Cgs On Dipping?

[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.

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.

I am sure there will be lot of examples on both sides of the spectrum and you may be right with "prices catching up" in some series. Their valuation by grade is great for insurance (valuation) purposes but otherwise it does not concern me at all. I always pay what I am happy to pay for particular coin. Some coins are sold even over their "over the top" prices some under their prices, it may depend how many buyers are interested in particular coin on the particular day. Raw shilling 1839 sold at their last auction at £200 hammer in spite of Spink valuation of £600. I do not think that because of this result we can say that Spink prices are "over the top". If the Crown 1900 is overpriced then it will remain on their website for sale for another 20 years until the price catch up (or until the price drops). It is not my problem, I am just not going to buy it for this price. FYI I'd like to confirm that CGS valuation of 6d 1879 dropped recently which is easily verifiable on their website.

[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.

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?

It was based on the total price with premium (hammer 1350,-). Their prices, as far as I know, includes what I would call dealers or buyers premium (my guess is around 30%). So if they value coin at 100,- pounds they believe that the coin might be worth to the dealer or auction buyer (without premium) around 65-70,- pounds. You can see it on their auction estimates and quite frequently on sales results. Obviously you can always find exemptions in both directions as mentioned by Sword or in my recent post. This is just generally speaking. M.

[VickySilver 830]

OK, I think another couple of points being missed here is that catalogue valuations are projected averages. In other words, even electronic valuations on the internet are dated as soon as generated. Also, a piece sitting in stock in somebody's small antique shop may have a low price - much lower than posted valuations, and yet languish there. Not great probability, but possible. The same piece for sale in some remote European non-internet sale may go for quite low. Then a similar piece may come up slabbed at a Heritage sale and go for many multiples.

Anyway, those are a couple of ideas. In other words, a dated valuation must serve in a variety of circumstances - that is a difficult task to come up with such.

[TomGoodheart 400]

FYI I'd like to confirm that CGS valuation of 6d 1879 dropped recently which is easily verifiable on their website.

Makes sense. If a bagful of 1836 halfcrowns turned up in BU you'd expect it to have some effect on prices. It would be daft for any TPGS or dealer to never revise prices, downwards as well as up. Thanks for that Mike.

[Sword 1,458]

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.

I am sure there will be lot of examples on both sides of the spectrum and you may be right with "prices catching up" in some series. Their valuation by grade is great for insurance (valuation) purposes but otherwise it does not concern me at all. I always pay what I am happy to pay for particular coin. Some coins are sold even over their "over the top" prices some under their prices, it may depend how many buyers are interested in particular coin on the particular day. Raw shilling 1839 sold at their last auction at £200 hammer in spite of Spink valuation of £600. I do not think that because of this result we can say that Spink prices are "over the top". If the Crown 1900 is overpriced then it will remain on their website for sale for another 20 years until the price catch up (or until the price drops). It is not my problem, I am just not going to buy it for this price. FYI I'd like to confirm that CGS valuation of 6d 1879 dropped recently which is easily verifiable on their website.

Thanks for the 1879 6d info. (They have dropped the price from £300 to £275 for grade 80 of a variety). Surely, even such modest drops are exceptionally rare?

I do respect the grading of CGS and do use them. (The main reason for me slabbing some of my high grade coins is for protection and ease of viewing). I am also not saying that all CGS valuations are over the top. However, some of their valuations are obviously so and this does nothing for their credibility.

London coins sells CGS slabs at CGS prices. If some CGS prices are double of what the raw coins can sell raw, then some might say that it is an attempt to push the theory that slabbing can greatly increase the value of a coin.

[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.

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.

Spink - probably like many of us here - have an old-fashioned attitude to UNC. To them, UNC means UNC, not AUNC (which is what used to be GEF). They would also acknowledge that a blazing crisp early strike BU would carry a premium over their UNC valuation.

And that's the point I think - a numeric scale implies some kind of circulation degradation; yet most collectors UNOFFICIALLY regard crisp early strikes as worth a premium over book price. They don't need a sliding scale to tell them how much they can or want to pay for a highly desirable coin. Beginners who buy slab numbers without knowing enough about the hobby, should get their heads examined, to be honest.

[Nick 329]

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

It seems pretty odd to me that the absolute pinnacle that is FDC can manage to span 6 grade numbers at the top of the table. So that's FDC, FDC and a bit, FDC and some, FDC with knobs on, ...

Edited December 29, 2013 by Nick

[davidrj 194]

FDC = "Fleur de Coin", translates as "Flower of the Die" and should only be used for first strikes from new dies - aFDC is nonsense

[Paulus 1,975]

It seems pretty odd to me that the absolute pinnacle that is FDC can manage to span 6 grade numbers at the top of the table. So that's FDC, FDC and a bit, FDC and some, FDC with knobs on, ...

I agree ... and (as I mentioned some time ago) I also find it strange that they adopted a 1-100 scale but only ever use about 1/3 of the available scores. Surely the VF-AU range is worthy of more than 7 different scores?

[Accumulator 52]

I've always struggled with the MS65 = CGS85 alignment and I do think this demonstrates the tougher line taken by CGS. In my limited experience a CGS85 coin is always an exceptional example and I've not seen one that I wouldn't happily have in my collection. On the other hand I have a few (NGC) MS65 examples which I'd certainly look to upgrade. They'd never have made CGS85.

[VickySilver 830]

Uh, please see my earlier post of the George V Jubilee crowns and the CGS85 that not only was inferior to both the PCGS65 specimen but also the NGC65 specimen!

And by a lot. Also, it had developed an ugly green ?PVC spot in the slab...

Edited December 29, 2013 by VickySilver

[Paulus 1,975]

I have a question on the CGS grading alignment 'change'.

Prior to the 'adjustment' and the removal of the grade riders from the slab labels, the CGS alignment with traditional British grading was (as Azda posted):

0 – 19 VG, 20 – 39 FINE, 40 – 59 VF, 60 – 79 EF, 80- 100 Unc

This is still stated in the FAQ of the CGS web site, and should really be updated for credibilty and to avoid confusion (as Mike as posted).

It follows that either:

• the Sheldon equivalents of CGS scores have also changed (in CGS' view)
  

or

• the traditional equivalents of Sheldon scores have changed
  

Perhaps they didn't previously try and suggest equivalents across the 3 systems, but if they did, does anyone know which of these changed in CGS' view?

As a clear example, CGS 78 is now aligned with UNC (was EF) and MS 63-64. So, did CGS previously suggest that MS 63-64 was only EF, or that CGS 78 was about MS 60-91?

[Rob 3,152]

I have a question on the CGS grading alignment 'change'.

Prior to the 'adjustment' and the removal of the grade riders from the slab labels, the CGS alignment with traditional British grading was (as Azda posted):

0 – 19 VG, 20 – 39 FINE, 40 – 59 VF, 60 – 79 EF, 80- 100 Unc

This is still stated in the FAQ of the CGS web site, and should really be updated for credibilty and to avoid confusion (as Mike as posted).

It follows that either:

• the Sheldon equivalents of CGS scores have also changed (in CGS' view)

or

• the traditional equivalents of Sheldon scores have changed

Perhaps they didn't previously try and suggest equivalents across the 3 systems, but if they did, does anyone know which of these changed in CGS' view?

As a clear example, CGS 78 is now aligned with UNC (was EF) and MS 63-64. So, did CGS previously suggest that MS 63-64 was only EF, or that CGS 78 was about MS 60-91?

Clearly a misprunt, but I concur wholeheartedly that the grade range is a bit fluid to say the least.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Rob

[Paulus 1,975]

I have a question on the CGS grading alignment 'change'.

Prior to the 'adjustment' and the removal of the grade riders from the slab labels, the CGS alignment with traditional British grading was (as Azda posted):

0 – 19 VG, 20 – 39 FINE, 40 – 59 VF, 60 – 79 EF, 80- 100 Unc

This is still stated in the FAQ of the CGS web site, and should really be updated for credibilty and to avoid confusion (as Mike as posted).

It follows that either:

• the Sheldon equivalents of CGS scores have also changed (in CGS' view)

or

• the traditional equivalents of Sheldon scores have changed

Perhaps they didn't previously try and suggest equivalents across the 3 systems, but if they did, does anyone know which of these changed in CGS' view?

As a clear example, CGS 78 is now aligned with UNC (was EF) and MS 63-64. So, did CGS previously suggest that MS 63-64 was only EF, or that CGS 78 was about MS 60-91?

Clearly a misprunt, but I concur wholeheartedly that the grade range is a bit fluid to say the least.

Indeed, MS 60-61 I meant (of course)

It might be 'only' a couple of grading points, but if it makes the difference between EF and UNC that will matter a lot to a lot of collectors, and to prices/values!

[Rob 3,152]

I think the difference between 65, 66 & 67 is far greater than that between 60, 61 & 62. Those who collect by numbers will often refuse to countenance owning such low numbers, which equates to reduced demand and hence price. The coins may be more impaired, maybe not. It might be just down to whether the TPG thinks a coin needs to be 'conserved' (i.e.cleaned). The one that is really out of kilter here is the US grade of MS60 (or 61 or 62), where the coin often has a few hairlines and light wear to the high points. This should negate any chance of a 'mint state' attribution, but it doesn't.

All of this discussion is simply muddying the waters, because the one thing that hasn't been mentioned is what individual members' comparative grades are when comparing a coin to the grades assigned by the various TPGs - and they are the only ones that really matter. The best that can be hoped for is a grade range from one TPG equating to a grade range from a second. The individual collector can assign his own mental note of what to expect, but what it's called is completely irrelevant.

And I might add that all this has b****r all to do with dipping, which was the original question.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Rob

[DaveG38 405]

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?

It was based on the total price with premium (hammer 1350,-). Their prices, as far as I know, includes what I would call dealers or buyers premium (my guess is around 30%). So if they value coin at 100,- pounds they believe that the coin might be worth to the dealer or auction buyer (without premium) around 65-70,- pounds. You can see it on their auction estimates and quite frequently on sales results. Obviously you can always find exemptions in both directions as mentioned by Sword or in my recent post. This is just generally speaking. M.

Ok, thanks for this.

[Peckris 579]

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

It seems pretty odd to me that the absolute pinnacle that is FDC can manage to span 6 grade numbers at the top of the table. So that's FDC, FDC and a bit, FDC and some, FDC with knobs on, ...

What's more, their top 4 numbers all equate to Sheldon 70 - would the Americans accept their absolute pinnacle can be further subdivided by 4?

FDC = "Fleur de Coin", translates as "Flower of the Die" and should only be used for first strikes from new dies - aFDC is nonsense

And strictly, should only be applied to proofs. The highest grade for a non-proof is BU or UNC.

[Paulus 1,975]

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

It seems pretty odd to me that the absolute pinnacle that is FDC can manage to span 6 grade numbers at the top of the table. So that's FDC, FDC and a bit, FDC and some, FDC with knobs on, ...

What's more, their top 4 numbers all equate to Sheldon 70 - would the Americans accept their absolute pinnacle can be further subdivided by 4?

FDC = "Fleur de Coin", translates as "Flower of the Die" and should only be used for first strikes from new dies - aFDC is nonsense

And strictly, should only be applied to proofs. The highest grade for a non-proof is BU or UNC.

Which would prompt me to ask whether CGS 88 is the highest achievable grade for a non-proof!

[Colin G. 147]

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

It seems pretty odd to me that the absolute pinnacle that is FDC can manage to span 6 grade numbers at the top of the table. So that's FDC, FDC and a bit, FDC and some, FDC with knobs on, ...

What's more, their top 4 numbers all equate to Sheldon 70 - would the Americans accept their absolute pinnacle can be further subdivided by 4?

FDC = "Fleur de Coin", translates as "Flower of the Die" and should only be used for first strikes from new dies - aFDC is nonsense

And strictly, should only be applied to proofs. The highest grade for a non-proof is BU or UNC.

Which would prompt me to ask whether CGS 88 is the highest achievable grade for a non-proof!

I believe it is, but don't quote me on that

[Sword 1,458]

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

It seems pretty odd to me that the absolute pinnacle that is FDC can manage to span 6 grade numbers at the top of the table. So that's FDC, FDC and a bit, FDC and some, FDC with knobs on, ...

What's more, their top 4 numbers all equate to Sheldon 70 - would the Americans accept their absolute pinnacle can be further subdivided by 4?

FDC = "Fleur de Coin", translates as "Flower of the Die" and should only be used for first strikes from new dies - aFDC is nonsense

And strictly, should only be applied to proofs. The highest grade for a non-proof is BU or UNC.

Which would prompt me to ask whether CGS 88 is the highest achievable grade for a non-proof!

I believe it is, but don't quote me on that

Non-proof specimen coins can be significantly higher than that I think.

[davidrj 194]

Non proof first strikes could be FDC by definition

[Coinery 1,148]

Yes, I couldn't imagine for a second that CGS would tie themselves into the knot of a 'perfect' currency piece, 'just in case a better one came along'!

[Nick 329]

It seems pretty odd to me that the absolute pinnacle that is FDC can manage to span 6 grade numbers at the top of the table. So that's FDC, FDC and a bit, FDC and some, FDC with knobs on, ...

What's more, their top 4 numbers all equate to Sheldon 70 - would the Americans accept their absolute pinnacle can be further subdivided by 4?

FDC = "Fleur de Coin", translates as "Flower of the Die" and should only be used for first strikes from new dies - aFDC is nonsense

And strictly, should only be applied to proofs. The highest grade for a non-proof is BU or UNC.

Which would prompt me to ask whether CGS 88 is the highest achievable grade for a non-proof!

No, it isn't. A quick look at the population report shows the occasional 90 or 91 for a non-proof.

[Paulus 1,975]

Non proof first strikes could be FDC by definition

Well that is what is I hoped someone would say, otherwise what is the point of a 1-100 scale if only the top grades can be achieved by proof coins, while proof is not a grade?

Does anyone have an example of a non-proof CGS 'fdc' coin? Still feels like a bit of an oxymoron ...

Edit: our posts crossed Nick, do you have a take as to how an fdc description can apply to a non-proof coin?

Edited December 30, 2013 by Paulus

[Nick 329]

Non proof first strikes could be FDC by definition

Well that is what is I hoped someone would say, otherwise what is the point of a 1-100 scale if only the top grades can be achieved by proof coins, while proof is not a grade?

Does anyone have an example of a non-proof CGS 'fdc' coin? Still feels like a bit of an oxymoron ...

Edit: our posts crossed Nick, do you have a take as to how an fdc description can apply to a non-proof coin?

I would only use FDC in respect of a proof coin myself, and would use 'mint state' or 'as struck' for a top drawer currency example.