Bill Pugsley

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 definitely not 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

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 guess the risk is that, without the company to pursue such issues, it would be easy for someone to start making their slabs with any old tat in and it could be a while before the market realises. And of course if that happened, confidence in (and saleability of) genuine CGS graded coins would suffer. As to Australia, it appears both CGA (Coin Grading Australia) and ACGS (Australian Coin Grading Service) failed to get off the ground. Possibly an indication that the coin market in America is just different (despite CGS' best efforts) from everywhere else? And more reasons why it's essential to buy the coin, not the slab. As for myself, despite Bill's generous and attentive explanations, I remain to be convinced of the usefulness to me of someone else giving a grade to my coins. Setting aside the fairly major flaws that only one grade is given for an item that can be quite different on the obverse and reverse and that grading takes (or should take if it really is just an assesment of wear) no account of whether a coin is a better or worse example than normally encountered, a third party just can't tell me whether I will like a coin when I see it or not because that's subjective and down to me alone. There are more collectors of US & Canada coins in North America (and more money) because unlike 60 odd million people in the UK there are 340 million in the USA alone. There are also coin dealers in nearly every town (albeit some are pawn brokers) and because of lack of knowledge they have opted for the graded coins approach to give credibility to coins being bought and sold. The CGS website identifies all graded coins and allows registered users of the site to check that a coin in a CGS slab is the one on the site. In the early days of grading pictures were not always taken but in at least the last year all coins graded have had pictures taken and put on the site. If CGS ceased operation I believe the website would continue to survive (at least for a while) but someone unscrupulous could hijack it and add 'duff graded coins'. However, as has already been pointed out there is still limited acceptance of graded coins (let alone CGS graded coins) in the UK and for someone to make serious money it would need a greater following. Of course, some overseas organisations may see it as a fast opportunity to make money so yes, the worst could happen and the market for CGS coins be overrun by poor quality specimens getting to market. But then nothing is absolutely full-proof - who could have predicted the latest financial crash? Let us not lose sight of what an individual wants out of coin collecting. I love the differences in the coins I collect but at the back of my mind is 'what are they worth'. Either I will sell my collection or as is more likely it will be up to my successors to sell it. Some of us have minimal or no interest in value. Others have this permanently at the fore when improving their collection. I used to think my collection (unless rare/scarce) was largely EF or better. When I started getting coins CGS graded I found my assumptions were wrong. I could have happily continued with my raw collection but I always want the best I can get - which is why I decided to get my coins CGS graded so that I would know what someone I trusted (and here is the nub - TRUST) said the grades were. Finally, unless I buy a uniface coin I want to know how the whole coin will grade. The fact that one side may be FDC but the other is battered or corroded or whatever does not make the coin FDC. I grade a coin as a whole unit and although I find AUNC/EF interesting as a description it does not make the coin AUNC.

CGS manage their business and deal with grading in batches (which can lead to longer waiting periods to get coins graded) and is supported by London Coins. As such I have minimal fear that they will cease operations. However, nothing is certain (Comet, HMV etc seemed like robust and doing well companies as well). I would be delighted if CGS had a full complement of staff and its own offices but unless it gets regular serious quantities of coins for grading that will not happen. The question was asked what happened to coins grading by the Australian Grading Service (AGS - that followed the US grading model of the Sheldon scale). Unlike most grading companies, coins graded by AGS were sealed into the equivalent of flip envelopes - a process relatively easy to duplicate (so beware of any coins so sealed and presented). I did buy an AGS graded & sealed halfcrown form an Australian dealer that was graded as MS64 which when submitted to CGS ended up as AU75 which was a disappointment. AGS simply did not have enough custom and it was loss making from its first day of operation (it did not have support from any other company). How would I feel if CGS were to cease operations? Very sad but what coins I have had graded will not change - to me the grades are as near absolute as I could get/want. As for my own experience, I am now much better at grading coins (thanks in large part to learning from CGS) but the consequence is I am extremely critical of any coins I look at (when other than in a CGS slab - but I still look at those). There are great dealers, good dealers, mediocre dealers and bad dealers out there selling 'raw' coins. The same could be said of auctioneers (all categories). I have bought from all types over the years and now know who to trust and who to avoid; or if not avoid I critically review any coin I receive and will send back any that do not match the description. I do feel it is a little unfair to criticise the collector who does not have accumulated skills in grading. Many, like I used to, rely on the grades advised by the dealers and the eye appeal of the coin in the hand. Now I use magnifiers and decent light (where I can) to check out coins before I buy them - but even then when I get them home and look at them in my controlled environment I find I have still made mistakes (just fewer I hope).

When CGS grades a coin, whether a 1915 farthing of a 1967 penny through to an 1847 Gothic Crown - they go through the same process. Admittedly you would pay more for the Gothic Crown (it is worth much more and thus falls into a higher price bracket). I can understand the reluctance by many collectors to get their run of the mill coins graded and only focus on higher value items they have. Some of us who collect series of coins want all the 'main coins' we have in our collection graded even if they fall into the run of mill category. I have submitted coins that I thought were scarce varieties to discover that they were common - so I have a fair 1908 penny in a handsome (to me) capsule that is worth a token £1.00 (not one of my better submissions). Any collector finds it good to know that "their 1905 half crown" is not a fake/copy and at over £250 for near fine it could well be a wise investment to get it professionally graded. I do not believe that the CGS service will end up skewed by a multitude of common or garden coins - but it will only be as good as the coins submitted to it. I would hope that the £11.99 each will deter anyone from submitting 1967 pennies en masse but if they have the money and the inclination there is nothing to stop them. Yes, there are numbers of lower value coins in the population reports. There are also very high valued scarce/rare coins in those same reports. Only time and greater volume of submissions will allow the population report to grow. By all means wait and see what happens. For my part I still have coins to submit and expect to keep doing so, not too many common or garden ones to go though!

This raises an interesting point. Since CGS only give a single grade, how do they cope with grading coins that are distinctly different grades on obverse and reverse? There are series notorious for this, the pre-1920 halfcrowns coming immediately to mind. If someone submitted a 1913 halfcrown that was GVF/EF (a very commonly encountered grade for that series), how can a single grade do this justice? For example, VF followed by a high number would not convey that the coin's reverse was EF. I had a good look at my 1931 wreath crown this morning. The reverse is indisputably EF and there is no flattening of the ribs of the lilies, or on the thistles. However, the obverse shows more flattening to the ear than would be comfortable for EF, though there are many "EF details" ( ) otherwise. I'd be mortified to see CGS grade this as VF(nn). I have to admit it is only recently that I became aware as a collector of the differentiation between obverse and reverse grading of coins - your EF/VF example. As I understand the process CGS use their scientific approach to grade all aspects of the coin (points are deducted for wear, knocks etc on both sides and edge) and the numeric system then arrives at a grade. So if a coin may be described as UNC/VF (rubbing in a tray may have caused this) the result may be an overall EF grade as an opinion of the coin. If the UNC side were exceptional it is possible it may end up as an AU grade. I can see an opportunity for grading companies to in future offer an assessment of both sides of the coin such as UNC88/VF55 but what then about the edge? Or do they try and determine any issues and give then to one side or the other. If the ege were treated separately we could end up with UNC88/VF55/EF70 (or any permutation thereof). For me, I am content with the overall grade I get of a coin because I collect the whole coin and do not (normally) differentiate between head and tails. Of course if it is a variety where the head may have used a currency die and the tail used a proof die - then I am interested in the difference. I have seen a variety of a matt proof but with a polished edge that I would love to have but I suspect it may be a 1 of 1.

Can you point me to a webpage where this guarentee is defined? I'd be interested to see the terms and conditions. The one thing I do know about the guarentees offered by the grading companies are that they are entirely worthless if you buy a slabbed coin. The guarentee only applies to the original submitter of the raw coin. I have now had some feedback from CGS - but I will be seeking further clarification as it deals with the submitter of the coin, not the current holder (extract from flier and website follows): ABOUT THE CGS GRADING SYSTEM .......................................... THE COIN GRADING SERVICE The CGS UK system starts by asking whether the coin is genuine (it may be compared to our extensive library of known forgery types, and weighed) in some cases it may be sent to consultant experts and specialists depending on the coin type. In essence we convince our selves as much as is possible we are dealing with the genuine item. We have to as we offer to pay the full market value to the submitter of any coin we encapsulate which subsequently is proved not to be genuine. We then assess if the coin has been enhanced by artificial toning, tooled, polished, plugged, or whizzed. Coins not passing these two tests are returned to the submitter and do not find their way into CGS UK holders. I am pleased to hear that most of the air is removed prior to encapsulation. That will certainly reduces the chance of things going wrong later. Bill, can I make the following suggestion for the CGS website? 1) it might be worth while for CGS to produce a short video clip on their site showing the grading process. Seeing precautions taken like air removal will help to inspire confidence. 2) it would be great to see photos of sets of coins they use as benchmark standards. This will help everyone to understand the strict grading of CGS 3) some information need to be updated. E.g. CGS did not used to encapsulate and grade coins with certain problems. Hence, the following paragraph appear on the website "We then assess if the coin has been enhanced by artificial toning, tooled, polished, plugged, or whizzed. Coins not passing these two tests are returned to the submitter and do not find their way into CGS UK holders" However, CGS now grade and and encapsulate problem coins but will describe the problems on the tickets. Hence the wording in bold above is no longer true. It is confusing to have contradictory information on the same webpage. Also on that page, the range for AU should be 75-78 and not 75-75 as stated. It states that the mid point for EF is 70. Now it is 65 as 70-75 have been renamed from EF to AU. Regarding the CGS guarantee, I am convinced by the wording that it will only apply to the submitter and only cover cases when the English milled coin is not genuine. I have read all the information on the website and I do not believe it will cover defects on coins slabbed. On the link to the CGS forum, there is a FAQ section. It states that "The CGS Capsules How sealed are the holders, for example would they help prevent BU silver coins from toning? The capsules are hermetically sealed and would need to be broken to get the coin out. CGS Guarantee the state of the coin as encapsulated so they know that the coins will not be damaged or toned in any way once encapsulated." However, CGS has pointed out that it is not responsible for the accuracy of the information on the CGS forum, the information is therefore not binding. Might be it is a good idea to draw CGS's attention to this information and ask them to either confirm or withdraw it. As many have said eariler, many thanks Bill, for joining the forum and for sharing your views and extensive experience with CGS. Sorry not to have dealt with your note before now - actually been working for a change! However, here goes: 1. I like the idea of the video clip and indeed more information on the attribution and grading process (even a clip of their scientific program process). I will add this to the 'wish list' of changes requested for the Web Site (that I have not touched for a year or more). [since starting writing my views on CGS I have discovered more information about their Policies etc that I am told were formulated by a committee of coin dealers/collectors rather than just one or two people.] 2. A number of people have asked for pictures of the bench mark set to be available on the site (we all think it a great idea) so I will make sure this is prominent in the next wish list for website changes review. 3. You are right about information needing to be updated on the site. With evolution of the site some of the earlier comments no longer apply. I have this action for myself but my work keeps getting in the way. Maybe in a month or so I will have the time to check the full detail of the site. A number of your next points deal with accuracy of information; for example encapsulating coins with yellow tickets is a fairly new innovation and the whole matter of how they are dealt with on the site (as well as information about the process of grading leading to rejections) needs to be refreshed. You are right to raise the matter of can the guarantee be passed from originator of the encapsulation to the current owner - I have asked the question but I think I need to ask it again as I buy CGS graded coins from third parties and I would hate to have to differentiate from ones I submitted to ones I bought. The sealing of the capsule should stop most problems occurring (I wrote elsewhere about sealing in inert gas environments but the cost would be prohibitive. Using a vacuum may be an answer but again it would increase costs). I am not sure what else can be done in economic terms to give total peace of mind but I will continue to reflect on it. I accept your point about statements and then counter statements about rejecting inaccuracy on the web site. This all comes down to a review of the wording and general content of the site. If I have missed anything out, please accept my apologies. At some point I will be publishing a note on the CGS Forum of all matters that need correcting on the CGS main site as well as suggested enhancements to the site. Just a matter of finding the time. All the best. Bill

Can you point me to a webpage where this guarentee is defined? I'd be interested to see the terms and conditions. The one thing I do know about the guarentees offered by the grading companies are that they are entirely worthless if you buy a slabbed coin. The guarentee only applies to the original submitter of the raw coin. I have now had some feedback from CGS - but I will be seeking further clarification as it deals with the submitter of the coin, not the current holder (extract from flier and website follows): ABOUT THE CGS GRADING SYSTEM .......................................... THE COIN GRADING SERVICE The CGS UK system starts by asking whether the coin is genuine (it may be compared to our extensive library of known forgery types, and weighed) in some cases it may be sent to consultant experts and specialists depending on the coin type. In essence we convince our selves as much as is possible we are dealing with the genuine item. We have to as we offer to pay the full market value to the submitter of any coin we encapsulate which subsequently is proved not to be genuine. We then assess if the coin has been enhanced by artificial toning, tooled, polished, plugged, or whizzed. Coins not passing these two tests are returned to the submitter and do not find their way into CGS UK holders.

Chatting to a well known dealer at the Midland Fair he was taking the pee out of finest known claims for UK coins when only a fraction are slabbed.The benchmark coins would be interesting to find out about and where they were sourced. Anyone who has an interest in the CGS process can make an appointment to visit their offices and see one grader undertaking grading of coins (preferably from CGS's point of view one or two submitted by the visitor!). As part of that introduction you have the chance to view the CGS benchmark set. (At the first forum meeting some of the benchmark set were brought to the event by CGS and the attendees were able to see them.) The benchmark coins are a variety that exist in NGC and PCGS (I cannot remember other slabs) capsules as well as coins in plastic capsules or even flip envelopes. Although I cannot remember the exact year there were at least five brilliant UNC (they looked UNC to me) pennies of George V (all same year) that were graded (I did not take notes so my memory may be suspect) from UNC85 down to VF55. Of course there were numerous other coins in lesser grades going down to at least G8; there were also some coins graded as high as UNC97. The benchmark set had been built up (and is occasionally added to) with each coin getting a classification per the CGS process. They are thereafter used as comparators for all coins that are submitted. All of the coins (when I saw them) were from the UK and it is for that reason that CGS only profess a thorough knowledge of UK coins.

Is this a positive slab-related comment by our Peter?? I have no doubt that CGS graded it impartially and accurately. But grading an MS-64 coin as AU78 is to CGS's advantage... It gives an impression that they are much stricter than NGC and would therefore help CGS coins realise higher prices. I don't think AJW would be too pleased though. I have just returned a PCGS MS64 George V half crown to its owner which in its capsule looked BU. I sat down with it and simply used an ordinary lens to minutely examine the coin through the perspex case and using my experience (which is far from expert) made a note of the bag marks, scratches (on the coin - not the capsule), weak strike in areas, light rubbing on high points, flan flaw etc and concluded that CGS might grade as high as AU75 but possibly as low as EF65. Yet it was and is a lovely coin. The seller was great and had offered a full refund if I was not happy with it (I have a CGS EF70 of the coin already which I did tell the seller before I 'bought' his coin). I am still intrigued by the 1935 Crown that was shown earlier in this post. Do let us know what CGS have to say about it should you contact them about it. If that were an auction house you'd be lucky to return it as a slabbed coin is authenticity of grade and coin. That is why Major Grading houses offer their guarantees (or so I understand). Have you seen the fake slabs that are now coming from China? So far I think they have copied NGC and PCGS - I was shown one about six months ago. The coin in it had been cast but a quick inspection would allow it to pass - after all it was slabbed and graded. The immediate give away was the fact the slab was not identical to ones issued by NGC or PCGS.

Bob, as an American, how do you compare the relative qualities of NGC and CGS ? Do you have experience of both ? Michael, I have a lot of NGC graded coins (and some PCGS and ANAC's), and I think NGC does a good job on U.S. Coins. Coins of Great Britain are another matter, since the grading is not based on a UK system of grading...in fact I am not sure what they use as a grading guide for UK coins. On the other hand, I think CGS does a good job, as far as I have seen, on British coins. The real comparison of coin grading for CGS would be how do they grade U.S. Coins. Would they make the same mistakes on U.S. coins that NGC and others make on UK coins? I don't know, as I have never seen a U. S. Coin graded thus far, by CGS. That would be a good one to check out. What it all boils down to with the two grading systems is, we are not comparing apples to apples...instead apples to oranges!.... Hello Bob, CGS actually recommend that Coins from North America (Canada & USA) be graded by US grading companies as the results are more acceptable to North American collectors. I have just checked the CGS site and it shows that there are five collectors who own 9 CGS Graded USA Coins. I had a quick look and found the following: UIN 0016026 Coin Type 1DSE.USAM.2008.02 Origin United States Description 1 Dollar Silver Eagle 2008 Variety W. Proof Standard References CGS variety 02 Provenance Grade UNC 98 Population Level 1 out of 1 Finest Known I did ask CGS recently had they ever graded a coin at UNC100 and the answer was no - not even proof that had come straight out of a mint's capsule. Very critical grading but I feel consistent. As an aside, I believe all other (than CGS) graders use the Sheldon Scale (developed in North America) which goes from 01 to 70 whereas CGS uses the decimal scale of 01 to 100.

Is this a positive slab-related comment by our Peter?? I have no doubt that CGS graded it impartially and accurately. But grading an MS-64 coin as AU78 is to CGS's advantage... It gives an impression that they are much stricter than NGC and would therefore help CGS coins realise higher prices. I don't think AJW would be too pleased though. I have just returned a PCGS MS64 George V half crown to its owner which in its capsule looked BU. I sat down with it and simply used an ordinary lens to minutely examine the coin through the perspex case and using my experience (which is far from expert) made a note of the bag marks, scratches (on the coin - not the capsule), weak strike in areas, light rubbing on high points, flan flaw etc and concluded that CGS might grade as high as AU75 but possibly as low as EF65. Yet it was and is a lovely coin. The seller was great and had offered a full refund if I was not happy with it (I have a CGS EF70 of the coin already which I did tell the seller before I 'bought' his coin). I am still intrigued by the 1935 Crown that was shown earlier in this post. Do let us know what CGS have to say about it should you contact them about it.

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).

I have never met a 'perfect' person before and I do not think I have done so through this forum. I actually find your calling me a muppet very offensive - because that is what you have just done with your post. No offence made.It wasn't intended for you. Anyone who can afford over £20k in slabbing his collection has made their decision in how they want to collect.Each to their own. Think of the nice 1905 half crowns you could buy with over £24,000 (many coins cost £19.99 and some even more to get graded)! To try and add some balance to the expenditure some of the results of grading by CGS have to me been spectacular - not so much the grade achieved (although it helps if it is high) but the new varieties that they have identified in their process (yes, and they have got some wrong as well as previously noted). Anyone looking at the site may be interested to inspect the 1953 series which now has seven new types of the proof that are unrecorded in any of the traditional catalogues (farthing, halfpenny, threepence, sixpence, two one shillings, florin {this last rejected though}). The same set had a mule penny, one of three known proof halfcrowns of a new type and a VIP Proof Crown. Apart from the penny which was a fairly obvious variety, all the other coins could easily be mistaken for normal proofs with a modest value. Now I am not suggesting that the value of this set matches the cost of grading but if it ever came to selling it I am sure it would attract some buyers. Other coin collectors or dealers may have spotted the new types. Perhaps they would (will) be written up in Coin News or some other publication/website. What I do know is they are now on the CGS site with pictures so anyone registered to the site can compare them against their own coins. Bill, Sorry to rain on your parade, but all the varieties shown on their website are known and already described in numismatic literature - at the risk of blowing my own trumpet, I describe all of the currency and standard proof types in my two books on 20thC bronze and silver. Indeed, there are a few minor types I describe that they don't. Having said this, you are quite right that most of these types are not described in the standard catalogues e.g. Spink etc. Hello David, I just checked and I did not see the the new variety (that are actually pre-production proof) farthing and half penny in one of your books - unless you consider them to be minor varieties. That said your two books on coins from 1900 are excellent and the illustrations are first class. I have both next to me! A number of the varieties that have come up in recent months (pre-1900) I have not found in most of the standard works that I have (the 1892 with 2 over 1 crown for example). I have actually referenced your books (and others) in an article that I have been told will be in April's coin news. I have led people to your books when asked about a decent source of information - as I have done for Michael Gouby, Freeman etc (I also collect books and catalogues) but I believe a single source of information is very helpful (and I know of other web sites - also referenced in my article). If the article is published I hope you and others find it informative.

Not quite "every" - I'm still waiting for a reply to mine, but I may have a long wait... Are you referring to what I think you are, Peck ~ namely the query about being able to remove a coin from a slab, and re-insert it at a later date, with the certification still intact and available, being capable of cross referencing a bar code to a central record and detailed photo ? That one ? If so, I too would be interested in Bill's views on that possibility, as I drew a blank when I mentioned it in an earlier post. So much for a quiet day getting on with my day job (not a complaint, merely an observation - truth be told I prefer any subject related to coins!). Sorry I did not comment on your earlier post (so many threads - and I missed yours - must be an 'my age' thing). It would be great if a way could be found to allow coins to be removed and totally accessible to a collector and then subsequently re-installable in the original graded capsule. That way I believe both sides of the divide may be satisfied with a service. With advances in technology it should be possible develop a process to accurately record all aspects of a coin as both a three dimensional image and information on mass etc (computer storage costs are low thankfully because such information could occupy as much as a gigabyte per coin). Conceivably such a process could also be used to grade coins when a sufficient number had been recorded of a specific type for comparison purposes (although I still believe in the human perception of 'eye appeal'). Technology continues to improve in leaps and bounds so with the right effort and a lot of money, a solution could be found. Therein lies the problem - a lot of money. Some of the machines available today that could be used to undertake the work are a hefty capital investment- then there is the software design, development and testing costs. My guesstimate would be a minimum of half a million pounds before an automated solution could be available (my background is software development and delivery - something I accidently fell into in 1970 - yes they had computers then, the size of a room and with less power than today's i-Phone!). OK, no one is yet spending that kind of money so using the tools we have today - we take a good picture, assess the grade (I would suggest as CGS do or some comparable process), perhaps note any issues with the coin and attach them to the description. However, sometime later the coin is then reinserted back into the capsule by its owner, perhaps being offered for sale. The buyer can always check the repository for information on the coin and check it against the original record. What if the buyer suggests the coin is different or suffered damage (I recently heard of a sale of a gold £5.00 to a buyer in Japan who returned a coin having rejected the sale - the coin returned was not the one sent and it took a while for the seller to resolve the matter - which can illustrate problems when one party may not be totally honest). In a worst case the coin will need to go to arbitration - and that could cost. Maybe, if the owner passed the coin and slab back to the service provider they could verify that it was the same as originally processed but there would certainly be a cost for that service. I understand Victorians used to lacquer their coins in collections to preserve their condition. Perhaps the collecting community may accept something similar for the future (there must be something better than lacquer around today). Maybe graded coins could end up with microscopic bar codes (which perforce may damage the original coin - even if only at a micron level), perhaps an indelible marker only viewable through fluorescent light (might assist recovery of stolen goods post robberies) but again we are 'affecting the coin'. I believe I noted elsewhere I had bought a coin that had previously been in a CGS graded capsule (it had its original 'ticket') that I sent to CGS for grading. They charged the £11.99 and it came back with a lower grade than the original ticket (AU78 rather than UNC80). I have no doubt that the owner who removed it from a capsule handled it well and kept it safe - yet I cannot complain about the variance in grade from the earlier grading to the new grading. What would have worried me is if the coin had been graded the second time as UNC82 or higher as that would suggest the coin had been improved when out of its capsule. £11.99 is not a cheap cost for getting a coin graded but it represents good value to me. More valuable coins cost more (prices are on the CGS web site). I used to buy graded coins and remove them from the slabs (dealers and auctioneers often offer this service to buyers). If (as I did) I wanted to get my coins graded again I simply resubmitted them and paid the price. Being candid if the price doubles or triples to be commensurate with US Grading Prices then I may well not submit lower value coins but instead opt for the EVERLAST slabs (also noted elsewhere) - even though they are not the same size as CGS slabs. Maybe in time someone will make the investment I outlined above and we could end up with the best of both worlds. Unfortunately I do not see that happening any time soon (ideas outlined above are my Intellectual Property so if they do, I want a piece of the action!) - but I like the idea. I suspect not the response we would all like but best I can offer. All the best Bill I have no idea what a 'wet weekend in Clacton' would be like (let alone a sunny one). Not a place I remember visiting but I understand the symbolism. In this day and age Customer Service can make the difference between success and failure. If the response from CGS when I raised the matter had been a 'so what' I would have been seriously troubled. In a worst case Colin888 should have been asked for his number and a return call made if his questions could not have been properly dealt with by the person answering the telephone. Colin888 was let down and feels that he has no interest in doing business with CGS. I loathe a well known British Telecommunication provider and avoid doing business with them if I can (even moving business accounts from them) because of persistent appalling service - yet when their telephone/broadband service operates it is pretty damn good. I am fortunate there are alternative suppliers who are less expensive generally than the one I loathe - so I have a choice. In the case of coin grading I believe CGS is the best for British (Irish and Strait Settlements) coins that I have an interest in. I also think they offer exceptional value. I also want them to survive and grow - hence my taking the time to try and respond on matters. There is still the matter of the guarantee (that I would like to see on the website) which I will be chasing later this week and hope to report on next week at the latest. Bill

Not quite "every" - I'm still waiting for a reply to mine, but I may have a long wait... Are you referring to what I think you are, Peck ~ namely the query about being able to remove a coin from a slab, and re-insert it at a later date, with the certification still intact and available, being capable of cross referencing a bar code to a central record and detailed photo ? That one ? If so, I too would be interested in Bill's views on that possibility, as I drew a blank when I mentioned it in an earlier post. So much for a quiet day getting on with my day job (not a complaint, merely an observation - truth be told I prefer any subject related to coins!). Sorry I did not comment on your earlier post (so many threads - and I missed yours - must be an 'my age' thing). It would be great if a way could be found to allow coins to be removed and totally accessible to a collector and then subsequently re-installable in the original graded capsule. That way I believe both sides of the divide may be satisfied with a service. With advances in technology it should be possible develop a process to accurately record all aspects of a coin as both a three dimensional image and information on mass etc (computer storage costs are low thankfully because such information could occupy as much as a gigabyte per coin). Conceivably such a process could also be used to grade coins when a sufficient number had been recorded of a specific type for comparison purposes (although I still believe in the human perception of 'eye appeal'). Technology continues to improve in leaps and bounds so with the right effort and a lot of money, a solution could be found. Therein lies the problem - a lot of money. Some of the machines available today that could be used to undertake the work are a hefty capital investment- then there is the software design, development and testing costs. My guesstimate would be a minimum of half a million pounds before an automated solution could be available (my background is software development and delivery - something I accidently fell into in 1970 - yes they had computers then, the size of a room and with less power than today's i-Phone!). OK, no one is yet spending that kind of money so using the tools we have today - we take a good picture, assess the grade (I would suggest as CGS do or some comparable process), perhaps note any issues with the coin and attach them to the description. However, sometime later the coin is then reinserted back into the capsule by its owner, perhaps being offered for sale. The buyer can always check the repository for information on the coin and check it against the original record. What if the buyer suggests the coin is different or suffered damage (I recently heard of a sale of a gold £5.00 to a buyer in Japan who returned a coin having rejected the sale - the coin returned was not the one sent and it took a while for the seller to resolve the matter - which can illustrate problems when one party may not be totally honest). In a worst case the coin will need to go to arbitration - and that could cost. Maybe, if the owner passed the coin and slab back to the service provider they could verify that it was the same as originally processed but there would certainly be a cost for that service. I understand Victorians used to lacquer their coins in collections to preserve their condition. Perhaps the collecting community may accept something similar for the future (there must be something better than lacquer around today). Maybe graded coins could end up with microscopic bar codes (which perforce may damage the original coin - even if only at a micron level), perhaps an indelible marker only viewable through fluorescent light (might assist recovery of stolen goods post robberies) but again we are 'affecting the coin'. I believe I noted elsewhere I had bought a coin that had previously been in a CGS graded capsule (it had its original 'ticket') that I sent to CGS for grading. They charged the £11.99 and it came back with a lower grade than the original ticket (AU78 rather than UNC80). I have no doubt that the owner who removed it from a capsule handled it well and kept it safe - yet I cannot complain about the variance in grade from the earlier grading to the new grading. What would have worried me is if the coin had been graded the second time as UNC82 or higher as that would suggest the coin had been improved when out of its capsule. £11.99 is not a cheap cost for getting a coin graded but it represents good value to me. More valuable coins cost more (prices are on the CGS web site). I used to buy graded coins and remove them from the slabs (dealers and auctioneers often offer this service to buyers). If (as I did) I wanted to get my coins graded again I simply resubmitted them and paid the price. Being candid if the price doubles or triples to be commensurate with US Grading Prices then I may well not submit lower value coins but instead opt for the EVERLAST slabs (also noted elsewhere) - even though they are not the same size as CGS slabs. Maybe in time someone will make the investment I outlined above and we could end up with the best of both worlds. Unfortunately I do not see that happening any time soon (ideas outlined above are my Intellectual Property so if they do, I want a piece of the action!) - but I like the idea. I suspect not the response we would all like but best I can offer. All the best Bill

I have never met a 'perfect' person before and I do not think I have done so through this forum. I actually find your calling me a muppet very offensive - because that is what you have just done with your post. No offence made.It wasn't intended for you. Anyone who can afford over £20k in slabbing his collection has made their decision in how they want to collect.Each to their own. Think of the nice 1905 half crowns you could buy with over £24,000 (many coins cost £19.99 and some even more to get graded)! To try and add some balance to the expenditure some of the results of grading by CGS have to me been spectacular - not so much the grade achieved (although it helps if it is high) but the new varieties that they have identified in their process (yes, and they have got some wrong as well as previously noted). Anyone looking at the site may be interested to inspect the 1953 series which now has seven new types of the proof that are unrecorded in any of the traditional catalogues (farthing, halfpenny, threepence, sixpence, two one shillings, florin {this last rejected though}). The same set had a mule penny, one of three known proof halfcrowns of a new type and a VIP Proof Crown. Apart from the penny which was a fairly obvious variety, all the other coins could easily be mistaken for normal proofs with a modest value. Now I am not suggesting that the value of this set matches the cost of grading but if it ever came to selling it I am sure it would attract some buyers. Other coin collectors or dealers may have spotted the new types. Perhaps they would (will) be written up in Coin News or some other publication/website. What I do know is they are now on the CGS site with pictures so anyone registered to the site can compare them against their own coins.

I checked out the CGS list for your 1935 Crown (finest known) and I would be happy to pay £100 for it. However, you has properly pointed out that it may have verdigris and you are unsure whether it was cleaned. I recommend you email CGS and tell them of your concerns and see what they have to say (it will take a few days to get an answer). All the best - Bill

I used to use trays and small capsules (you could get a lot of small coins in one tray) but moved to graded coins for reasons I have outlined elsewhere. I have recently been shown trays that hold up to eight slabbed coins (not sure if they hold all size slabs) and they look really nice. If you are happy with the way you store and display your coins - stay with it!

I have never met a 'perfect' person before and I do not think I have done so through this forum. I actually find your calling me a muppet very offensive - because that is what you have just done with your post.

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? I believe that when you buy in sufficient bulk that the Perspex holder does cost a few pence. The same is true of the plastic inserts. I have noted elsewhere that the going rate for Everslab is about £6.50 for five (so £1.30 each). Factor in the need to go through the grading process and even a £2.00 coin would require the attention of two graders. Then the coin has to be fitted to the capsule and pressed by the bulky device that was I presume high capital cost (there is no glue!). All in all I agree that getting common or garden £2.00 coins graded seems like a waste of time - but then again I do not collect £2.00 current coins. If I were a collector of these coins I might want to get the finest graded of a specific two pound.... I have submitted 1967 pennies for grading in the hope that they were all high CGS grades - which they were not. Certainly not the UNC 90 I was looking for. Horses for courses - just do not forget that 'peanuts' or dross (as I would describe some coins) are what some people like to collect!

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. When CGS assess a value for a coin they use a variety of factors which includes an extensive database of sales made by auction houses and on eBay (at the last CGS Forum a presentation was done by Steve Lockett on this very subject). What is not included in the valuation is the cost of the grading - in the same way when you buy a coin you do not expect be charged for the envelope it comes in. Because I collect numerous series that include the low value/high volume coins, I arrange to get them graded even if the coin is worth less than £11.99 so I have them in a consistent storage mechanism. Lighthouse do a 'use at home' coin slab (EVERSLAB) that I bought some of to see what they were like. They cost about £6.50 for five slabs (but you have to designate internal size to 'fit' the coin and you cannot mix and match the five inserts). They are not the same dimension as CGS slabs and as the name suggests, you have to break them open to get the coin out (but they are not hermetically sealed). I am trying to respond to matters raised as I come across them. If you feel I have not addressed a point raised I may think I have done so at another point in this now very wide thread.....

But how many Churchill Crowns, E2 & G6 farthings, to name but a few, could be added to the peanuts list? With Bill's couple of thousand coins, and the E2 pre and post decimal coinage, plus my 10 slabs and VS's mint-flavoured NEF '35 Crown...what was that population report again? Anyway, where's MY '67 penny, then? CGS better grade some more 1967 pennies then if they are going to give them away to all registered collectors with CGS graded coins on the web site (of which there are currently 183). I have heard that over 500 people have registered to the site who have not logged or admitted to having CGS graded coins. Interestingly only 10,632 of the CGS coins have been registered as being 'owned' by the 183 collectors. I wonder where the other 15,000 are? The only time I have known CGS 'give' coins away in slabs was at a Dublin Coin fair when they had encapsulated (but not graded nor added to the 'population' report) Irish Commemorative two euro coins in conjunction with the organisers. These were handed out when people bought tickets to attend the event. I have tried to answer this point elsewhere in this forum but you do make a good point about 'how much dross (my word, peanuts your word)' is included in the 25,000 coins graded. I have no interest in decimal UK coins nor do I collect anything before 1816 - yet these appear on the CGS site. Should I reject the service because it contains stuff I am not interested in? I have submitted everything from 'common or garden' through to extremely rare coins to CGS because I want my collection to be housed in CGS slabs and have been independently graded by them. So was it worth my submitting my Elizabeth II sixpences - certainly not in terms of financial reward. However, many were not UNC (although I thought they were) so I have been able to replace them with CGS UNC coins from private purchases. Unless a coin is scarce or rare I would prefer an UNC version of it - and many I bought as 'raw' and described as uncirculated from UK dealers and auction houses have been graded by CGS as EF, AU and in some cases as VF (with a number being rejected by CGS because of faults or cleaning). Many collectors are content with 'raw' coins. I and some other collectors are not. Most collectors like to acquire the best they can of a specific coin, whatever their interest. To ensure I know what my coins grade at I use CGS and I buy CGS graded coins that allow me to upgrade lesser graded ones. When I paid a ridiculous amount for a CGS UNC82 Churchill Crown it was to replace an UNC80 that I already had. I am more than happy with that purchase - in the same way I would be delighted to be offered a 1967 penny graded by CGS at UNC90 or higher to replace the UNC80 grade I have. However you wish to hold your collection - I wish you well. What I hope I have done is bring some balance to the CGS discussion. Whilst I am not noted for overgrading I feel I must make a valid point on behalf of all of the groups you mention here Bill. It is VERY easy for CGS to be uber-critical of submitted coins when they grade them as they are getting £11.99/shot regardless of whether it is an UNC 99 or a Poor or Good 5. The resultant label score does not matter a jot to them as they profit or lose no further. In relation to an earlier couple of posts by you on here; 1) If CGS staff work with LC why is the grading so far out on some LC auction items (overgraded that is)? Also why so many mis-identification issues on varieties (I know having had 2 extremely rare 1d's that were totally incorrectly identifed)? 2) Who owns the other 49% that is not held by LC holdings? (I could hate computers - I almost finished typing a response and lost the lot. I will try again.) I will try and deal with the points you reasonably make: 0. In simple terms you are right. Why should CGS bother about grading when they get paid at least £11.99 a coin? Should they care about the result given they have our money? It comes down to quality and expectations I suppose. If CGS delivered a poor product then it would not be supported by people like me (I can spend my money on subjectively graded coins and hope when I come to sell them the buyer will agree to the grades). There is no guarantee that having my coins graded will mean I will realise the value suggested by CGS for each coin. I have confidence (perhaps misplaced) that I will get at least 50% of the suggested value by CGS - which when I mentioned at a CGS Forum meeting one delegate offered 60% and was 'outbid' by another who offered 70%. Maybe it was light hearted, maybe it was serious. I would be surprised if it included the 'peanuts' referred to elsewhere but who knows, there may be someone like me who wants to have all sixpences since 1816 in the best possible grade; 1. I had the same complaint after I bought coins at a London Coin Auction that I submitted for grading to CGS. They did not come back the same grade as I was led to expect from the auction catalogue AND my review of the coins prior to the auction. So I asked Steve Lockett why that was the case. The answer is very simple - when assessing coins for an auction, unless the coin is a high rarity or otherwise very valuable minimal time will be spent by the auctioneer examining the piece in great detail. Otherwise to do so with every coin would take a disproportionate amount of time. The paid for CGS process can easily take ten minutes per coin per grader (and there are always two graders). It follows a set procedure and arrives at a grade based upon scientific criteria (arrange to visit and see the process if you like) and that takes time. I mentioned that I had reviewed the coins before I bought them as well. I attended the Dublin Coin Fair and looked at a number of coins I considered buying from a number of different dealers and ended up selecting five that I thought were worth buying. I was happy until I got home to my desk with my lenses and decent bright light and then using a more scientific approach concluded I had bought a VF, an EF and if I was really lucky three that might grade as CGS AU75. None of the five would grade at UNC by CGS rules, yet my fairly detailed inspection at the Fair (I took time) was simply not adequate; 1a. This is a worry that I have had in the past. Now I regularly check the status of any submissions to CGS (on the web site) and as soon as coins are attributed I compare them against my own submission documents. If I disagree with the variety attributed to a coin I immediately raise the matter with CGS by email. Once, in the past, I have returned a coin in a capsule and asked for them to be reassessed for variety. Now out of over 2,000 coins I believe the maximum number this has happened on is about 15 coins (less than 1% - but needs to be improved). On the plus side over 30 coins I have submitted have been identified as new varieties (that I may not have been aware of) or scarcer varieties than I thought they were. Ideally no one should find the variety being incorrectly attributed and it is an area that CGS recognise they need to improve; 2. I have met two people (both dealers) who have told me they have shares in CGS. I believe there is at least one private investor but other than that I have no idea who owns the other 49%. Before anyone asks it is not me - I have no shares in 'coins or related businesses' - I just buy and occasionally sell duplicate coins.

Hi Colin, I am too old and too fat myself. Perhaps it was because I was given chances by others when running my own (and other peoples) businesses that I try and do the same for others, even in rough economic times. If we were all the same the world would be a dull place. As to the value of a coin collection - therein lies one of the reasons I use CGS. I believe my collection has a value but I also believed that the combined collection of my father's stamps and my own stamp collection (accumulated in a total of 120 years) were worth a considerable sum. I know what we spent on stamps while we collected them and having spent over £10,000 with one dealer in the 1980's I approached that same dealer to offer them the stamps. Now I am not naive enough to think I would get anywhere near catalogue value but when I was offered just over £6,400 I was flabbergasted! That set me thinking about coins and how they were valued...... All the best Bill

Hi Bill, I'll ask the question again. Where are the terms and conditions for this guarentee defined? The T+C's attached to the coin submission form make no mention of any guarentee for slabbed coins with problems. Very reasonable question - unless it is in writing from CGS - under English and Welsh law it has no effect. I will find out where it is and if not on the site I will ask that it be put on the site.