"CGS comes of age"

[1949threepence 3,368]

I received an e mail from CGS yesterday, which looked quite interesting, as it contains what they consider to be a grade for grade direct comnparison between theirs, the traditional system we still mostly use, and the Sheldon system. In future they intend to only use the numerical grade number in future, without the letter prefix. They say this will avoid confusion. They also mention that their grading system will be consistent over time, without the upward drift that has been apparent over the years, such as a VF 30 years ago, now being widely touted as an EF.

I'm sure Bill has already mentioned all this, but here it is again. I apologise if someone else has already copied and pasted this same e mail elsewhere.

Anyway, what do you think ? Any comments ?

----- Original Message ----- From: Coin Grading Services To: Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 9:41 AMSubject: CGS Comes of Age

Dear Mr

CGS has now graded 25,000 coins.

The CGS grading system has been designed to arrive at a numerical grade on a scale of 1 - 100, it was not designed to arrive at a traditional grade such as EF, AU and UNC. However a decision was made at the outset to attach traditional grade prefix letters to the CGS numerical grade. Now with 25,000 coins in the public domain much comment and feedback has been received regarding how the CGS grade compares with grades in the market place both UK grading and USA Sheldon scale grading of NGC, PCGS and ANACS. Several CGS submitters have kept detailed records on their submissions, how their coins had been graded when they acquired them and the resultant CGS grade.

Below is a table based on this feedback so therefore an empirical analysis of how coins graded by CGS may read across to current UK grading standards and USA Sheldon standards. It is our intention in future to attach to the coins we grade the CGS numerical grade only with no prefix letters, at the same time making the table below widely available.

We also intend to re-emphasis in our marketing initiatives that as the CGS grading system has remained the same since the outset and cannot change as it uses a benchmarking coin set and fixed computer algorithm to arrive at the numerical grades. The coin set and algorithm were laid down at the start and remain unchanged. All that is changing is that we will no longer for example call coins graded CGS 78 AU as it has now emerged that in other markets and grading systems these coins are commonly called UNC or MS. Another advantage of this change is it should avoid misconceptions, it has been a commonly held perception that AU78s are an entire grade lower than UNC 80 the reality is they are only 2 points lower on a scale of 1 - 100, the same difference between UNC 80 and UNC 82 which no one perceives as a whole grade lower.

We believe that the coin market needs the support of CGS, Europe's first third party grading and encapsulation company, and the authenticity, attribution guarantee and consistency of grading it provides. Let us emphasise again the CGS numerical grading system cannot change, what changes over time is subjective grading cultures where a coin that 25 years ago traded at gEF now re-emerges onto the market as Unc. So although how the traditional grades attached to CGS graded coins may wary so a CGS 75 may be some peoples Unc, or MS62 or AU to us it is and always will be a 75.

CGS Grading System

Observed read across grades to other systems

Based on observations after CGS have graded 25,000 coins

March 2013

CGS Numerical Grade Average Raw UK Grade Average Standard USA Sheldon ¹²100FDCMS7099FDCMS7098FDCMS7097FDCMS7096FDCM6995FDCMS 68 -6994AFDCMS6893AFDCMS 67 -6892AFDCMS6791AFDCMS66 -6790NFDCMS 6688BU -NFDCMS65 -6685Choice UNC - BUMS 6582Choice UNCMS 64 -6580Choice UNCMS 6478UNCMS 63 -6475UNC or near soMS 62 - 6370AUMS60 -6165GEFMS60 -6160EFAU58 - MS6055NEFAU5550GVFAU5545GVFAU 5340VFAU 5035NVFEF 4530GFEF 4025GFF3520FF3015NF10VG8VG5GOOD4FAIR3FAIR2FAIR1FAIR

Oh dear, that table didn't come out too well did it. Try again !!!

100         FDC                                  MS70
   99        FDC                                 MS70
   98        FDC                                 MS70
   97        FDC                                 MS70
   96        FDC                                 MS69
    95       FDC                                 MS68 - 69
    94       AFDC                               MS68
    93       AFDC                               MS67 - 68
    92       AFDC                               MS67
    91       AFDC                               MS66 - 67
    90       NFDC                              MS66
     88      BU - NFDC                     MS65 - 66
     85      Choice UNC - BU          MS65
     82      Choice UNC                   MS64 - 65
     80      UNC                                MS63 - 64
     78       UNC                               MS63 - 64
     75       UNC or near so            MS62 - 63
     70       AU                                   MS60 - 61
     65       GEF                                 MS60 - 61
     60          EF                                 AU58 - MS60
     55       NEF                                 AU55
     50       GVF                                 AU55
     45        GVF                                 AU53
     40           VF                                AU50
     35        NVF                                 EF45
     30          GF                                 EF40
     25          GF                                 F35
     20             F                                 F30
     15           NF                
     10           VG                                                  
        8           VG              
        5      Good                                        
        4         Fair
        3
         2
         1 

Sorry, still a bit wonky, but at least readable, just !!!

Edited March 30, 2013 by 1949threepence

[pies 33]

Well at least thery are listening.But havent they now upgraded old AU to UNC

[Rob 3,242]

Well at least thery are listening.But havent they now upgraded old AU to UNC

Yep. There's grade inflation for you over time. They used to give a 78 aunc, and before that EF. A grade is as you say in the eye of the beholder and as consistent as a politician's word. But at least it's consistently inconsistent. Every cloud..........

Edited March 30, 2013 by Rob

[RLC35 289]

I received an e mail from CGS yesterday, which looked quite interesting, as it contains what they consider to be a grade for grade direct comnparison between theirs, the traditional system we still mostly use, and the Sheldon system. In future they intend to only use the numerical grade number in future, without the letter prefix. They say this will avoid confusion. They also mention that their grading system will be consistent over time, without the upward drift that has been apparent over the years, such as a VF 30 years ago, now being widely touted as an EF.

I'm sure Bill has already mentioned all this, but here it is again. I apologise if someone else has already copied and pasted this same e mail elsewhere.

Anyway, what do you think ? Any comments ?

----- Original Message ----- From: Coin Grading Services To: Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 9:41 AMSubject: CGS Comes of Age

Dear Mr

CGS has now graded 25,000 coins.

The CGS grading system has been designed to arrive at a numerical grade on a scale of 1 - 100, it was not designed to arrive at a traditional grade such as EF, AU and UNC. However a decision was made at the outset to attach traditional grade prefix letters to the CGS numerical grade. Now with 25,000 coins in the public domain much comment and feedback has been received regarding how the CGS grade compares with grades in the market place both UK grading and USA Sheldon scale grading of NGC, PCGS and ANACS. Several CGS submitters have kept detailed records on their submissions, how their coins had been graded when they acquired them and the resultant CGS grade.

Below is a table based on this feedback so therefore an empirical analysis of how coins graded by CGS may read across to current UK grading standards and USA Sheldon standards. It is our intention in future to attach to the coins we grade the CGS numerical grade only with no prefix letters, at the same time making the table below widely available.

We also intend to re-emphasis in our marketing initiatives that as the CGS grading system has remained the same since the outset and cannot change as it uses a benchmarking coin set and fixed computer algorithm to arrive at the numerical grades. The coin set and algorithm were laid down at the start and remain unchanged. All that is changing is that we will no longer for example call coins graded CGS 78 AU as it has now emerged that in other markets and grading systems these coins are commonly called UNC or MS. Another advantage of this change is it should avoid misconceptions, it has been a commonly held perception that AU78s are an entire grade lower than UNC 80 the reality is they are only 2 points lower on a scale of 1 - 100, the same difference between UNC 80 and UNC 82 which no one perceives as a whole grade lower.

We believe that the coin market needs the support of CGS, Europe's first third party grading and encapsulation company, and the authenticity, attribution guarantee and consistency of grading it provides. Let us emphasise again the CGS numerical grading system cannot change, what changes over time is subjective grading cultures where a coin that 25 years ago traded at gEF now re-emerges onto the market as Unc. So although how the traditional grades attached to CGS graded coins may wary so a CGS 75 may be some peoples Unc, or MS62 or AU to us it is and always will be a 75.

CGS Grading System

Observed read across grades to other systems

Based on observations after CGS have graded 25,000 coins

March 2013

CGS Numerical Grade Average Raw UK Grade Average Standard USA Sheldon ¹²100FDCMS7099FDCMS7098FDCMS7097FDCMS7096FDCM6995FDCMS 68 -6994AFDCMS6893AFDCMS 67 -6892AFDCMS6791AFDCMS66 -6790NFDCMS 6688BU -NFDCMS65 -6685Choice UNC - BUMS 6582Choice UNCMS 64 -6580Choice UNCMS 6478UNCMS 63 -6475UNC or near soMS 62 - 6370AUMS60 -6165GEFMS60 -6160EFAU58 - MS6055NEFAU5550GVFAU5545GVFAU 5340VFAU 5035NVFEF 4530GFEF 4025GFF3520FF3015NF10VG8VG5GOOD4FAIR3FAIR2FAIR1FAIR

Oh dear, that table didn't come out too well did it. Try again !!!

100         FDC                                  MS70
   99        FDC                                 MS70
   98        FDC                                 MS70
   97        FDC                                 MS70
   96        FDC                                 MS69
    95       FDC                                 MS68 - 69
    94       AFDC                               MS68
    93       AFDC                               MS67 - 68
    92       AFDC                               MS67
    91       AFDC                               MS66 - 67
    90       NFDC                              MS66
     88      BU - NFDC                     MS65 - 66
     85      Choice UNC - BU          MS65
     82      Choice UNC                   MS64 - 65
     80      UNC                                MS63 - 64
     78       UNC                               MS63 - 64
     75       UNC or near so            MS62 - 63
     70       AU                                   MS60 - 61
     65       GEF                                 MS60 - 61
     60          EF                                 AU58 - MS60
     55       NEF                                 AU55
     50       GVF                                 AU55
     45        GVF                                 AU53
     40           VF                                AU50
     35        NVF                                 EF45
     30          GF                                 EF40
     25          GF                                 F35
     20             F                                 F30
     15           NF                
     10           VG                                                  
        8           VG              
        5      Good                                        
        4         Fair
        3
         2
         1 

Sorry, still a bit wonky, but at least readable, just !!!

I think the comparison is too heavily tilted in favor of the UK 100 scale, especially in the lower grades. Without going through the whole list, I think the following is a better comparison of grades.

UK Fine20 = US F12

GF30 = VF20

EF60 = AU50

At the grade of "Fine" both scales are very close to the same (I think). The biggest variances, are above that grade. IMHO! Ha,Ha. This is going to make a for some interesting conversation. LOL!

[Paulus 1,980]

Yes, it's a bit strange that they think that a CGS score of 60/100 could equate to a Sheldon score of 60/70!

[Peter 615]

It would be a great test to send your CGS graded coins (cracked out) to PCGS. Then we might get a comparison.

It is a bit like my favoured dealers.I do build a factor in.

[RLC35 289]

Peter,

That is a great idea. I just bought a CGS AU 1868 Penny, I might just break it out and submit to NGC at the Chicago International Coin Fair, on April 18th, and see what it comes back as. Obviously there will be about a month's wait time for completion.

[1949threepence 3,368]

Peter,

That is a great idea. I just bought a CGS AU 1868 Penny, I might just break it out and submit to NGC at the Chicago International Coin Fair, on April 18th, and see what it comes back as. Obviously there will be about a month's wait time for completion.

That could indeed prove to be a most interesting comparison, Bob.

[jaggy 528]

That comparative table was very helpful.

However, and no matter what the grading system in use, one still has to see the coin and make up one's own mind.

[Peter 615]

Bob that would be a great idea.

I have a few PCGS /NGC slabs.

I will never buy the slab.I need to get some idea of the coin.

[Rob 3,242]

I received an e mail from CGS yesterday, which looked quite interesting, as it contains what they consider to be a grade for grade direct comnparison between theirs, the traditional system we still mostly use, and the Sheldon system. In future they intend to only use the numerical grade number in future, without the letter prefix. They say this will avoid confusion. They also mention that their grading system will be consistent over time, without the upward drift that has been apparent over the years, such as a VF 30 years ago, now being widely touted as an EF.

I'm sure Bill has already mentioned all this, but here it is again. I apologise if someone else has already copied and pasted this same e mail elsewhere.

Anyway, what do you think ? Any comments ?

----- Original Message ----- From: Coin Grading Services To: Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 9:41 AMSubject: CGS Comes of Age

Dear Mr

CGS has now graded 25,000 coins.

The CGS grading system has been designed to arrive at a numerical grade on a scale of 1 - 100, it was not designed to arrive at a traditional grade such as EF, AU and UNC. However a decision was made at the outset to attach traditional grade prefix letters to the CGS numerical grade. Now with 25,000 coins in the public domain much comment and feedback has been received regarding how the CGS grade compares with grades in the market place both UK grading and USA Sheldon scale grading of NGC, PCGS and ANACS. Several CGS submitters have kept detailed records on their submissions, how their coins had been graded when they acquired them and the resultant CGS grade.

Below is a table based on this feedback so therefore an empirical analysis of how coins graded by CGS may read across to current UK grading standards and USA Sheldon standards. It is our intention in future to attach to the coins we grade the CGS numerical grade only with no prefix letters, at the same time making the table below widely available.

We also intend to re-emphasis in our marketing initiatives that as the CGS grading system has remained the same since the outset and cannot change as it uses a benchmarking coin set and fixed computer algorithm to arrive at the numerical grades. The coin set and algorithm were laid down at the start and remain unchanged. All that is changing is that we will no longer for example call coins graded CGS 78 AU as it has now emerged that in other markets and grading systems these coins are commonly called UNC or MS. Another advantage of this change is it should avoid misconceptions, it has been a commonly held perception that AU78s are an entire grade lower than UNC 80 the reality is they are only 2 points lower on a scale of 1 - 100, the same difference between UNC 80 and UNC 82 which no one perceives as a whole grade lower.

We believe that the coin market needs the support of CGS, Europe's first third party grading and encapsulation company, and the authenticity, attribution guarantee and consistency of grading it provides. Let us emphasise again the CGS numerical grading system cannot change, what changes over time is subjective grading cultures where a coin that 25 years ago traded at gEF now re-emerges onto the market as Unc. So although how the traditional grades attached to CGS graded coins may wary so a CGS 75 may be some peoples Unc, or MS62 or AU to us it is and always will be a 75.

CGS Grading System

Observed read across grades to other systems

Based on observations after CGS have graded 25,000 coins

March 2013

CGS Numerical Grade Average Raw UK Grade Average Standard USA Sheldon ¹²100FDCMS7099FDCMS7098FDCMS7097FDCMS7096FDCM6995FDCMS 68 -6994AFDCMS6893AFDCMS 67 -6892AFDCMS6791AFDCMS66 -6790NFDCMS 6688BU -NFDCMS65 -6685Choice UNC - BUMS 6582Choice UNCMS 64 -6580Choice UNCMS 6478UNCMS 63 -6475UNC or near soMS 62 - 6370AUMS60 -6165GEFMS60 -6160EFAU58 - MS6055NEFAU5550GVFAU5545GVFAU 5340VFAU 5035NVFEF 4530GFEF 4025GFF3520FF3015NF10VG8VG5GOOD4FAIR3FAIR2FAIR1FAIR

Oh dear, that table didn't come out too well did it. Try again !!!

100         FDC                                  MS70
   99        FDC                                 MS70
   98        FDC                                 MS70
   97        FDC                                 MS70
   96        FDC                                 MS69
    95       FDC                                 MS68 - 69
    94       AFDC                               MS68
    93       AFDC                               MS67 - 68
    92       AFDC                               MS67
    91       AFDC                               MS66 - 67
    90       NFDC                              MS66
     88      BU - NFDC                     MS65 - 66
     85      Choice UNC - BU          MS65
     82      Choice UNC                   MS64 - 65
     80      UNC                                MS63 - 64
     78       UNC                               MS63 - 64
     75       UNC or near so            MS62 - 63
     70       AU                                   MS60 - 61
     65       GEF                                 MS60 - 61
     60          EF                                 AU58 - MS60
     55       NEF                                 AU55
     50       GVF                                 AU55
     45        GVF                                 AU53
     40           VF                                AU50
     35        NVF                                 EF45
     30          GF                                 EF40
     25          GF                                 F35
     20             F                                 F30
     15           NF                
     10           VG                                                  
        8           VG              
        5      Good                                        
        4         Fair
        3
         2
         1 

Sorry, still a bit wonky, but at least readable, just !!!

I think the comparison is too heavily tilted in favor of the UK 100 scale, especially in the lower grades. Without going through the whole list, I think the following is a better comparison of grades.

UK Fine20 = US F12

GF30 = VF20

EF60 = AU50

At the grade of "Fine" both scales are very close to the same (I think). The biggest variances, are above that grade. IMHO! Ha,Ha. This is going to make a for some interesting conversation. LOL!

This still means they have changed their own grading system. A 75 or 78 started out life as EF, then migrated to aUNC because punters like to see references to the word uncirculated in their collections, and now we find the same grades are given as UNC. This is giving collectors rose-tinted spectacles. If sub-80 wasn't uncirculated before, it isn't now. However, if it is a case of keeping the customer satisfied because they think the grading system is too harsh, then clearly the numbers are fairly meaningless when tied to a 'traditional' grade as they can't be translated over time wherever you look on the scales. i.e. is today's unc, also yesterday's unc or not? This has done nothing to enhance the credibility which was somewhat diminished when they changed the labeling to reflect the customer's preference for using aUNC. If you set any standards in stone, the most important thing is to do nothing under external pressure. That is why they are called standards - things you can use for a reference point. I guess it just means that another variable has crept into the mix which we need to consider when assessing what a coin's grade is. It certainly means less reliance on the label is in order.

Yes, it's a bit strange that they think that a CGS score of 60/100 could equate to a Sheldon score of 60/70!

60 on both scales seems about right. MS60 is absolutely not mint state and yet again is an instance of pandering to customers' vanity. You will rarely see an MS60 better than EF, though owners of MS60 coins (particularly in the US) will proudly tout them as mint state. And as for AU50 whatever, carry on down the grading scale. Most AU grades are gVF or a bit better, though neither VF or EF are unknown.

So it's a clear case of as you were chaps. Buy the coin, not the opinion/TPG/attribution/whatever else marketing tool is used.

[ski 1]

Come of age.....what the heck.....does it matter.

is the dropping of grade good......yup very much so, why on earth did cgs not go this route in the first place. they made their decision to have a scale of 0 to 100 and should have just gone with that.......the refereances to existing raw grading systems is a problem and well done away with.......so why the hell the table to raw grades and the sheldon scale?????.......for christ sakes just do it, 0 to 100 and get rid of everything else, by producing this table....theyve achieved zip, theyve kept the confusion going.

So it's a clear case of as you were chaps. Buy the coin, not the opinion/TPG/attribution/whatever else marketing tool is used

yes indeed.....a nice coin is a nice coin all the same, regardless of whether someones given it a score out of 100.

Ski

[Paulus 1,980]

Come of age.....what the heck.....does it matter.

is the dropping of grade good......yup very much so, why on earth did cgs not go this route in the first place. they made their decision to have a scale of 0 to 100 and should have just gone with that.......the refereances to existing raw grading systems is a problem and well done away with.......so why the hell the table to raw grades and the sheldon scale?????.......for christ sakes just do it, 0 to 100 and get rid of everything else, by producing this table....theyve achieved zip, theyve kept the confusion going.

So it's a clear case of as you were chaps. Buy the coin, not the opinion/TPG/attribution/whatever else marketing tool is used

yes indeed.....a nice coin is a nice coin all the same, regardless of whether someones given it a score out of 100.

Ski

I agree totally, they have just perpetuated the confusion! Remove all cross-references to VF/Ef/AU etc and the Sheldon Scale, and maybe the CGS percentage scale will gain more credibility

Edited March 31, 2013 by Paulus

[VickySilver 885]

BTW, it seem that if you look about that a PCGS 58 is valued by many more highly than a 60 as the former is usually a superior piece lightly circulated while the latter is heavily bag marked but not circulated and may not be as attractive.

[Gary D 76]

BTW, it seem that if you look about that a PCGS 58 is valued by many more highly than a 60 as the former is usually a superior piece lightly circulated while the latter is heavily bag marked but not circulated and may not be as attractive.

I wonder if nonacceptance in the US is a concern they are trying to rectify. I suspect the average yank with treat a CGS slab as raw and cross it the moment they get it.

[TomGoodheart 447]

I'm just curious that there seems to be a diference between ... well, differences!

The table for example suggests that there is no discernable difference (to the rest of the world) between a 100 and 97 coin.

But the same three step difference between 96 and 93 drops two grades on the Sheldon scale. A difference some people will pay good money for ...

SO I'm not sure how this helps matters either ...

[jaggy 528]

BTW, it seem that if you look about that a PCGS 58 is valued by many more highly than a 60 as the former is usually a superior piece lightly circulated while the latter is heavily bag marked but not circulated and may not be as attractive.

I wonder if nonacceptance in the US is a concern they are trying to rectify. I suspect the average yank with treat a CGS slab as raw and cross it the moment they get it.

Slabbing is all about the market and the US market is a very big one.

[jaggy 528]

BTW, it seem that if you look about that a PCGS 58 is valued by many more highly than a 60 as the former is usually a superior piece lightly circulated while the latter is heavily bag marked but not circulated and may not be as attractive.

I wonder if nonacceptance in the US is a concern they are trying to rectify. I suspect the average yank with treat a CGS slab as raw and cross it the moment they get it.

Sorry ... double post

Edited March 31, 2013 by jaggy

[Coinery 1,258]

I guess it just means that another variable has crept into the mix...

Survival, giving the punters what they want, but also realising that they had built themselves a temple upon sand!

It's ludicrous to claim "our 78 will always be 78," and in the same breath compare yourselves to other equivilents that call a 78 UNC or whatever! It's a back-door feed, no different to saying our 78 is whatever you want it to be, providing you give us your money.

It's true their greatest mistake was to arrive at a numerical grade based upon variable non-circulatory flaws, and then state what's UNC or not based on those numbers...that clearly isn't fair, because a coin that has no device wear, but has an edge bruise from being dropped by a collector, is still UNC regardless. However, it is easily understood how if that coin was a hypothetical 92 Pre-drop, that it is now a 77, BUT it is still uncirculated!

To make these changes doesn't change anything about the service of CGS that is irritating, namely, timescales! I'd also say they're good for Government with their spin..."How can we give them what we want!"

If you love TPG's then this change makes little difference! If you are indifferent, and awake, then really nothing's changed!

So, as was mentioned...stand down, gentleman, false alert!

[Paulus 1,980]

Personally I find the term 'uncirculated' misleading and unhelpful as a grade. The only way of knowing for sure whether a coin has ever been circulated is if it is still in its original Royal Mint packaging, or if the owner has owned it since it left the Mint or has provenance back to the time that it did.

In most cases UNC is used to mean 'Mint State' and I prefer MS over UNC as a grading term.

[Peckris 579]

Come of age.....what the heck.....does it matter.

is the dropping of grade good......yup very much so, why on earth did cgs not go this route in the first place. they made their decision to have a scale of 0 to 100 and should have just gone with that.......the refereances to existing raw grading systems is a problem and well done away with.......so why the hell the table to raw grades and the sheldon scale?????.......for christ sakes just do it, 0 to 100 and get rid of everything else, by producing this table....theyve achieved zip, theyve kept the confusion going.

So it's a clear case of as you were chaps. Buy the coin, not the opinion/TPG/attribution/whatever else marketing tool is used

yes indeed.....a nice coin is a nice coin all the same, regardless of whether someones given it a score out of 100.

Ski

I agree totally, they have just perpetuated the confusion! Remove all cross-references to VF/Ef/AU etc and the Sheldon Scale, and maybe the CGS percentage scale will gain more credibility

Yes, I agree too. The numeric scale without specific grades will always provide more consistency without the 'grade slippage' we've seen over the last few decades. A CGS 70 will always be a 70, and it doesn't really matter whether you call it VF or UNC. The benchmark is what matters here.

I got the same email and sent it back with a bouquet about their grading system, and a brickbat about slabbing. There has to be a better way for a TPG to operate without sealing the coin into a plastic tomb.

Personally I find the term 'uncirculated' misleading and unhelpful as a grade. The only way of knowing for sure whether a coin has ever been circulated is if it is still in its original Royal Mint packaging, or if the owner has owned it since it left the Mint or has provenance back to the time that it did.

In most cases UNC is used to mean 'Mint State' and I prefer MS over UNC as a grading term.

I'm relaxed about the use of the word UNC. We've all been handed copper coins in supermarkets that are full lustre, no bag marks, no wear, and can justifiably be termed BU. The fact that they have TECHNICALLY seen a tiny bit of circulation is just semantics really - it's what the coin looks like that counts. How many UNC coins in collections were personally collected from the Royal Mint output bins?

[ski 1]

If you love TPG's then this change makes little difference! If you are indifferent, and awake, then really nothing's changed!

So, as was mentioned...stand down, gentleman, false alert!

Couldnt agree more....if this is an attempt by CGS to sway my opinion on slabbing/grading, it hasnt worked.

I would add however that the idea of cgs just grading between 0 and 100 is a good move, for those into such things as wanting the highest in the scale, it will satisfy them. But.....they shot down this fantastic earth shattering change to their system with the inclusion of that table.

i wonder Peck how serious they will take your reply.....it would be great to think there may be an alternative route to slabbing.....BUT......i still like to grade my own coins and more importantly ...those i wish to purchase. i get it wrong sometimes, i get it right sometimes, but in both ways i buy what i like not what a number says.

And that i wonder is how slabbing/grading companies can ever satisfy those who like to grade our own purchases.

[Rob 3,242]

If you love TPG's then this change makes little difference! If you are indifferent, and awake, then really nothing's changed!

So, as was mentioned...stand down, gentleman, false alert!

Couldnt agree more....if this is an attempt by CGS to sway my opinion on slabbing/grading, it hasnt worked.

I would add however that the idea of cgs just grading between 0 and 100 is a good move, for those into such things as wanting the highest in the scale, it will satisfy them. But.....they shot down this fantastic earth shattering change to their system with the inclusion of that table.

i wonder Peck how serious they will take your reply.....it would be great to think there may be an alternative route to slabbing.....BUT......i still like to grade my own coins and more importantly ...those i wish to purchase. i get it wrong sometimes, i get it right sometimes, but in both ways i buy what i like not what a number says.

And that i wonder is how slabbing/grading companies can ever satisfy those who like to grade our own purchases.

Or make our own minds up about what we should be liking or disliking, and not just a grade number to aspire to.

[ski 1]

Or make our own minds up about what we should be liking or disliking, and not just a grade number to aspire to.

even if that aspiration isnt a reflection of all coins available, but just those within that particular system.

coin collectors have long aspired to buying items from notable collections with great provenance when theyre sold on, you dont need a slabbed coin to get your name in lights.....a best known slabbed coin is still only a best known slabbed coin, and not neccasarily a best known coin ever.

So........the changes to the cgs system....is it CGS coming of age?......NO. is it a step in the right direction.....i really do think so...........but theres soo many steps still to take...We think here cgs are the better tpg co...i do too...better value for money and maybe a better grading system.....but it only satisfys a small percentage of the coin collecting community in the uk. More than this, change needs to be made to bring on board those who are maybe synical ( myself included ), those who are diehards for the raw market, and above all else , those who collect coins for the love of holding a beautiful piece of our history and heritage, without some damned need to score some numerical advantage over another with a similar ( maybe even less desirable ) coin. and thats whats wrong with the whole tpg systems.

Viva la difference

[Gary D 76]

Or make our own minds up about what we should be liking or disliking, and not just a grade number to aspire to.

even if that aspiration isnt a reflection of all coins available, but just those within that particular system.

coin collectors have long aspired to buying items from notable collections with great provenance when theyre sold on, you dont need a slabbed coin to get your name in lights.....a best known slabbed coin is still only a best known slabbed coin, and not neccasarily a best known coin ever.

So........the changes to the cgs system....is it CGS coming of age?......NO. is it a step in the right direction.....i really do think so...........but theres soo many steps still to take...We think here cgs are the better tpg co...i do too...better value for money and maybe a better grading system.....but it only satisfys a small percentage of the coin collecting community in the uk. More than this, change needs to be made to bring on board those who are maybe synical ( myself included ), those who are diehards for the raw market, and above all else , those who collect coins for the love of holding a beautiful piece of our history and heritage, without some damned need to score some numerical advantage over another with a similar ( maybe even less desirable ) coin. and thats whats wrong with the whole tpg systems.

Viva la difference

Perhaps what we really need is an authentication and slabbing service, forget the grade leaving that to the collector.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Gary D