Very different grading of 1746 LIMA HC by (L)CGS

[Paulus 1,980]

I often support LCGS when they grade a coin, for their strictness and consistency. However this example seems hard to explain, consistency-wise (well on both counts really):

My CGS 70 (aUNC)

Another CGS 70 for sale on eBay:

Edited July 7, 2017 by Paulus

[Paulus 1,980]

Seems to be at least a whole grade of difference for me, would certainly be disappointed to receive this:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1746-AUNC-George-II-Silver-Lima-Halfcrown-CGS-70-MS60-MS61-/332292189986?hash=item4d5e286f22:g:TbsAAOSwDiBZMyFt 

[Rob 3,239]

Me too.

I thought the LIMA crowns in the last sale were inferior to the one I have too, despite one being graded 80. Mine gets an unambiguous EF for the wear around the ear with brownie points for the toning. Reverse is better, but you can't call it unc with wear.

[Paulus 1,980]

2 minutes ago, Rob said:

Me too.

I thought the LIMA crowns in the last sale were inferior to the one I have too, despite one being graded 80. Mine gets an unambiguous EF for the wear around the ear with brownie points for the toning. Reverse is better, but you can't call it unc with wear.

UNC with wear strikes me as an oxymoron, if the cap fits, wear it, you know who you are!

 

 

[Sword 1,530]

It is ironic that the seller used the CGS conversion table and graded it  as AUNC and MS60-61.

The coin is an ex NGC AU58 and LC itself graded it as GEF when it was "sold" in 2016. (I am inclined to think it might not have made the reserve on that occasion)

Few can argue that Paulus' example has much better eye appeal. To be honest, I prefer the example I brought recently (which was also not as good as Paulus')

[Rob 3,239]

14 minutes ago, Sword said:

It is ironic that the seller used the CGS conversion table and graded it  as AUNC and MS60-61.

The coin is an ex NGC AU58 and LC itself graded it as GEF when it was "sold" in 2016. (I am inclined to think it might not have made the reserve on that occasion)

Few can argue that Paulus' example has much better eye appeal. To be honest, I prefer the example I brought recently (which was also not as good as Paulus')

It doesn't help that AU58 doesn't usually translate to a gEF. You have to be in the 61-64 to have any chance of making good EF, and then (somewhat ironically) it isn't guaranteed.

It's just one of those coins which gets overgraded on occasion and consequently will never get taken out of the slab. This phenomenon is a contributor to grade inflation as each overgraded coin bulks out the populations at whatever level.

[jaggy 528]

On 7/7/2017 at 0:17 AM, Sword said:

It is ironic that the seller used the CGS conversion table and graded it  as AUNC and MS60-61.

The coin is an ex NGC AU58 and LC itself graded it as GEF when it was "sold" in 2016. (I am inclined to think it might not have made the reserve on that occasion)

Few can argue that Paulus' example has much better eye appeal. To be honest, I prefer the example I brought recently (which was also not as good as Paulus')

Grading is not an exact science, however, I have broken out three CGS coins from their slabs and sent them to NGC. In two cases, they were graded one level lower than the CGS conversion table would suggest. In the third case, it was two grades lower.

[VickySilver 885]

Yes, similar to my experience as well - I think the conversions are a bit optimistic in favor of the CGS by a couple of points, sometimes more. I think I trotted out the 1935 specimen Jub crown graded CGS85 that was vastly inferior to the PCGS65 specimen. Others as well....

[azda 983]

On 7/7/2017 at 9:39 AM, Rob said:

It doesn't help that AU58 doesn't usually translate to a gEF. You have to be in the 61-64 to have any chance of making good EF, and then (somewhat ironically) it isn't guaranteed.

It's just one of those coins which gets overgraded on occasion and consequently will never get taken out of the slab. This phenomenon is a contributor to grade inflation as each overgraded coin bulks out the populations at whatever level.

AU58 translates to only EF, only when you get to MS are you into the GEF region. One thing good about grading is that it's consistently inconsistent, but goldguinea (the seller) is a good customer of LCGS, so perhaps a little hand tickle was made

Edited July 8, 2017 by azda

[coinkat 21]

Clearly the first coin is superior and has a very compelling strike with decent surfaces. I suppose what I find the most disappointing is that this coin was graded a 70 on a 100 point scale with the AU range (and please correct me if I am wrong) that can go to 78 if the Uncirculated  range starts at 80. Seriously... How can it be a 70 which is not at the higher end of the AU spectrum? Seems a 75 is warranted or possibly 78 unless there are concerns not adequately captured in the image.

While I would like to offer a plausible explanation such as the state of the dies with the first coin and that coin being struck early in the production and the second coin was likely struck from either separate dies or die parings altogether but still likely struck later in the life cycle of those dies which accounts for weakness and not actual wear from circulation. While the explanation might make some sense, the grade of 70 for both coins really fails to pass the straight face test. 

[Paulus 1,980]

23 hours ago, coinkat said:

Clearly the first coin is superior and has a very compelling strike with decent surfaces. I suppose what I find the most disappointing is that this coin was graded a 70 on a 100 point scale with the AU range (and please correct me if I am wrong) that can go to 78 if the Uncirculated  range starts at 80. Seriously... How can it be a 70 which is not at the higher end of the AU spectrum? Seems a 75 is warranted or possibly 78 unless there are concerns not adequately captured in the image.

While I would like to offer a plausible explanation such as the state of the dies with the first coin and that coin being struck early in the production and the second coin was likely struck from either separate dies or die parings altogether but still likely struck later in the life cycle of those dies which accounts for weakness and not actual wear from circulation. While the explanation might make some sense, the grade of 70 for both coins really fails to pass the straight face test. 

Hence the discussion, why such a diversity? Such a common coin too! Happy with GEF for mine, but when coins clearly inferior grade-wise have a bigger or the same number then I question what is going on

 

[Rob 3,239]

Which is why my lifestyle is much simpler. I only have to worry whether the coin is attractive or ticks a Hobson's Choice box, and if it suitable for either the collection or for resale, is the price right.

There is a huge sense of deja vu with these circular arguments. People seem to fall into one of three camps. 1. Those that blindly follow the TPG view. 2. Those that recognise the system has its shortcomings, but accept them for what they are, and 3. Those that recognise the system has its shortcomings and don't accept the TPG view has any validity.

[Coinery 1,254]

"The coins in the slabs go round and round, round and round, round and round; the coins in the slabs go round and round, all day long!" 

[Sword 1,530]

This one is in the current LCA auction catalogue. Supposedly graded at CGS65 and GEF. Lacks eye appeal for me and the obverse has many hairlines. Estimate of £500-£600 is completely OTT in my view. 

 

[ozjohn 690]

Buy the coin not the slab!

[zookeeperz 470]

Wonder if it is one of their own coins. Must be nice to be the grader and the auctioneer. Surely there must be some law on things like that. Jesus talk about licence to print money.

[jaggy 528]

1 hour ago, zookeeperz said:

Wonder if it is one of their own coins. Must be nice to be the grader and the auctioneer. Surely there must be some law on things like that. Jesus talk about licence to print money.

That is my big criticism of LCGS. The lack of independence.

[Paulus 1,980]

That's ridiculous, here is my best, that I had graded by LCGS

I could display the coins side by side, but the many differences are glaringly obvious (at least to me!). My coins was graded 1 notch better than the one for sale in the forthcoming auction (CGS 70 vs CGS 65).

 

[Paulus 1,980]

 

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by Paulus

[Peter 615]

The 1ST coin at max is a GVF.Bit of a lottery and one company who will never get my business.I saw them put a 1865 farthing in a slab which conveniently covered up a massive  edge knock.They can do one.

[Sword 1,530]

What grade do you think this one was given?

It isn't even VF in my view. LCGS graded it as 55 or GVF.

No, I can't see myself slabbing another coin with CGS. It's unlikely that I would now want to buy one either. 

Edited November 16, 2017 by Sword

[Sword 1,530]

Duplicate post

Edited November 16, 2017 by Sword

[rpeddie 119]

After seeing someone pay £9000 for a aVF ansell sovereign i realise there's always someone willing to throw their money away

[Unwilling Numismatist 505]

A fool and their money... never a truer saying.

[Rob 3,239]

4 hours ago, rpeddie said:

After seeing someone pay £9000 for a aVF ansell sovereign i realise there's always someone willing to throw their money away

 

1 hour ago, Unwilling Numismatist said:

A fool and their money... never a truer saying.

TBH, as long as the person concerned isn't causing financial grief to themselves or their family, it doesn't really matter how much is paid for something. Clearly, if a purchaser is pleased with the acquisition then that should be a box ticked. After all, this country is full of houses with a couple cars on the front pavement that have cost something approaching the market value of the house. Apparent frittering of hard earned wealth isn't the prerogative of buyers at coin auctions - some people waste their money when there is no requirement for an instantaneous decision.

The logical alternative would be paying an exact amount for a coin that has been correctly assessed with regards to condition, i.e. graded, and then a fixed price applied and paid............... hang on a minute. We all find it easy to reference another person's in terms of ourselves, but we aren't the person spending the money. We've all bid a little bit more at some time or other.