Cgs On Dipping?

[Coinery 1,157]

This isn't to stir-up an old debate about slabbing, but what do you think of this 221275625618 and maybe even this 221275625610 ?

Nice coins, but the first looks especially similar to experiments I've had with a pot of Goddards!

I wonder whether CGS slab dipped, but not 'cleaned' coins, on account it would be very difficult to say that a lightly dipped coin wasn't in fact a vacuum, or otherwise well stored coin, from any given era?

[Accumulator 52]

Which reminds me, whatever happened to Bill Pugsley? He arrived like a whirlwind and took a great deal of trouble to write about and defend the actions of CGS on this forum. I enjoyed his input to the debate and hoped he'd stick around. Did we frighten him off, did he secretly decide that the CGS business model was failing and felt too embarrassed to stay, or did he just lose interest in chatting about coins? Last active April 2013.

[Peter 615]

Bill chairs their meetings.

nuff said.

I did enjoy his input but the UK market isn't ready for the US method / type of collectors.

Likewise the average UK collector isn't dumb and go slobbering after a slabbed 2013 coin.

Great if you want a Northumberland shilling/gothic crown slabbed but they can bugger off on my farthings/early cu of which I'm confident

on being a better expert than they will ever be.

[TomGoodheart 403]

On a related note, I was wondering how CGS treat hammered. There are very few coins in my collection that haven't some surface scratches or dints. One or two which must have been dipped at some point in their lives, several have flan cracks .. all of which would get them 'authenticated but not graded' were they milled coins.

If CGS adhere to the same standards across the board it occurred to me that the number of hammered coins that would meet the requirements for grading and encapsulation will surely be very small? I did wonder about a little experiment with one of my nicer coins, but no point throwing away £30 if it's just going to get sent back with a note saying 'Yes, it is a coin...'

Has anyone seen a CGS slabbed hammered coin?

Edited December 27, 2013 by TomGoodheart

[Coinery 1,157]

I posted a Liz shilling about 4-5 months ago, which was the first I'd seen! It was still doing the rounds recently!

Edit: still doing the rounds 141134627860

Edited December 27, 2013 by Coinery

[Sword 1,487]

It is indeed a shame that Bill has not make an appearance on the forum for so long. I too enjoyed his input. From memory, he never got round to confirming whether the CGS warranty can be passed on to subsequent purchasers of the slabs. Also the CGS forum makes the claim that "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." and we did asked if he could get official confirmation for that.

Strangely, hammered coins do not feature on the CGS population reports and so it is not possible to tell how many they have slabbed from their website.

I think lightly dipped coins should have no problem getting accepted. E.g. there are plenty of blazing white proof coins of George V (with no signs of toning) in slabs.

[VickySilver 831]

The bit abut toning is interesting as lustrous copper is certainly subject to environmental intrusion of gasses, and I believe there have been some experiments about this posted on some other boards (PCGS?).

[Nick 329]

It is indeed a shame that Bill has not make an appearance on the forum for so long. I too enjoyed his input. From memory, he never got round to confirming whether the CGS warranty can be passed on to subsequent purchasers of the slabs. Also the CGS forum makes the claim that "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." and we did asked if he could get official confirmation for that.

Strangely, hammered coins do not feature on the CGS population reports and so it is not possible to tell how many they have slabbed from their website.

I think lightly dipped coins should have no problem getting accepted. E.g. there are plenty of blazing white proof coins of George V (with no signs of toning) in slabs.

The CGS guarentee is almost worthless. Their coin submission terms and conditions state:

"Should any English Milled coin authenticated as genuine and encapsulated by CGS UK be proved subsequently to be fake and is returned to us by the original submitter, intact in the original holder with no evidence of tampering CGS UK will pay the submitter an agreed market value of a genuine example in a similar grade."

There are a couple of obvious scenarios:

1) You buy the coin slabbed. The guarentee does not apply as you are not the original submitter.

2) You are the original submitter and you think the coin is fake. Try proving that conclusively without tampering with the slab.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Nick

[Peter 615]

Long way to go.

However if PCGS opened an office next door their letter box would not be rattled by me.....unless all my coins weren't real and I suddenly lost the will to live with not being able to grade them. .

[Sword 1,487]

It is indeed a shame that Bill has not make an appearance on the forum for so long. I too enjoyed his input. From memory, he never got round to confirming whether the CGS warranty can be passed on to subsequent purchasers of the slabs. Also the CGS forum makes the claim that "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." and we did asked if he could get official confirmation for that.

Strangely, hammered coins do not feature on the CGS population reports and so it is not possible to tell how many they have slabbed from their website.

I think lightly dipped coins should have no problem getting accepted. E.g. there are plenty of blazing white proof coins of George V (with no signs of toning) in slabs.

The CGS guarentee is almost worthless. Their coin submission terms and conditions state:

"Should any English Milled coin authenticated as genuine and encapsulated by CGS UK be proved subsequently to be fake and is returned to us by the original submitter, intact in the original holder with no evidence of tampering CGS UK will pay the submitter an agreed market value of a genuine example in a similar grade."

There are a couple of obvious scenarios:

1) You buy the coin slabbed. The guarentee does not apply as you are not the original submitter.

2) You are the original submitter and you think the coin is fake. Try proving that conclusively without tampering with the slab.

I agree with you Nick. However, I am sure that some people still believe that the warranty is attached to the slab and not to the original submitter. In the section regarding authenticity in "auction buyers guide" on the London coins website, it states that "Third party graded and encapsulated coins ("slabbed" coins) have authenticity guarantees from the grading company concerned."

Hence, it would be a good idea to get official confirmation from CGS. If they confirm that it only apply to the original submitter, then it will be interesting to have their reasoning.

Your second point is very interesting. For many cases, how can you ever prove that a coin is fake esp. if it is still in a slab. The TPGs and most auction houses for that matter have avoided discussing this. If PCGS or NGC refuse to reslab the coin on grounds of suspected authenticiy, would that be enough? There need to be a list of acceptable arbiters in case of disputes.

Obviously, these issues apply to all TPGs and not just to CGS. (I suspect that since CGS slabs mainly English milled which they have expertise on, they must be very reliable on the authenticity front. I don't think anyone has reported a fake coin in a CGS slab yet ...)

[Coinery 1,157]

Re the first two coins, would you agree that it's an indication that CGS are soft, or at least neutral, on the issue of dipping?

It makes a pretty big statement about the legitimacy of dipping if they are, given the catalogue of other offences a coin can be rejected on! Maybe not a huge statement, but it does add significantly to the dipping debate I think!

[Peckris 579]

Re the first two coins, would you agree that it's an indication that CGS are soft, or at least neutral, on the issue of dipping?

It makes a pretty big statement about the legitimacy of dipping if they are, given the catalogue of other offences a coin can be rejected on! Maybe not a huge statement, but it does add significantly to the dipping debate I think!

Can't say. Haven't seen a link to the coins in question.

[Coinery 1,157]

Re the first two coins, would you agree that it's an indication that CGS are soft, or at least neutral, on the issue of dipping?

It makes a pretty big statement about the legitimacy of dipping if they are, given the catalogue of other offences a coin can be rejected on! Maybe not a huge statement, but it does add significantly to the dipping debate I think!

Can't say. Haven't seen a link to the coins in question.

sadly I can't help you on that one!

[Paulus 1,975]

Re the first two coins, would you agree that it's an indication that CGS are soft, or at least neutral, on the issue of dipping?

It makes a pretty big statement about the legitimacy of dipping if they are, given the catalogue of other offences a coin can be rejected on! Maybe not a huge statement, but it does add significantly to the dipping debate I think!

Can't say. Haven't seen a link to the coins in question.

Here they are:

Link 1

Link 2

I can recommend the seller

[azda 979]

AJW Coins was/is a member on here. He popped in a few times, if i remember rightly he was asking opinions of grade on a GEO II Crown or halfcrown

[Peckris 579]

Re the first two coins, would you agree that it's an indication that CGS are soft, or at least neutral, on the issue of dipping?

It makes a pretty big statement about the legitimacy of dipping if they are, given the catalogue of other offences a coin can be rejected on! Maybe not a huge statement, but it does add significantly to the dipping debate I think!

Can't say. Haven't seen a link to the coins in question.

Here they are:

Link 1

Link 2

I can recommend the seller

Thanks Paulus.

In reply to Stuart's original question, I'd say I can't see any obvious signs of dipping. The absence of tone is not a de facto indication that a coin's been dipped, and anyway those don't display the usual character of dipping, especially the first one.

[Coinery 1,157]

No criticism of the seller whatsoever, and I love both the coins, AND acknowledge that many coins are still in existence without any trace of tone whatsoever!

However, I do honestly think that the OH shilling replicates exactly a number of coins I have myself dipped!

As I said, though, this is so difficult to prove one way or the other??? I did think, though, if there was a consensus that though dipping a strong possibility, it would make an interesting statement about the process?

[azda 979]

Re the 1898 shilling, there seems to be some toning above the S H I in SHILLING. The seller also States its CGS graded 75 which he goes onto say is UNC or near so, i thought that was GEF. The thistle has some wear along with the crown above the harp. I think they've been generous. Apparently he is a CGS approved seller as they give him a mention on their website.

Edited December 27, 2013 by azda

[Peckris 579]

Re the 1898 shilling, there seems to be some toning above the S H I in SHILLING. The seller also States its CGS graded 75 which he goes onto say is UNC or near so, i thought that was GEF. The thistle has some wear along with the crown above the harp. I think they've been generous. Apparently he is a CGS approved seller as they give him a mention on their website.

I'd put that down to the strike or the die Dave, not circulation wear.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Peckris

[Paulus 1,975]

This is the grading 'ready reckoner' from the CGS web site:

[azda 979]

Looks like their grading System changed then. 80 was UNC, now Choice UNC. Seem to be changing the wording as an when it suits

[Paulus 1,975]

Looks like their grading System changed then. 80 was UNC, now Choice UNC. Seem to be changing the wording as an when it suits

I think you're right Dave!

[VickySilver 831]

Nice shilling in any case - at least there is no neon toning!

[Rob 3,152]

One of mine got upgraded to UNC from EF as a result of the pick your own grade situation. Personally, I changed it from impossible to put in a tray, to possible to put in a tray.

[azda 979]

This just makes a mockery of their grading system. How can you just simply change it from one day to the next, this is obviously to suit the American grading market, unreal, and have lost all credibility for me

Edited December 28, 2013 by azda