CGS - A customer-facing business?

[Bill Pugsley 0]

I asked this question quite a while back also, without reply, but who graded the Benchmark coins that CGS use to check against submitted coins and what are those coins grades.?

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.

[Bill Pugsley 0]

An excellent observation! Some of the early UK proof sets from 1971 in their 'sealed' Royal Mint containers were impaired because of the air (and glue) used to seal the capsules.

Having seen the slabbing process I know virtually all of the air is removed when the coin is encapsulated but not all of it. I am no chemist but I could imagine that there is still sufficient air in the slab that if moisture is present could lead to blemishes (verdigris or other corrosion) of the coin itself. Ideally each coin should be slabbed in an 'inert' gas or vacuum but that would lead to a significant increase in cost for the process (clean air room and Health & Safety of encapsulators).

The fall back is the guarantee of the grading company. CGS are unequivocal in their guarantee - if the coin is 'wrong' or it suffers in the capsule (and so long as the capsule is not damaged by outside influence) they will pay up the value of the coin. Having graded nearly 25,000 that is a serious undertaking.

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.

[Gary D 76]

Are they finally starting to come around to our way of thinking in the US. An interesting thread on an America TPG forum

link

[bagerap 706]

Many of the people contributing to that Collector's Universe board are very heavy hitters indeed with disproportionately great influence in U.S. collecting. A TPG that risks offending some of those guys could find itself rapidly losing custom.

[Peckris 579]

I'm going to assume my point about the slabbing of 60s coin is unanswerable, as Bill hasn't taken the trouble to reply to either of two posts on the subject.

[Sword 1,473]

An excellent observation! Some of the early UK proof sets from 1971 in their 'sealed' Royal Mint containers were impaired because of the air (and glue) used to seal the capsules.

Having seen the slabbing process I know virtually all of the air is removed when the coin is encapsulated but not all of it. I am no chemist but I could imagine that there is still sufficient air in the slab that if moisture is present could lead to blemishes (verdigris or other corrosion) of the coin itself. Ideally each coin should be slabbed in an 'inert' gas or vacuum but that would lead to a significant increase in cost for the process (clean air room and Health & Safety of encapsulators).

The fall back is the guarantee of the grading company. CGS are unequivocal in their guarantee - if the coin is 'wrong' or it suffers in the capsule (and so long as the capsule is not damaged by outside influence) they will pay up the value of the coin. Having graded nearly 25,000 that is a serious undertaking.

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.

[Peter 615]

Maybe I'm I'm not seeing the real picture but a company that has slabbed just over 25,000 coins since conception of which over 2,000 are Bills and I'm sure he hasn't had over 60 1967 1d's slabbed.I still can't get my head around it.

Whilst I may seem anti to TPG I would hate the UK market to end up with a Greysheet of fixed prices and people buying slabs and not the coin.

Please,please CGS keep away from pre 1672 and by all means concentrate services on known fakes (charge more),1847 gothic,s Northumberland shillings and 1864 die 4 gothic florins.Protection is needed here but not on a 1915 vf 1/4d worth 75p or 1967 1d's worth diddly.

[Peckris 579]

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.

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).

[Bill Pugsley 0]

An excellent observation! Some of the early UK proof sets from 1971 in their 'sealed' Royal Mint containers were impaired because of the air (and glue) used to seal the capsules.

Having seen the slabbing process I know virtually all of the air is removed when the coin is encapsulated but not all of it. I am no chemist but I could imagine that there is still sufficient air in the slab that if moisture is present could lead to blemishes (verdigris or other corrosion) of the coin itself. Ideally each coin should be slabbed in an 'inert' gas or vacuum but that would lead to a significant increase in cost for the process (clean air room and Health & Safety of encapsulators).

The fall back is the guarantee of the grading company. CGS are unequivocal in their guarantee - if the coin is 'wrong' or it suffers in the capsule (and so long as the capsule is not damaged by outside influence) they will pay up the value of the coin. Having graded nearly 25,000 that is a serious undertaking.

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

[Bill Pugsley 0]

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.

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.

[Bill Pugsley 0]

Maybe I'm I'm not seeing the real picture but a company that has slabbed just over 25,000 coins since conception of which over 2,000 are Bills and I'm sure he hasn't had over 60 1967 1d's slabbed.I still can't get my head around it.

Whilst I may seem anti to TPG I would hate the UK market to end up with a Greysheet of fixed prices and people buying slabs and not the coin.

Please,please CGS keep away from pre 1672 and by all means concentrate services on known fakes (charge more),1847 gothic,s Northumberland shillings and 1864 die 4 gothic florins.Protection is needed here but not on a 1915 vf 1/4d worth 75p or 1967 1d's worth diddly.

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!

[Accumulator 52]

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).

I noticed a couple of mis-attributions of 1908 pennies by London Coins at their auctions. The very rare F164A is relatively easy to recognise though, compared to the less-rare but difficult to find die pairings.

[Gary D 76]

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.

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.

I would have liked to seen that 1902 Crown as well but after looking at my own copy decided that it probably wasn't that unusual. The normal matt crown only has the matt/frosting to the top surfaces of the edge lettering leaving the field if you can call it that, bright. I wouldn't say mine was polished but is bright enough to give the lettering a good contrast.

[Sword 1,473]

An excellent observation! Some of the early UK proof sets from 1971 in their 'sealed' Royal Mint containers were impaired because of the air (and glue) used to seal the capsules.

Having seen the slabbing process I know virtually all of the air is removed when the coin is encapsulated but not all of it. I am no chemist but I could imagine that there is still sufficient air in the slab that if moisture is present could lead to blemishes (verdigris or other corrosion) of the coin itself. Ideally each coin should be slabbed in an 'inert' gas or vacuum but that would lead to a significant increase in cost for the process (clean air room and Health & Safety of encapsulators).

The fall back is the guarantee of the grading company. CGS are unequivocal in their guarantee - if the coin is 'wrong' or it suffers in the capsule (and so long as the capsule is not damaged by outside influence) they will pay up the value of the coin. Having graded nearly 25,000 that is a serious undertaking.

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

Many thanks for your reply Bill. Very much appreciated.

[mike 5]

Quite an interesting stat from Bill that CGS have entombed 25000 coins (I know of 2 that have been liberated ). It is hardly a mammoth amount is it?

I am also quite suprised at the amount of coverage given to the subject by Coin News. As an advertiser and a dealer it is slightly irksome to me that so much coverage is given to an area that is so small in the UK market as to be almost insignificant? It begs the question "is there some form of business connection?"

Sorry to be blunt Bill but that is also the question I would pose to you due to your over-energetic approach to what is essentially somebody elses business.

Forgive the suspicious mind but it comes from being an ex-cop.

As to Mike, well if slabbing adds so much value to a coin why is it that none of the dealers in the UK submit our coins for slabbing to make vast profits? You are talking about auction prices realised by the sister company of the slabbing firm. Hardly impartial or unbiased is it?

ARGENTUMANDCOINS

I tell you why (IMO!) but you won't like it:

1, if the dealers send their coins for CGS grading, most (not all but most) of their UNC coins

will be returned as EF, some as AUNC but some also as VF55. The same applies to EF,

VF coins etc. Just ask Bill who already submitted around 2000 coins, or Divemaster. I have exactly the same experience. As

NUMISMATIST said : quote "In fact I would say MOST Large Auctioneers and MOST large

dealers, many being BNTA members seriously overgrade these days". I can confirm this

from my own experience. Now when I am more familiar with CGS grading it takes me just

few seconds on the coin show to see that the offered UNC coin would never ever make

even a basic UNC80 grade... So instead of making vast profits they would suffer vast

losses.

2, lot (not all) of coin dealers are not interested in a transparent coin market. With slabbed

coin you can’t buy the coin as about EF and sell it as almost UNC and make large profit.

As one of many examples – just recently I have noticed Victorian YH Halfcrown , sold in recent DNW

auction (where described as GEF and sold for around 800,- pounds) on Coin Dealer

website - described as choice mint state with price tag of 1500,- pounds. So either the

vendor or new buyer was ripped off. DNW is happy with their profit, dealer is very happy with

his profit and the buyer??? This is happening all the time and you have to realise that not all

coin collectors are as experienced as lot of members on this forum and that it takes years to

learn. In the meantime you rely on coin dealers and if you are not experienced enough you

buy choice mint state halfcrown for 1500,- …. I wish CGS was around when I started

collecting 20 years ago.

3, I do not understand your comment about “auction prices realized by the sister company of the

slabbing firmâ€. Are you suggesting that London Coins is bidding against London Coins just to

spend 500,- pounds on a coin worth 50, - pounds to show the public how good it is to have coin

slabbed??? Yes they offer lot of slabbed coins in their auctions but if I want to sell slabbed coin

I would certainly ask London Coins because I am sure that collectors who are interested in slabs are

keeping eye on their auctions.

Mike,

I will keep it simple. I speak from experience as a dealer (many on here have bought from me and will vouch for my grading skills) and as an independent auction house consultant/cataloguer. Leaving aside points 1 and 2 in your reply I will go straight to 3.

London Coins set the auction estimates that the sheep will follow for their bidding, just as CGS set "prices" on coins they slab. It is very easy to massage prices when you control the guide book and the auction. That is a fact not an accusation.

Why not keep an eye on Lockdales as well because Dan quite often has a lot of Steves' unsolds or old stock in his catalogues.

I am a longstanding LC customer with a bidding number in the 200's and I have no axe to grind with the company at all but I do object to people trying to influence opinions with weak one-sided arguments, "transparency in the market" it is quite simple BUY THE COIN NOT THE SLAB!!!

One thing is plain in all of this, there is obviously a concerted effort by yourself, Bill and Divemaster to trumpet the virtues of slabbing to the detriment of collecting and the exhaltation of investing.

I have just read old thread on Colin Cook forum (British Slabs...is there such an thing?) and this post from „Chris“ cought my eye – I think it nicely demostrates my point...

Quote:

"Chris Mar 17th 2010

I've had a dozen or so coins CGS graded and encapsulated.

Some of the coins were bought from BNTA registered dealers. In all bar one case, all of the coins bought from these dealers came back graded well below what they were sold to me as. Perhaps the worst case was an 1889 Crown sold as AUNC, which came back as VF50! Another, from a very well known dealer (big glossy 'ads in Coin News,) was a "UNC 1931 Penny, good lustre." Came back in a body bag, rejected with the single word, Cleaned! „

[Rob 3,152]

Surely "Chris" would have realised that a VF doesn't equate to an aUNC and cleaning is equally recognisable and very few dealers would refuse to accept returns. Why did this person not return them in the first place? After all, it isn't as if a person sending coins off to be slabbed is a complete novice and some appreciation of the finer points must be assumed. If somebody accepts a raw coin at the grades described without examining it, why should they have any more faith in a second opinion. Obviously for those that buy the slab and not the coin it isn't a concern, but without the collector examining the coin in the hand, it is difficult to have too much sympathy. Why did 'Chris' not use dealers that he could have confidence in their grades in the first place? It all boils down to the individual learning to grade properly in the first place.

[argentumandcoins 70]

Mike, BNTA membership is no more a guarantee of accurate grading than using a benchmark set of coins that were graded by US grading firms, oops that is part of CGS' benchmark set!

Coins sell for money and where there is money there is greed. The higher the grade the higher the price therefore SOME dealers may inflate the grade!

Personally I prefer to build relationships with customers and try to give the customer a good coin at a good price. A happy customer is a returning customer and that is what all dealers should aim for.

I know you will latch onto the comments above and start spouting "that's why you should buy slabbed coins, because they are already graded" but to be honest it is getting rather monotinous. Bill gives good honest answers and is open to both sides of the argument, you on the other hand come across as having some sort of hidden CGS agenda.

We all have a choice as to how we buy and store our coins. Most people prefer raw coins and actually like to learn about grading as they go along, others want to be spoon fed grades. I sincerely hope for your sake that CGS does not go belly up as you will then be left with US TPG's and you are lucky if they can get the date/denomination correct never mind the grade!

[TomGoodheart 401]

We all have a choice as to how we buy and store our coins. Most people prefer raw coins and actually like to learn about grading as they go along, others want to be spoon fed grades. I sincerely hope for your sake that CGS does not go belly up as you will then be left with US TPG's and you are lucky if they can get the date/denomination correct never mind the grade!

Ah, yes. There's a point. If ever Bill ran out of coins for CGS to grade and they consequently went broke, where would their guarantees stand then?

Because as far as I can tell from this thread, Bill is (apart perhaps from London Coins) their main (or certainly a major) customer after all ....

Edited March 10, 2013 by TomGoodheart

[Coinery 1,153]

CGS going belly up is something I've thought about! If they were no more, would their slabs lose their value over time, as they fade into memory?

What happened to the slabs of the comparable company that folded in Australia, I think it was?

[TomGoodheart 401]

CGS going belly up is something I've thought about! If they were no more, would their slabs lose their value over time, as they fade into memory?

What happened to the slabs of the comparable company that folded in Australia, I think it was?

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.

[Bill Pugsley 0]

CGS going belly up is something I've thought about! If they were no more, would their slabs lose their value over time, as they fade into memory?

What happened to the slabs of the comparable company that folded in Australia, I think it was?

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).

[Coinery 1,153]

Also, being quite new to post E7, I've noticed how variable the obverse and reverse quality can be. As I compare coins of the same dates and try my best to pick the better coin (buy one, sell the lesser), I am constantly struggling with 'yep, much better obverse, excellent', only to flip them over and think 'oh, bugger, why couldn't that have been simple and the reverse be better too'! And that doesn't even touch on the quality of rims (G5 HC's spring to mind) or bag marks, nicks and knocks, etc.

I'm guessing an AU75 G5 HC could have a NEF obverse and an UNCish reverse, or be UNC with poor rims and excessive bag marks, or be a fantastic example of an EF coin? Could I buy those blind and say I'd be happy with all 3 coins? I'd definitely be able to pick a clear favourite from the three coins, but would it be an AU75?

[Bill Pugsley 0]

CGS going belly up is something I've thought about! If they were no more, would their slabs lose their value over time, as they fade into memory?

What happened to the slabs of the comparable company that folded in Australia, I think it was?

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.

[Coinery 1,153]

Although I find AUNC/EF interesting as a description it does not make the coin AUNC.

It certainly doesn't, it makes the coin AUNC/EF...but each to their own!

[Sword 1,473]

Also, being quite new to post E7, I've noticed how variable the obverse and reverse quality can be. As I compare coins of the same dates and try my best to pick the better coin (buy one, sell the lesser), I am constantly struggling with 'yep, much better obverse, excellent', only to flip them over and think 'oh, bugger, why couldn't that have been simple and the reverse be better too'! And that doesn't even touch on the quality of rims (G5 HC's spring to mind) or bag marks, nicks and knocks, etc.

I'm guessing an AU75 G5 HC could have a NEF obverse and an UNCish reverse, or be UNC with poor rims and excessive bag marks, or be a fantastic example of an EF coin? Could I buy those blind and say I'd be happy with all 3 coins? I'd definitely be able to pick a clear favourite from the three coins, but would it be an AU75?

Very interesting point! I very much hope a nEF obverse and UNC reverse won't be graded as AU75 (or even as GEF, EF70). Balance is important and I think grading should show significant bias for the weaker side (if a single grade is used). One thing which I think is a bit illogical is that wear is treated a lot harsher than bagmarks when it comes to grading (by TPGs or by anyone else). Personally, I prefer coins with as few bag marks as possible and can put up with a bit more wear. I think bag marks can greatly reduce eye appeal. Hence I won't buy a say £200 coin blind base on a grade of say EF70 as it might just look "ugly" in real life.