).

Hammered now, eh? Interesting. Although since I can buy six EF Charles I shillings, a meal for two and some chateau bottled Burgundy for less than £30 is a fair chunk of coin budget for me ... I'm not going to be hammering at their door for them to grade my coins just yet No, I'm sure it's reasonable compared to US TPGS. And I guess hammered are trickier to grade ..? But I'd like to see some results on that! I would have thought that the foremost experts in the country would struggle to accurately grade hammered coins. We have had multiple threads on here about this very subject and the general concensus was "buy on eye appeal or rarity, NOT GRADE" Just how 2 blokes, a row full of previously graded coins and a computer program will accurately grade a hammered coin remains to be seen! I really struggle in this area and even when you consider weak strikes, worn dies, planchet quality, environmental factors etc etc it is virtually impossible to arrive at a grade that is acceptable to 2 different collectors.... Yes, I do believe that no amount of discussion will ever satisfy a hammered collector that a hammered coin could ever be encapsulated 78, realistically! I for one will not enter into the debate, at least I don't think I will! I don't see the problem, just think of a number and put it on the label. The sheep will follow. I thought it worth adding the following current comments from the frequently asked questions on the CGS website: Do you grade non English \ British Coins? Our grading standards and bench mark coin set was designed around English milled coins and this is our primary expertise. We will grade and encapsulate Scottish Milled Coins, and other British Commonwealth coins. Our grading system is on a 1-100 scale not the 1 – 70 Sheldon Scale used for USA coins and popular for Canadian coins also, so we recommend one of the US based grading companies for the all North American. How do I know my coins are suitable for grading? By definition all coins can be graded so this question becomes a financial one, namely why should I pay to have my coins graded. The service provides authentication, attribution, long term protection by encapsulation, and a numeric grade allowing it to be compared to other coins and to serve as an aid to valuation. CGS have never said they would be perfect at grading hammered coins (and as a collector I would have no idea of where to start). The CGS bench mark set is from around 1665. However, I have seen the results of their grading of Hammered coins and I believe their assessment is not unreasonable (but I do not collect hammered so I may be wrong). If I did collect hammered coins I would certainly only submit them to CGS for grading if I decided to get them encapsulated as the graders have considerable experience (well over 60 years in total) of British Coins. The US graders may have graded more coins BUT do they have the experience of hammered coins? I suspect not.

I too received the note about changes in prices and had not picked up on the change in lead time for the second level. The prices are very competitive (generally much lower) than the same level of service from US Grading Houses but you are right on the turnaround times. I will raise this directly with CGS although I suspect I may not win the argument because of the need for consistent volume submissions from collectors for them to schedule and devote the necessary time needed. What I would appreciate from people who do submit coins are any statistics they may have by CGS Invoice Number (that will not identify your Id to me). For example: When actually sent; When recorded by CGS (I have had delays here); Level paid, i.e. Standard, Normal, Deluxe; When completed; When actually received back (and here be honest if you asked for a delay). This information would be useful in determining whether CGS are meeting even the outline commitments that they offer.

As to previous incarnation: I sold my IT business and retired seven years ago (after 32 years). Five years ago I was appointed Chairman of a former IT business competitor and now I run their Irish Office from the UK. That aside I used to collect stamps with marginally less passion than I collect coins today. I suppose I get dedicated (passionate) about things I believe in. I have 'met' some great and interesting people through this forum and I have been reminded once again that we are all individuals. I look forward to meeting some of you in person in the coming years while we continue to enjoy our hobby. In the mean time I will start perusing other posts on this excellent forum to see if I can contribute (and certainly learn) more about our wonderful hobby. Bill

Maybe, but not before I had spent a few thousand on coins that would not have been purchased had I known, and the vast majority of things are still in their original slabs. Both NGC and PCGS offer a 're-encapsulation' service into their new super showing edges etc capsules. Of course there is a cost. One would hope that during that process that they might identify problems and refund their valuations (we can but hope). In time I believe that those UK coin collectors who want their UK or commonwealth coins encapsulated will use the CGS service rather than any other service. It will take longer I believe for US collectors to buy into the CGS service for UK coins (although some have started to). There is still this (in my view false) expectation by Norther American Collectors that PCGS and NGC know all there is to know about every coin out there.

They may have done, but I find the "edge view" holders ugly, if CGS go down this route Bill, please ask them to look at a more attractive alternative!! Your comment has now been passed to CGS as I agree with you. The original CGS idea hid a tiny part of the coins edge but for various reasons (like bad handling) the spokes would move or break and the coin came loose - hence reverting to a full seal. Six years on their may be a better solution to look for and I will keep you posted.

Not at all. A GCS redefinition as proposed is by far the cheapest way to get an upgrade to the collection - it would have cost me 100s to upgrade my (sorry, EF78 and not AU78) P1133A penny (ref. 000057-PE.G3.1797.03) by the traditional route of acquiring a coin in a better grade/condition. And it has the further added bonus of upgrading from the good EF assigned by Spink in the Adams sale (lot 36). A lot can happen in 10 years. The proposal by CGS to remove the prefix qualifier on its numbering system is to allow different players interpret as they believe is best so now if you feel CGS coin rightly UNC - you do not have a contradiction from CGS saying it is AU (or one time EF). I have written elsewhere about grading creep and how the older or scarcer a coin is the the 'higher the perceived grade' that may be allocated to it by a collector / dealer / auction house. You were fortunate that your coin from Spink graded as CGS 78 - some coins I bought from Spink over the years (and numerous other dealers) as UNC have been rejected by CGS (normally for having been cleaned). Of course, others I have bought as UNC have graded in the CGS 80's but alas some at lower than CGS 70. I am grateful to the CGS service for showing me how to better judge coins I now buy in the raw. I don't think there is much point in removing the prefix qualifiers on the slabs if CGS then publish a table converting numbers to traditional grades. Now a CGS 75 coin can be EF or AU on the slab or "unc or near so" according to the proposed table. Confusion is not a good thing for credibility. Some of the conversions on the table are rather questionable too in my view E.g. AU 58 = CGS60, or AU55 = CGS55. Grade inflation (which happens over a long period of time) is one thing but grade "revaluation" or "redefinition" is another. CGS has only been around for 6 years and it is difficult to persuade collectors that grading has changed significantly since. Most of the above has already been said by others. It is almost impossible to please everyone with any "proposal". But one very helpful thing they can do is to promise to post coins back within one week of encapsulation. I have raised your (and others) points about returning coins from CGS when completed directly with them. I normally make my own arrangements to collect coins from them but that is my decision. It is reasonable that when you see the coins have been completed that you get them back within a few days (allowing for post). The point that CGS were trying to get across (in my understanding) was that their numbering system does not change and that a coin graded as 80 today should grade at 80 in ten years or twenty years time. What they were trying to recognise is that a 1953 shilling that grades at 80 is accepted as being UNC whereas a 1953 shilling that grades at 75 may be at best GEF. However, from my own experience I have seen dealers attribute a 1858 shilling as being UNC yet when I had it graded it came out as CGS75. Most dealers would say the coin was UNC but using the previous interpretations applied by CGS it would have been at best AU (or the earlier EF). Removing the prefix CGS leaves the decision to the collector/dealer. I have a number of CGS coins graded as AU78 that I believe are really UNC (but I accept the CGS attribute of 78). All it does is ensure that I look for better quality versions of the coins in the future.

Not at all. A GCS redefinition as proposed is by far the cheapest way to get an upgrade to the collection - it would have cost me 100s to upgrade my (sorry, EF78 and not AU78) P1133A penny (ref. 000057-PE.G3.1797.03) by the traditional route of acquiring a coin in a better grade/condition. And it has the further added bonus of upgrading from the good EF assigned by Spink in the Adams sale (lot 36). A lot can happen in 10 years. The proposal by CGS to remove the prefix qualifier on its numbering system is to allow different players interpret as they believe is best so now if you feel CGS coin rightly UNC - you do not have a contradiction from CGS saying it is AU (or one time EF). I have written elsewhere about grading creep and how the older or scarcer a coin is the the 'higher the perceived grade' that may be allocated to it by a collector / dealer / auction house. You were fortunate that your coin from Spink graded as CGS 78 - some coins I bought from Spink over the years (and numerous other dealers) as UNC have been rejected by CGS (normally for having been cleaned). Of course, others I have bought as UNC have graded in the CGS 80's but alas some at lower than CGS 70. I am grateful to the CGS service for showing me how to better judge coins I now buy in the raw.

This is a very long thread and so I may have missed something but the 2nd coin you have submitted underlines a major flaw with slabbing - how the hell are you going to see it's a raised edge proof? At best you could peer at an oblique angle (not sure my vari-focals would cope) or at worst you may just not see it at all. Perhaps you were thinking like me and just submitted it to see how they coped; in any event I will be very interested to see what you get back. Not sure how my notoriously short patience will manage... When CGS first started it implemented a mechanism for storage of coins in capsules that allowed you to see most of the edge of the coin. However, the holders proved unreliable so they started using the silicon seals that enclose the edge (as the US coin graders used). So the likelihood of seeing the edge is zero in a (currently) CGS encapsulated coin. Since those early days the USA graders have started using seals that allow you to see much of the edge of the coin (which is great) and maybe CGS will follow suit. What this does require is a strong element of trust in the grading service who has a coin seal that hides the edge (I happen to trust CGS). I have seen a crown taken out of an NGC slab where the edge had been seriously tooled (it had a pattern unlike any conventional edge) yet it had been graded as MS61 by NGC.

If you read through what is now a copious thread of information you will find that CGS encapsulated coin collectors can register the CGS coins they own to their own 'online' collection and see how they rate in comparison to other collectors of CGS encapsulated coins. Apart from giving them insurance benefits, a virtual gallery of the coins they own (pictures of both sides of the coin) they can also see how their collection of a specific series or denomination compares to that of other collectors. For example 120384 leads in many categories (but not all) and has 20CC close on its heels. That is what the League Tables are about. The Hall of Fame deals with the best known collection of a specific group of coins (whether it be a monarch or a denomination) at a point in time and uses an aggregate of the CGS value to determine whether a specific collection 'is finest known' to the CGS service. For example, the pennies of Dr. A. Findlow were all re-encapsulated as being part of his collection (with on the label 'the Dr A. Findlow Collection' or similar) and have that as a permanent attribute so long as the coin remains in a CGS capsule. Unless you actually collect CGS encapsulated coins the League Tables and Hall of Fame are likely to be of no interest. However, I have received approaches from people who have worked out which was my designation in the League Tables to ask me would I be interested in selling a specific coin or coins (typically scarce or of very high CGS grades of 90 or above). So although you may not have an interest in this aspect of the services, it can let you look at (with a bit of digging) who may have the coin or coins that you want to complete your own collection.

Elsewhere much has been written about the merits and demerits of UK Coin Grading Services (CGS) and other third part grading companies (TPGC) - whether it be the methods they use to calculate grading or the fact that the coins end up encapsulated. I undertook a review of all coins I had submitted to CGS and did an analysis of originally advised grades (my own when bought privately, or the grade suggested by the auction house / dealer at time of purchase) and those assessed by CGS. Whatever your opinion of grading by CGS or others, I believe CGS offer a consistent service and that regardless of the age of the coin the same rules apply. I noticed some interesting trends as a result of my review - especially amongst those dealers that I had consistently bought coins from (I bought from them because of the, to me, accurate grade they gave to their coins). Coins dating from 1900 consistently sold as BU or UNC compared well to the CGS equivalent grades of UNC80 or higher. Coins from around 1838 described as BU or UNC by the same dealers ended up at what were CGS EF70 or CGS AU75 grades, with only a few reaching UNC80 or higher. Coins before 1838 could actually end up as CGS VF50 through AU78, again with very few becoming UNC80. This perplexed me and I have since heard of the expression 'grade creep' - where the older a coin the higher the grade it seemingly gets. Another thing I have heard of is two coins of comparable grade being assessed differently by dealers (and collectors) because one is a rarer date. If you see 1905 shillings, florins or halfcrowns being offered they always seem to be graded higher than I would imagine the 1902 equivalent coin. I would be interested if others have seen this for themselves. I would add that I stopped buying from a number of sources after seeing what the CGS equivalent of their BU or UNC was. An example was a BU 1951 Penny that turned out to be a cleaned proof - a bit of a let down to say the least. Although 'improved' may be a way of describing some coins sold as BU or UNC - many were actually inferior grades. Some of these coins were bought years ago and I had accepted them at the time so I did not believe appropriate to challenge the source. What the experience did teach me (and seeing how CGS worked has also helped), I now try and check all coins before I buy them with a 10 times magnifier. If they pass my criteria with that lens I will then use a 25 times magnifier to inspect the coin - and it is amazing the difference between the two lenses make. A stunning UNC Victorian Bun Head Sixpence sold as such by a leading dealer had a 'carbon spot' under 10 times magnification - but when looked at under 25 times it was actually a hole made by corrosion (and would be rejected by CGS). It is a lovely coin but not what I expected when I bought it. I would be interested in the views of others dealing with grading (please use the other forums to complain about TPGC's).

Getting back to RXF devices - I made inquiries thinking if not too much I would buy one for myself. I came to earth with a big bump! Even a handheld that I am assured would tell in seconds the composition of coins with a read out and optional computer link (with software) was £17,000 (seventeen thousand pounds) plus VAT..... Maybe one day CGS will get one.

I have a warm feeling (get it?). If a UK coin is so special it needs a spectoscopy test I would recommend sending it to the Royal Mint as they apparently have some wonderful devices for checking coins (like telling me my 1933 bronze penny was a forgery.....). NGC (and PCGS) accept coins at coin shows and encapsulate them at the event and I am pretty sure they do not take their serious equipment to these events when they do so. If CGS had enough coins being submitted and thus a clearer revenue stream I am sure they would consider any and all devices to improve their (in my opinion) great service. I will make sure I pass the idea on at the next CGS Forum meeting.

but is relatively cheap compared to prices for slabbing. the modern coin collector is spoilt for storage solutions, everything from envelopes of plastic and paper to slabs and coin cabinets........so ultimately the collector will choose their own method. i recognise the merits of slabbing for maybe long term preservation but only time will tell if its completely safe. But Bills main sales pitch is around grading and how the traditional raw market have over/under graded over the years. but then so have the tpg's...there are many examples of tpg's having got things wrong on this forum and elsewhere and so is as questionable with slabs as any raw coin based solution to grading. So the problems for me with slabs...... firstly the desire to have a coin with a numerical advantage over another ( no matter how small) when that numerical advantage actually can mean so little to the coin and its appeal to a seller/purchaser/owner, but can make a huge difference to price. secondly, tpgs only offer another view on grade, grade is very subjective, and whilst tpg's can offer benchmarks to use for justifying grading in their systems.......its still just a view......and who's to say theyve got it so completely right?...maybe all the traditional dealers have got it right and tpg's havent......lets not be hoodwinked here by selling an idealism when good old fashioned grading of f,vf,ef and unc may very well be sufficient for general use with eye appeal to the prospective purchaser. thirdly, the notion that a slabbed coin can increase the value of a coin, well maybe to those who already collect slabbed coins...but for those of us looking at slabbed prices from a raw coin point of view......the prices are ridiculous.....witness Bills recent ebay acquisition of a churchill crown that for the same sum of money could have maybe allowed him to buy 30 or more of the same coin in the same grade. To summarise......ive collected raw coins for over 45 years, i went the slabbed route for a while. i guess im the opposite of Bill.......i learnt a few things though from slabbing.....theyre overpriced..theyre only another storage medium and theyre just another view on grading. Ski "30 or more in the same grade?" - Sorry, did you not read the preliminary comments on my purchase. I am not a novice collector and I believe I noted I had looked at over 100 Churchill Crowns (possibly more). None of them had achieved the quality for the 'overpriced one' that I bought. I look for the finest known - or if I cannot get it the next best possible. I already had a CGS 80 Churchill Crown but a CGS 82 to me was better - because I had not come across one as good! If you can get 30 of the same grade as CGS 82 then it would be worth buying them, paying (currently £11.99 each) to get them graded and then selling them for £30.00 each. If you found one was a CGS 85 or better I would pay £50.00 for it! Make your money back in no time. There are others who value the CGS process (we trade a lot with each other) and I suspect will continue to use it. There are a vast majority that do not like the process of slabbing at all. So be it. My purpose is to explain why I collect CGS encapsulated coins and open up the possibility to other collectors. People will become weary of my explanation of why CGS - I have had coins slabbed by other companies and I have looked at many more of the same. I buy and have bought raw coins from everywhere and the only 'standard' I have come to accept is the CGS process. Even dealers who I believe consistently grade well make mistakes (as I frequently do) - I have opened a thread on Grading as a separate topic in this forum by the way. You are right, each collector will chose their own method of storage. I have used most (although I have never lacquered a coin) and ended up preferring paper coin envelopes and CGS Capsules (and I have explained why in other posts). I have no shame in wanting a 'numerical advantage' for my coins. I want the best possible collection I can achieve. That goes hand in hand with my love of coin collecting. If I have two coins of the same type I tend to keep the best and sell on or trade the other - so why would not knowing a 'numerical advantage' be any different? "Overpriced" - interesting! I do not think the CGS service is overpriced and others obviously do not either. Having recently examined the prices offered by US companies - when you take into account all cost elements, I believe the CGS service is excellent value for money. There are indeed many cheaper ways of storing coins but none come with third party archival pictures of the coins, an optional remote logging of the coins so graded with online access and a download of that information AND with this third party verification the potential for reduced insurance costs. Some people use the archival pictures to show their friends and family their coin collections without having to remove it from any Bank Vault or secure store - so a CGS capsule is not just a means of holding a coin!

'Why have I spent over £20K?" - I would wonder myself sometimes BUT it is because I am (probably) a perfectionist in terms of being a collector. I have collections of other things as well (Stamps, Comics, Books, Early Maps, Early Prints, Train sets etc) and when I was actively into stamp collecting there was little I did not know about the subject areas that I collected. (Must run in the family as my elder brother could bore for England on the subject of Boer War stamps.) When it comes to coins (that I started dabbling in 45 years ago but seriously got into ten years ago), I made some big mistakes in casting my interest too wide. I was buying all the new sets from the Royal Mint, buying Euro sets from all countries and really wasting my money. I changed my focus (see my profile for what I collect) and I wanted where possible to have EF or better of all the coins I collected. My epiphany on CGS grading came about when I first submitted 39 coins graded by 'other' grading companies (to get the coins in the same size slab) and the varied results that came about. So I saw the CGS 'scientific process' (that will be produced as a Video for the web in the future) for myself and submitted some more coins. By the time I had truly begun to understand the CGS process I was over 500 coins submitted for grading. I like the results of slabbing (cringe / horror / shock for many) having once loathed it. With my better understanding of the CGS process I now have a clearer idea of what is a good coin and am able to make my own judgements on quality. However, I have 100 coins with CGS currently that I carefully went through (shillings from 1820 through 1967). 12 are rejected (predominantly for cleaning but also for scratches, verdigris etc). Only 45 achieved CGS 80 or higher. 31 achieved CGS 70 to 78. The lowest grade given was CGS 45 which I was expecting for that particular coin. Some of the other lower grades I was expecting but many of the 75 or 78 I submitted in the belief they would achieve 80. So even with my experience I did not get it right. Why I support CGS has several answers. First, let me be clear that I am not a shareholder and other than the odd meal shared with them, do not receive any financial reward - I pay commercial prices for their grading services. Dealing with the reasons for my support: - I like the service and product; - I like to think because I am a good customer they listen to my views (the website has been changed based upon numerous suggestions I have made); - I pay for the cgsforum.org and run it at my convenience; - I want to get all my collection re-slabbed as being part of the "Bill Pugsley collection" (a service offered to CGS 'Hall of Fame' collectors); - I believe that in time CGS will become more accepted and the value of my CGS collection will be maintained or improve; - I like having the finest known (albeit only recorded by CGS) of scarce or rare coins; I also like having the 'finest known' for run of the mill coins; In my early life in business I was supported by many different people and consequently I like to support others. I 'retired' nearly eight years ago but for the last six I have been helping a former competitor in what seems like a full time role (as well as supporting other businesses). I actually enjoy trying to help CGS because it ties in with my deep interest in coins. I write articles associated with my main hobby (Coins) because I want to 'share' (a horrible Americanism meaning 'tell') my views and experiences - having written business articles for over thirty years. What it all boils down to though is the simple statement 'I love coin collecting!'.

The 'lustre' component of the grading would take this into account, the point was made to me that there wasn't a specific category for 'eye appeal'. I also asked about the location of marks, dings etc, and yes, if there are problems in the middle of the face, for example, rather than half-hidden in some design detail, then these would count as more 'serious' problems and the coin would score less. Would it though, bearing in mind lustre has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with toning. You can have a deeply-toned coin with obvious full-lustre underneath. My point is you could presumably have two full-lustred CGS coins, one with ugly toning, and one with beauty personified, and they would both come out of the computer with the same grade? I really don't know! I wonder if Bill knows or has a view? I am not sure if CGS differentiate between different types of lustre/toning of a coin in their 'scientific' process. I will ask the question though. What I do know is I have coins graded by CGS that are heavily toned (where the silver is just a shade off of black) but they have ended up with a high CGS grade of 85 or better because of minimal, if any, wear. I bought an early proof Victorian silver coin at an auction described as near EF (I suspect because it was almost black) which when CGS graded it it came out as CGS UNC91 (that was an unusual win). The coin, had it been original brilliant silver, would have been described as FDC. I asked the question and am pleased to offer the response: "The benchmarking coin set for lustre contains runs for copper, bronze, brass, silver and gold. Thus lustre is an attribute of the CGS benchmarking process."

The 'lustre' component of the grading would take this into account, the point was made to me that there wasn't a specific category for 'eye appeal'. I also asked about the location of marks, dings etc, and yes, if there are problems in the middle of the face, for example, rather than half-hidden in some design detail, then these would count as more 'serious' problems and the coin would score less. Would it though, bearing in mind lustre has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with toning. You can have a deeply-toned coin with obvious full-lustre underneath. My point is you could presumably have two full-lustred CGS coins, one with ugly toning, and one with beauty personified, and they would both come out of the computer with the same grade? I really don't know! I wonder if Bill knows or has a view? I am not sure if CGS differentiate between different types of lustre/toning of a coin in their 'scientific' process. I will ask the question though. What I do know is I have coins graded by CGS that are heavily toned (where the silver is just a shade off of black) but they have ended up with a high CGS grade of 85 or better because of minimal, if any, wear. I bought an early proof Victorian silver coin at an auction described as near EF (I suspect because it was almost black) which when CGS graded it it came out as CGS UNC91 (that was an unusual win). The coin, had it been original brilliant silver, would have been described as FDC.

Plastic was invented in 1855, 158 years ago, i think the problem lies in that there was no TPGs in 1856 and they did'nt think about plastic holders back then They used to vanish them, not a lot different really. A number of collectors lacquered the coins they had (a bit like slabbing......) and it needs to be VERY carefully removed without damaging the underlying coin.

I agree about the "fun in this hobby is actually finding those rare pieces that the seller did'nt realise what he was selling". We all love to do that. What is also nice is to discover a new type of a given year/denomination and have it recognised. Some of the coins I submitted to CGS for grading have transpired to be new variations or on occasions scarce varieties that I had failed to recognise because in some cases I had accepted the description of the dealer who sold them to me (more than one example where the dealers are long established) to find the die pairing was scarce or rare, not catalogued etc. Mind you, I have submitted coins that I thought were a scarce specific die pairing to discover they were in fact common. I am not aware of any encapsulated coin collectors who do not also collect raw coins (although I suspect there must be some). I can understand the concern about new collectors being dissuaded from the hobby if there were only encapsulated coins around but I do not see grading and slabbing supplanting the ongoing joy of having raw coins (for one thing the cost will deter most). Even where people do go for encapsulated coins I suspect the vast majority of the coins (contrary to earlier suggestions) that are submitted for grading will be for rarer, scarcer or superb items. The downside it is those same items that will inevitably attract the investor and perhaps remove the coins from the reach of most collectors.

Yes, but neither an artwork nor an antique is housed in a plastic slab, which was my point. And your point is well taken. But art work tends not to be minted in the thousands or hundreds of thousands and it is, therefore, much harder to substitute an inferior example for the one you think you bought. I am glad I just read about the uniqueness of art - unlike many coins. There are a number of 1933 pennies but only (as far as is known) one Mona Lisa. The British Philatelic Society do authenticate stamps and seal them in an perspex envelope with certificate number (in answer to "who heard of this for stamps"!). Some antique dealers mark the items that pass through their hands with special marking pens that show up under ultra-violet light to allow provenance to be checked. Works of art are also being marked on the reverse - yet twenty years ago this would have been unheard of. I wonder what early coin collectors said about cabinets when they were produced, bearing in mind that in those early days only the rich could afford collecting coins - most peoples interest was limited to what they could buy. Even with those wonderful cabinets the opening and shutting of drawers led to the dreaded 'cabinet friction' on otherwise near perfect coins. In the sixties I used plastic envelopes for storage of coins or even Whitman folders. Many of the pennies I left in those same envelopes have become scrap after forty years. Now we have plastic envelopes that supposedly stop 'sweating' and we are encouraged to use paper envelopes instead where you have to take the coin out to examine it. Maybe the coin slab will fall by the wayside but for now there is sufficient interest in having a quality service for UK coins from other people like me that I sincerely hope CGS will continue and in time thrive. I do not think anyone who has commented positively on grading and encapsulation of coins has said it is the only way forward. We have not suggested that those who remove coins from slabs are wrong (which if it is a CGS slab I think is a shame). I have said time and again I used to loathe slabbing of coins and I used to remove them from slabs. I may have a load of CGS graded coins but I probably have well over ten times that number as raw coins as well - so if I want to 'feel' a coin in my hand I have plenty to chose from. As another contributor noted - each to their own.

Excellent point. I personally have a hunch that the coin market will do a Clarice Cliff i.e. some of the current higher end values may start to feel very optimistic. When this will happen is anybody's guess. Points on investments rising and falling are well laid out and allow people to make their own informed (or otherwise) decisions. What goes up will eventually come down (I just hope it will be after I sell my collection or when it becomes an issue for my successors). References to plastic in a derogatory vein merely demonstrate a bias against encapsulation. Having done some research on encapsulation pricing I was frankly astounded by the number of companies in North America that have been founded to undertake grading and encapsulation of coins. I was also intrigued by the number that are no longer in business. There are over ten companies offering grading and slabbing currently operating with charges ranging from a few dollars per coin to tens of dollars per coin. The higher priced companies include PCGS and NGC - but then again these are the most 'respected' in North America. I also came across the ability to buy 'encapsulation supplies' that mimic those of the main coin grading companies under the guise of 'encapsulate your own lesser coins so that they can be co-located with your formally graded coins'. Having been to US coin stores and US coin fairs I have to concur with the points made by Coin News in respect of the acceptability of graded coins by the US collector. To suggest that US collectors are anything less than a collector in the UK with the same number of years of collecting merely because they look for slabbed coins and generally accept as face value the grading given on the slab is patently wrong. The fact that I want to examine a UK coin in any US capsule before I will buy it means I have been burnt enough times to not implicitly trust the product. I just do not trust US companies grading of UK coins - but if I were a US coin collector I may love their product. I have that confidence in CGS graded coins of the UK and commonwealth countries that I do buy CGS graded coins based upon CGS grading without needing to pre-examine them. North American collectors have largely come to accept slabbed coins. I believe the UK market is more discerning and I do not believe the whole market will ever embrace third party grading and encapsulation. I am hoping that enough of us will to ensure the continuation of the CGS service.

I learnt a lot about their grading process today, spending over two hours with one of their graders (Paul Radford), who has been with CGS since the start. One of the reasons their grading appears so strict is that there is no concept of 'compensation' - a whole series of negatives in several different categories will simply mark the coin down, so if one side is half a grade or more lower than the other, then so is the grade for the whole coin, in essence! (In other words, they don't 'average' the two sides when arriving at the single grade). The recent debate on CGS on this thread (and the other thread) has been prompting a rethink by CGS itself that will become apparent in due course. CGS uses a scientific mechanism for grading of coins that includes downgrading for poor or weak strikes, ghosting etc - thus coins that some dealers regard as UNC may end up as VF (I have had this) through to UNC (and all grades in between). The usage of attributing traditional grades by CGS has caused undoubted consternation for collectors and dealers alike. The fact that most dealers call a CGS 75 or CGS 78 'UNC' yet CGS refer to it as AU has caused resentment. Also, CGS consistently grade whatever the age of the coin - no allowance is made for age or nature of striking of a particular denomination/year (as some graders do). However, should it matter if the coin becomes a finest known for a type even at (VF) CGS 40? For example, what does the population report say of the coins you had graded Paulus? Are any finest known? My experience of Gothic Florins are if they ever achieve CGS 80 or higher they are real gems (and there is a collector of such coins out there who will pay high sums for such coins) - and achieve well over Spink Catalogue suggestion. My own experience of Spink has been mixed. Coins I bought as UNC from them have not always achieved a CGS 80 or better grade. I welcome these exchanges of views and appreciate the time people take on our hobby (even if we disagree!). Only by such an exchange and the preparedness of people like Paulus to share their own experiences will organisations like CGS learn and hopefully take on board comments exchanged.

Lovely coin that I suspect should grade at CGS82 if not higher. I would love one of that quality in my collection!

Jaggy, if you are based in the UK - can you tell me how long did it take for the coins to arrive, how much was the postage and taxes (if any, %). I'd like to bid in Heritage auctions and I do wonder what would be the total cost (apart from BP). Hope you don't mind me asking. Thanks. M. I have bought some British Coins at Heritage Auctions (in US slabs.....) twice and made prompt payment. The premium is shown in the auction so you know the direct cost. I seem to recollect there was a choice of shipment and for one lot I chose express and coins arrived in three days without any UK customs charge but the shipment cost was around £15.00. The second lot I did not go for express, merely Airmail and this time I had to pay a customs charge which because it came by post has a minimum admin charge of £8.50 (even if the custom charge is only £1.00!). So before bidding check out delivery costs and weigh up the likelihood of being charged import duty (Heritage Auctions declare the total value on the packet) - for some reason carriers like Federal Express do not always accrue customs duty. Mind you why customs duty is payable on returning an item to country of origin always perplexes me. One thing that I have become aware of with CGS grading is the riders CGS uses AU (78) UNC (80) were attached as a marketing aid as the CGS founding committee took the view that a stand alone numerical system was too radical. The CGS system itself only arrives at a numeric grade. Experience has shown that for current market standards especially independent dealers rather than London auction rooms that the CGS AU75 and AU78 is everyone else UNC. Although not exactly per the CGS website, the following are the grades I believe CGS compares to: Grade CGS Category 80 – 100 Uncirculated 75 – 79 Almost Uncirculated 60 – 74 Extremely Fine 40 – 59 Very Fine 20 – 39 Fine 01 – 19 Good, Very Good I have tried to arrive at a comparison of US Sheldon grades to UK CGS Grades (MS61 is rarely a UK UNC!). Fine CGS F20 US: VF 20 Very Fine CGS VF40 US: XF40 Ex. Fine CGS VF55 US: AU50 AU (May be Brown) CGS EF60 US: AU58 UNC (Red/Brown) CGS AU75 US: MS61RB Choice UNC (Red) CGS AU78 US MS63 R Gem UNC (Red) CGS UNC80 US MS65 R Proof (in FDC) CGS UNC85 US PF66 R