Cgs On Dipping?

[Nick 329]

It's not the first time they have changed the number to grade equation either. I seem to recall they changed EF 75 & 78 to AU 75 & 78 a few years back.

[Rob 3,152]

Chaps, there is an option. Nobody is forced to subscribe to third party idolatry. They can change their mind about a grade just as you or I can. All three of us have equal credibility given we are all open to the same options with the same resources - it's just that you and I don't charge for an opinion. However, if someone wants to send a large brown paper bag full of used tenners in my direction, in return I will give them a piece of my mind.

[mike 5]

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

I really do not want to be involved in another grading discussion but I could not help myself when reading through this thread. As above mentioned conclusion (that CGS changed grading system from one day to the next) is not true and might be misleading to unaware collectors who just reading this forum as I do, I would like to comment:

The mistake CGS made initially (when started the business) was attaching traditional grades AU, UNC , EF to the numeric scale incorrectly ( or more exactly too conservatively). The CGS grading system itself arrives at a numeric grade only. As far as I know they had strong arguments at the outset that no traditional grading nomenclature should be attached and the numeric grade should stand alone, that argument obviously lost. After grading 25000 coins the situation was reviewed based on collectors and dealers feedback (as well as on the feedback from this forum – even some of the members here complained that they can't live with grade 78 or even 75 described as AUNC and had the crack the coins out) and the grade riders were removed few months ago. One of the possible benefits is that traders, when they acquire a CGS 75 ot 78, they can describe the coin UNC and graded 78 by CGS and their second finest known rather than having to crack the coin out to describe it as UNC.

The whole point I want to make is that CGS numeric grading system hasn't changed at all and it is not going to change. Benchmark sets of coins used for grading and grading proces itself hasn't changed. The only change is that the grade riders were removed.

I personally think that this was very sensible move. IMO grading of raw coins is becoming softer and softer. What was Spink EF 40-50 years ago is now almost UNC. It is well posiible that CGS 70 wil be considered by dealers and collectors as UNC in 50 years... But CGS numeric grade will not change.

Read across tables were put out only by way of education and marketing so that new or foreigner collectors would have an idea how particular CGS grade number would likely be raw UK grade or likely standard USA Sheldon grade.

Finally I'd like to mention that I have no connection with CGS (but yes, for my own reasons, I prefer to collect CGS graded coins). By the way, it's a great forum, I enjoy reading it almost every day. So all the very best to all members for 2014!

[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

I really do not want to be involved in another grading discussion but I could not help myself when reading through this thread. As above mentioned conclusion (that CGS changed grading system from one day to the next) is not true and might be misleading to unaware collectors who just reading this forum as I do, I would like to comment:

The mistake CGS made initially (when started the business) was attaching traditional grades AU, UNC , EF to the numeric scale incorrectly ( or more exactly too conservatively). The CGS grading system itself arrives at a numeric grade only. As far as I know they had strong arguments at the outset that no traditional grading nomenclature should be attached and the numeric grade should stand alone, that argument obviously lost. After grading 25000 coins the situation was reviewed based on collectors and dealers feedback (as well as on the feedback from this forum – even some of the members here complained that they can't live with grade 78 or even 75 described as AUNC and had the crack the coins out) and the grade riders were removed few months ago. One of the possible benefits is that traders, when they acquire a CGS 75 ot 78, they can describe the coin UNC and graded 78 by CGS and their second finest known rather than having to crack the coin out to describe it as UNC.

The whole point I want to make is that CGS numeric grading system hasn't changed at all and it is not going to change. Benchmark sets of coins used for grading and grading proces itself hasn't changed. The only change is that the grade riders were removed.

I personally think that this was very sensible move. IMO grading of raw coins is becoming softer and softer. What was Spink EF 40-50 years ago is now almost UNC. It is well posiible that CGS 70 wil be considered by dealers and collectors as UNC in 50 years... But CGS numeric grade will not change.

Read across tables were put out only by way of education and marketing so that new or foreigner collectors would have an idea how particular CGS grade number would likely be raw UK grade or likely standard USA Sheldon grade.

Finally I'd like to mention that I have no connection with CGS (but yes, for my own reasons, I prefer to collect CGS graded coins). By the way, it's a great forum, I enjoy reading it almost every day. So all the very best to all members for 2014!

Mike, if you also read the post from Nick thats another example of CGS changing the numerical grade. How many years have they been in business? I'm not starting a grading debate, the OP is about the dipping of coins and if CGS accept this, but if i'm correct in saying, CGS have'nt been in business 50 years, perhaps 5. (not sure ) but thats twice they've moved the goalposts, just saying

[Coinery 1,157]

Many thanks, Mike, interesting post! Happy New Year to you, too!

[azda 979]

Anyone know how PCGS and NGC grade coins (serious question) i know it can Throw up all Manner of hilarity

[mike 5]

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

I really do not want to be involved in another grading discussion but I could not help myself when reading through this thread. As above mentioned conclusion (that CGS changed grading system from one day to the next) is not true and might be misleading to unaware collectors who just reading this forum as I do, I would like to comment:

The mistake CGS made initially (when started the business) was attaching traditional grades AU, UNC , EF to the numeric scale incorrectly ( or more exactly too conservatively). The CGS grading system itself arrives at a numeric grade only. As far as I know they had strong arguments at the outset that no traditional grading nomenclature should be attached and the numeric grade should stand alone, that argument obviously lost. After grading 25000 coins the situation was reviewed based on collectors and dealers feedback (as well as on the feedback from this forum – even some of the members here complained that they can't live with grade 78 or even 75 described as AUNC and had the crack the coins out) and the grade riders were removed few months ago. One of the possible benefits is that traders, when they acquire a CGS 75 ot 78, they can describe the coin UNC and graded 78 by CGS and their second finest known rather than having to crack the coin out to describe it as UNC.

The whole point I want to make is that CGS numeric grading system hasn't changed at all and it is not going to change. Benchmark sets of coins used for grading and grading proces itself hasn't changed. The only change is that the grade riders were removed.

I personally think that this was very sensible move. IMO grading of raw coins is becoming softer and softer. What was Spink EF 40-50 years ago is now almost UNC. It is well posiible that CGS 70 wil be considered by dealers and collectors as UNC in 50 years... But CGS numeric grade will not change.

Read across tables were put out only by way of education and marketing so that new or foreigner collectors would have an idea how particular CGS grade number would likely be raw UK grade or likely standard USA Sheldon grade.

Finally I'd like to mention that I have no connection with CGS (but yes, for my own reasons, I prefer to collect CGS graded coins). By the way, it's a great forum, I enjoy reading it almost every day. So all the very best to all members for 2014!

Mike, if you also read the post from Nick thats another example of CGS changing the numerical grade. How many years have they been in business? I'm not starting a grading debate, the OP is about the dipping of coins and if CGS accept this, but if i'm correct in saying, CGS have'nt been in business 50 years, perhaps 5. (not sure ) but thats twice they've moved the goalposts, just saying

Once again, even on occasion mentioned by Nick they have not changed the numerical grade, they changed the grade rider - and this is something very very different from changing numerical grade. And once again this was done because collectors and dealers complained that grade 75 and 78 are not EF coins but UNC/AU on raw market. Now when grade riders were removed you do not need to worry about any further changes in grade riders. I think, but I am not sure, that they have been in business for 7-8 years and IMO it is a good sign that they are willing to listen and learn from their mistakes (without changing their strict grading).

[mike 5]

Many thanks, Mike, interesting post! Happy New Year to you, too!

Thanks!

[azda 979]

Hmmmm, maybe you should read the scale they set out inon their homepage. If you look at what they've written you'll see that they State 79 is EF, yet the Tabletten that Paulus posted that 78-79 is now UNC, thats a change in my opinion from one grade to another. Here is what is on their website, so have they now changed this to fit?

Why are you not grading on the Sheldon G1 - MS70 scale?

This scale was originally designed by Sheldon as an aid to comparing the likely commercial value of early US copper cents in various grades, and although well established in the USA it has little relevance to English Coinage. The universal 1 – 100 percentage style scale seemed more logical to us. The traditional grades of VG, F VF and EF Unc naturally fit into a percentage scale also as 0 – 19 VG, 20 – 39 FINE, 40 – 59 VF, 60 – 79 EF, 80- 100 Unc.

[Peckris 579]

Many thanks, Mike, interesting post! Happy New Year to you, too!

Ditto from me

I'd echo that CGS have probably changed the alphabetic grade descriptions but not the numerical ones. That doesn't mean I will buy slabbed coins or have my own slabbed, but I accept their integrity. I also agree with you that grades generally have changed in relation to what they were a generation or more ago : however, it's also true that value ranges have changed in line with grades; a coin whose values 50 years ago might have been

F £1 VF £3 EF £7 (and not listed for UNC which would have been 'a premium', e.g. £10)

might now look something like

F £10 VF £25 EF £90 UNC £170

It's also decided by the change in priorities of collectors; 50 years ago it was all about rarities and key dates, while now it's all about condition and quality.

[mike 5]

Hmmmm, maybe you should read the scale they set out inon their homepage. If you look at what they've written you'll see that they State 79 is EF, yet the Tabletten that Paulus posted that 78-79 is now UNC, thats a change in my opinion from one grade to another. Here is what is on their website, so have they now changed this to fit?

Why are you not grading on the Sheldon G1 - MS70 scale?

This scale was originally designed by Sheldon as an aid to comparing the likely commercial value of early US copper cents in various grades, and although well established in the USA it has little relevance to English Coinage. The universal 1 – 100 percentage style scale seemed more logical to us. The traditional grades of VG, F VF and EF Unc naturally fit into a percentage scale also as 0 – 19 VG, 20 – 39 FINE, 40 – 59 VF, 60 – 79 EF, 80- 100 Unc.

Azda, my last attempt, I promise:

The change of numerical garde would be if particular coin would have garded for example 75 three years ago and today would grade 80. But this is not the case. The coin would still be graded 75 today as assessed against benchmark set of coins which not going to change. All they did is that they abandoned grade riders for reasons I have mentioned in my original post.

The CGS grading system itself arrives and has had always arrived at a numeric grade only !!! It express the state of coin preservation which is assessed against benchmark set of coins (separately for strike, marks, bagmarks, hairlines, spots etc).

The comparative tables were and still are just rough guide for collectors who are not familiar with their system so that they have got idea how, for example, grade 65 is percieved on raw coins market or on Sheldon scale. It were collectors and dealers who disagreed and were unhappy that coins pereceived as EF were graded as VF55 and coins in dealers UNC were graded as EF and later AU75 or 78. So they only abandoned riders. Coin graded 75 is still coin graded 75 and you can call it VF, EF or UNC. Up to you, this is not their bussiness any more. It has nothing to do with their grading. All they say is that the state of coin preservation on the 1-100 scale is for example 75. And as the benchmark set of coins is not going to change – the coin with certain number of bagmarks, hairlines, strike etc will still be graded as 75 in 50 years as it was graded 6 years ago (unless they go out of business...). I can not put it more plainly and hope that at least some collectors will understand what I want to say.

PS: the quotation from their website you've used is about 7 years old (when they set up CGS) and should be removed or changed so it is not confusing collectors anymore

It was my last attempt on this topic, promise. M.

[Coinery 1,157]

One point that hasn't been mentioned re the CGS change of tack, is the valuations of the coins now they've been upgraded, albeit by name? I bought a CGS coin at EF money, and now have an 'official' CGS UNC, happy days!

However, has part of the change been more about keeping the punters happy, when they look in the price guides and see what their coin is 'worth'?

So, have CGS also changed their valuations placed against formerly graded coins, now that they are 'officially' a higher grade?

[Paulus 1,975]

One point that hasn't been mentioned re the CGS change of tack, is the valuations of the coins now they've been upgraded, albeit by name? I bought a CGS coin at EF money, and now have an 'official' CGS UNC, happy days!

However, has part of the change been more about keeping the punters happy, when they look in the price guides and see what their coin is 'worth'?

So, have CGS also changed their valuations placed against formerly graded coins, now that they are 'officially' a higher grade?

That's a very interesting point Stuart. I'm not sure how we can find out, perhaps Bill Pugsley will know, if he is still reading the Forum posts. Or someone with a coin in the points score range in question might be monitoring their CGS valuation ... I don't suppose you made a note of the CGS value of your EF coin when you bought it, and what are they valuing it at now?

Incidentally, the grade comparison guide I posted is also printed at the back of London Coins auction catalogues.

[Peckris 579]

One point that hasn't been mentioned re the CGS change of tack, is the valuations of the coins now they've been upgraded, albeit by name? I bought a CGS coin at EF money, and now have an 'official' CGS UNC, happy days!

However, has part of the change been more about keeping the punters happy, when they look in the price guides and see what their coin is 'worth'?

So, have CGS also changed their valuations placed against formerly graded coins, now that they are 'officially' a higher grade?

That's a very interesting point Stuart. I'm not sure how we can find out, perhaps Bill Pugsley will know, if he is still reading the Forum posts. Or someone with a coin in the points score range in question might be monitoring their CGS valuation ... I don't suppose you made a note of the CGS value of your EF coin when you bought it, and what are they valuing it at now?

Incidentally, the grade comparison guide I posted is also printed at the back of London Coins auction catalogues.

And that raises a separate interesting point : CGS is now the standard for grading, but as Mike says, on a consistent numeric scale. Yet Spink is the standard for values, and they use the traditional grading not a numeric scale. That seems a dichotomy really, as someone could buy from CGS according to their grading, then value according to Spink by looking in a column that doesn't strictly accord to the coin they have.

[mike 5]

One point that hasn't been mentioned re the CGS change of tack, is the valuations of the coins now they've been upgraded, albeit by name? I bought a CGS coin at EF money, and now have an 'official' CGS UNC, happy days!

However, has part of the change been more about keeping the punters happy, when they look in the price guides and see what their coin is 'worth'?

So, have CGS also changed their valuations placed against formerly graded coins, now that they are 'officially' a higher grade?

Interesting question. I am collecting CGS graded coins and as far as I know they did not change their valuation by grade „across the board“. Generally speaking they monitor the prices achieved on the market and then adjust prices accordingly. On CGS forum meeting last year I have personally seen their impressive computer database were are the achieved prices added (as well as prices of raw coins).

For example 1/2Crown 1836 valued by CGS in grade 80 at 1000,- pounds at that time sold in Lockdales sale 103 in May this year for £1580,- (double the estimate) and subsequently the CGS price on their website changed to 1600,-. In the same sale Ghotic Crown 1847 (in grade 78, valued at 3500,-) sold for £ 4200,- and is currently valued at 4000,- (interestingly in December sale this coin in grade 70 sold for £ 3900,-). I have noticed this as I have been bidding on this coins (unsuccessfully – needless to say). On the other hand I owe 6d 1879 No Die Number in grade 80 – the CGS valuation recently dropped from £ 300,- to 275,-.

For me, however, still applies that value of my coins is what someone will be prepared to pay in the future. And I always buying the coins for the price I am happy with.

[Paulus 1,975]

One point that hasn't been mentioned re the CGS change of tack, is the valuations of the coins now they've been upgraded, albeit by name? I bought a CGS coin at EF money, and now have an 'official' CGS UNC, happy days!

However, has part of the change been more about keeping the punters happy, when they look in the price guides and see what their coin is 'worth'?

So, have CGS also changed their valuations placed against formerly graded coins, now that they are 'officially' a higher grade?

Interesting question. I am collecting CGS graded coins and as far as I know they did not change their valuation by grade „across the board“. Generally speaking they monitor the prices achieved on the market and then adjust prices accordingly. On CGS forum meeting last year I have personally seen their impressive computer database were are the achieved prices added (as well as prices of raw coins).

For example 1/2Crown 1836 valued by CGS in grade 80 at 1000,- pounds at that time sold in Lockdales sale 103 in May this year for £1580,- (double the estimate) and subsequently the CGS price on their website changed to 1600,-. In the same sale Ghotic Crown 1847 (in grade 78, valued at 3500,-) sold for £ 4200,- and is currently valued at 4000,- (interestingly in December sale this coin in grade 70 sold for £ 3900,-). I have noticed this as I have been bidding on this coins (unsuccessfully – needless to say). On the other hand I owe 6d 1879 No Die Number in grade 80 – the CGS valuation recently dropped from £ 300,- to 275,-.

For me, however, still applies that value of my coins is what someone will be prepared to pay in the future. And I always buying the coins for the price I am happy with.

Mike, as far as you are aware then CGS updates its valuations 'as and when', as opposed to annually or soon after the autumn auctions and the new Spink? The values of my CGS coins have not budged an inch in either direction so far, allbeit my CGS 'experiment' is not quite 1 year old yet!

Do you know when the next CGS forum meeting is, I think Bill Pugsley told me it was due to be early 2014?

Thanks for any info.

[mike 5]

One point that hasn't been mentioned re the CGS change of tack, is the valuations of the coins now they've been upgraded, albeit by name? I bought a CGS coin at EF money, and now have an 'official' CGS UNC, happy days!

However, has part of the change been more about keeping the punters happy, when they look in the price guides and see what their coin is 'worth'?

So, have CGS also changed their valuations placed against formerly graded coins, now that they are 'officially' a higher grade?

That's a very interesting point Stuart. I'm not sure how we can find out, perhaps Bill Pugsley will know, if he is still reading the Forum posts. Or someone with a coin in the points score range in question might be monitoring their CGS valuation ... I don't suppose you made a note of the CGS value of your EF coin when you bought it, and what are they valuing it at now?

Incidentally, the grade comparison guide I posted is also printed at the back of London Coins auction catalogues.

And that raises a separate interesting point : CGS is now the standard for grading, but as Mike says, on a consistent numeric scale. Yet Spink is the standard for values, and they use the traditional grading not a numeric scale. That seems a dichotomy really, as someone could buy from CGS according to their grading, then value according to Spink by looking in a column that doesn't strictly accord to the coin they have.

The thing is that Spink has got (understandably) only one price for UNC. On the other hand CGS UNC coins come in grades 78,80,82,85,88,90, ...100. And believe me there is a huge difference in quality (and therefore scarcity, desirability and subsequently price) of coin graded 80 or 88 or even higher. IMO. M.

[Nick 329]

The comparative tables were and still are just rough guide for collectors who are not familiar with their system so that they have got idea how, for example, grade 65 is perceived on raw coins market or on Sheldon scale. It were collectors and dealers who disagreed and were unhappy that coins perceived as EF were graded as VF55 and coins in dealers UNC were graded as EF and later AU75 or 78. So they only abandoned riders. Coin graded 75 is still coin graded 75 and you can call it VF, EF or UNC. Up to you, this is not their business any more. It has nothing to do with their grading. All they say is that the state of coin preservation on the 1-100 scale is for example 75. And as the benchmark set of coins is not going to change the coin with certain number of bagmarks, hairlines, strike etc will still be graded as 75 in 50 years as it was graded 6 years ago (unless they go out of business...). I can not put it more plainly and hope that at least some collectors will understand what I want to say.

They can't wash their hands quite so easily though as there are still hundreds (perhaps thousands) of CGS slabs out there labelled with grade qualifiers. I notice that they didn't offer to re-label all old slabs with the new style when they changed the nomenclature.

[TomGoodheart 403]

And that raises a separate interesting point : CGS is now the standard for grading, but as Mike says, on a consistent numeric scale. Yet Spink is the standard for values, and they use the traditional grading not a numeric scale. That seems a dichotomy really, as someone could buy from CGS according to their grading, then value according to Spink by looking in a column that doesn't strictly accord to the coin they have.

I guess that's the main issue. British collectors are still very much geared to thinking along the 'traditional' grading scale. Whereas the Americans probably have a handle on the difference between a 55 and 60 without all the VF AU business.

Whether CGS 100 point scale catches on with the general collector remains to be seen. Right now I'm not sure if there's enough demand for change.

Maybe GGS should see if they can per£uade Derek to add numeric equivalents next time he updates the Standard Guide to Grading British Coins!

[mike 5]

One point that hasn't been mentioned re the CGS change of tack, is the valuations of the coins now they've been upgraded, albeit by name? I bought a CGS coin at EF money, and now have an 'official' CGS UNC, happy days!

However, has part of the change been more about keeping the punters happy, when they look in the price guides and see what their coin is 'worth'?

So, have CGS also changed their valuations placed against formerly graded coins, now that they are 'officially' a higher grade?

Interesting question. I am collecting CGS graded coins and as far as I know they did not change their valuation by grade „across the board“. Generally speaking they monitor the prices achieved on the market and then adjust prices accordingly. On CGS forum meeting last year I have personally seen their impressive computer database were are the achieved prices added (as well as prices of raw coins).

For example 1/2Crown 1836 valued by CGS in grade 80 at 1000,- pounds at that time sold in Lockdales sale 103 in May this year for £1580,- (double the estimate) and subsequently the CGS price on their website changed to 1600,-. In the same sale Ghotic Crown 1847 (in grade 78, valued at 3500,-) sold for £ 4200,- and is currently valued at 4000,- (interestingly in December sale this coin in grade 70 sold for £ 3900,-). I have noticed this as I have been bidding on this coins (unsuccessfully – needless to say). On the other hand I owe 6d 1879 No Die Number in grade 80 – the CGS valuation recently dropped from £ 300,- to 275,-.

For me, however, still applies that value of my coins is what someone will be prepared to pay in the future. And I always buying the coins for the price I am happy with.

Mike, as far as you are aware then CGS updates its valuations 'as and when', as opposed to annually or soon after the autumn auctions and the new Spink? The values of my CGS coins have not budged an inch in either direction so far, allbeit my CGS 'experiment' is not quite 1 year old yet!

Do you know when the next CGS forum meeting is, I think Bill Pugsley told me it was due to be early 2014?

Thanks for any info.

Yes, they update prices "as and when" not annually or regularly. Price of some of my coins has not changed for 3 or even 4 years now, on the other hand, for example , price of my 1844 Halfcrown in grade 80 has been updated upwards almost annually for the last four years (which I thing is in keeping with market trends and with raising SPINK prices for this series). It also depends on the grades of your coins, over the past year prices of VF and even EF coins hasn't changed much generally. If you go on "valuation by grade" on CGS website, on the top of the page you can change year back to I think 2008 and you can see for yourself how their prices has changed over the past few years.

Bill was unable to attend last two LCA, but he is going to attend the March one - and as far as I know from him he is considering to arrange CGS forum meeting at that time.

All the best, M.

[mike 5]

The comparative tables were and still are just rough guide for collectors who are not familiar with their system so that they have got idea how, for example, grade 65 is perceived on raw coins market or on Sheldon scale. It were collectors and dealers who disagreed and were unhappy that coins perceived as EF were graded as VF55 and coins in dealers UNC were graded as EF and later AU75 or 78. So they only abandoned riders. Coin graded 75 is still coin graded 75 and you can call it VF, EF or UNC. Up to you, this is not their business any more. It has nothing to do with their grading. All they say is that the state of coin preservation on the 1-100 scale is for example 75. And as the benchmark set of coins is not going to change the coin with certain number of bagmarks, hairlines, strike etc will still be graded as 75 in 50 years as it was graded 6 years ago (unless they go out of business...). I can not put it more plainly and hope that at least some collectors will understand what I want to say.

They can't wash their hands quite so easily though as there are still hundreds (perhaps thousands) of CGS slabs out there labelled with grade qualifiers. I notice that they didn't offer to re-label all old slabs with the new style when they changed the nomenclature.

I can only agree on this point. M.

[azda 979]

Hmmmm, maybe you should read the scale they set out inon their homepage. If you look at what they've written you'll see that they State 79 is EF, yet the Tabletten that Paulus posted that 78-79 is now UNC, thats a change in my opinion from one grade to another. Here is what is on their website, so have they now changed this to fit?

Why are you not grading on the Sheldon G1 - MS70 scale?

This scale was originally designed by Sheldon as an aid to comparing the likely commercial value of early US copper cents in various grades, and although well established in the USA it has little relevance to English Coinage. The universal 1 – 100 percentage style scale seemed more logical to us. The traditional grades of VG, F VF and EF Unc naturally fit into a percentage scale also as 0 – 19 VG, 20 – 39 FINE, 40 – 59 VF, 60 – 79 EF, 80- 100 Unc.

Azda, my last attempt, I promise:

The change of numerical garde would be if particular coin would have garded for example 75 three years ago and today would grade 80. But this is not the case. The coin would still be graded 75 today as assessed against benchmark set of coins which not going to change. All they did is that they abandoned grade riders for reasons I have mentioned in my original post.

The CGS grading system itself arrives and has had always arrived at a numeric grade only !!! It express the state of coin preservation which is assessed against benchmark set of coins (separately for strike, marks, bagmarks, hairlines, spots etc).

The comparative tables were and still are just rough guide for collectors who are not familiar with their system so that they have got idea how, for example, grade 65 is percieved on raw coins market or on Sheldon scale. It were collectors and dealers who disagreed and were unhappy that coins pereceived as EF were graded as VF55 and coins in dealers UNC were graded as EF and later AU75 or 78. So they only abandoned riders. Coin graded 75 is still coin graded 75 and you can call it VF, EF or UNC. Up to you, this is not their bussiness any more. It has nothing to do with their grading. All they say is that the state of coin preservation on the 1-100 scale is for example 75. And as the benchmark set of coins is not going to change – the coin with certain number of bagmarks, hairlines, strike etc will still be graded as 75 in 50 years as it was graded 6 years ago (unless they go out of business...). I can not put it more plainly and hope that at least some collectors will understand what I want to say.

PS: the quotation from their website you've used is about 7 years old (when they set up CGS) and should be removed or changed so it is not confusing collectors anymore

It was my last attempt on this topic, promise. M.

I was merely quoting CGS Mike. I'm not so sure this change had much to do with dealers though, its probably more an advantage for a dealer for a coin NOT to be slabbed so grades can be manipulated (the higher the grade the higher the price)

[Sword 1,487]

One point that hasn't been mentioned re the CGS change of tack, is the valuations of the coins now they've been upgraded, albeit by name? I bought a CGS coin at EF money, and now have an 'official' CGS UNC, happy days!

However, has part of the change been more about keeping the punters happy, when they look in the price guides and see what their coin is 'worth'?

So, have CGS also changed their valuations placed against formerly graded coins, now that they are 'officially' a higher grade?

Interesting question. I am collecting CGS graded coins and as far as I know they did not change their valuation by grade „across the board“. Generally speaking they monitor the prices achieved on the market and then adjust prices accordingly. On CGS forum meeting last year I have personally seen their impressive computer database were are the achieved prices added (as well as prices of raw coins).

For example 1/2Crown 1836 valued by CGS in grade 80 at 1000,- pounds at that time sold in Lockdales sale 103 in May this year for £1580,- (double the estimate) and subsequently the CGS price on their website changed to 1600,-. In the same sale Ghotic Crown 1847 (in grade 78, valued at 3500,-) sold for £ 4200,- and is currently valued at 4000,- (interestingly in December sale this coin in grade 70 sold for £ 3900,-). I have noticed this as I have been bidding on this coins (unsuccessfully – needless to say). On the other hand I owe 6d 1879 No Die Number in grade 80 – the CGS valuation recently dropped from £ 300,- to 275,-.

For me, however, still applies that value of my coins is what someone will be prepared to pay in the future. And I always buying the coins for the price I am happy with.

CGS never (as far as I can tell) revise their valuations downward even though some of the figures are way over the top (i.e. more than two times out).

For example they valued a grade 82 1900 LXIV crown at £900, and an example was sold in the august london coins auction at £380 hammer. A halfcrown was brought for £110 hammer from London coins and it got slabbed at grade 80 and has a CGS valuation of £350. There are many more examples I can give. I think the reason that some of the CGS prices have remained static for several years is that they were over the top in the first place and it will be many years before the market prices can catch up.

[Sword 1,487]

The comparative tables were and still are just rough guide for collectors who are not familiar with their system so that they have got idea how, for example, grade 65 is perceived on raw coins market or on Sheldon scale. It were collectors and dealers who disagreed and were unhappy that coins perceived as EF were graded as VF55 and coins in dealers UNC were graded as EF and later AU75 or 78. So they only abandoned riders. Coin graded 75 is still coin graded 75 and you can call it VF, EF or UNC. Up to you, this is not their business any more. It has nothing to do with their grading. All they say is that the state of coin preservation on the 1-100 scale is for example 75. And as the benchmark set of coins is not going to change the coin with certain number of bagmarks, hairlines, strike etc will still be graded as 75 in 50 years as it was graded 6 years ago (unless they go out of business...). I can not put it more plainly and hope that at least some collectors will understand what I want to say.

They can't wash their hands quite so easily though as there are still hundreds (perhaps thousands) of CGS slabs out there labelled with grade qualifiers. I notice that they didn't offer to re-label all old slabs with the new style when they changed the nomenclature.

More than 25000 CGS slabs (minus those that have been cracked out) with the grade qualifiers.

[DaveG38 407]

One point that hasn't been mentioned re the CGS change of tack, is the valuations of the coins now they've been upgraded, albeit by name? I bought a CGS coin at EF money, and now have an 'official' CGS UNC, happy days!

However, has part of the change been more about keeping the punters happy, when they look in the price guides and see what their coin is 'worth'?

So, have CGS also changed their valuations placed against formerly graded coins, now that they are 'officially' a higher grade?

Interesting question. I am collecting CGS graded coins and as far as I know they did not change their valuation by grade „across the board“. Generally speaking they monitor the prices achieved on the market and then adjust prices accordingly. On CGS forum meeting last year I have personally seen their impressive computer database were are the achieved prices added (as well as prices of raw coins).

For example 1/2Crown 1836 valued by CGS in grade 80 at 1000,- pounds at that time sold in Lockdales sale 103 in May this year for £1580,- (double the estimate) and subsequently the CGS price on their website changed to 1600,-. In the same sale Ghotic Crown 1847 (in grade 78, valued at 3500,-) sold for £ 4200,- and is currently valued at 4000,- (interestingly in December sale this coin in grade 70 sold for £ 3900,-). I have noticed this as I have been bidding on this coins (unsuccessfully – needless to say). On the other hand I owe 6d 1879 No Die Number in grade 80 – the CGS valuation recently dropped from £ 300,- to 275,-.

For me, however, still applies that value of my coins is what someone will be prepared to pay in the future. And I always buying the coins for the price I am happy with.

When you say that CGS updated their valuation from £1000 to £1600 based on the Lockdales sale price, was that based on the hammer price or the total price with premium? For most auctions that could make quite a difference. And when you are considering 'valuation' you also need to bear in mind the commission you pay when selling at auction - does the CGS valuation take this into account in some way?