Cgs On Dipping?

[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 hear what you say, but all things being equal an early strike proof should be better than an early strike non-proof. Therefore, if you measure them on the same scale, there must be a region at the top of the scale that a currency strike cannot reach.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Nick

[davidrj 194]

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.

trouble is there is no hard and fast definition of a proof, in general UK coins dont bear a mark such as "essai"

Not all proofs are frosted designs on mirror fields - currency strikes on polished dies, proffs on matt dies - there are threads on here re high quality "proof like" bun pennies

[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?

I hear what you say, but all things being equal an early strike proof should be better than an early strike non-proof. Therefore, if you measure them on the same scale, there must be a region at the top of the scale that a currency strike cannot reach.

Agreed, the likelihood of proofs achieving the very top grades is much more than non-proofs. I wonder, for years where there are no proofs, whether the very top grades are even theoretically achievable? I am just playing devil's advocate here, the subject interests me!

[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?

If you look at CGS UIN 2043. It is an 1816 shilling and has been graded as a 91. However, if you're expecting to be dazzled by the quality of the photograph, you may be disappointed.

[davidrj 194]

Agreed, the likelihood of proofs achieving the very top grades is much more than non-proofs. I wonder, for years where there are no proofs, whether the very top grades are even theoretically achievable? I am just playing devil's advocate here, the subject interests me!

I'm sure special dies were not created for the 20thC VIP proofs, more likely first strikes on prepared flans

and PROOF is NOT A GRADE - grade by definition is a measure of wear

[Coinery 1,148]

Bearing in mind there are such things as brand spanking new currency dies...if you could press the very first currency coin from that pair of dies and remove it from the machine with cotton gloves and present it to CGS, that would be FDC and worth 100 wouldn't it?

Nb: I'm going to post my bright, former AU, now UNC, 1897 XII, just to ask your thoughts on its tonal status!

[Paulus 1,975]

Agreed, the likelihood of proofs achieving the very top grades is much more than non-proofs. I wonder, for years where there are no proofs, whether the very top grades are even theoretically achievable? I am just playing devil's advocate here, the subject interests me!

I'm sure special dies were not created for the 20thC VIP proofs, more likely first strikes on prepared flans

and PROOF is NOT A GRADE - grade by definition is a measure of wear

This is part of my point, it's as if the top scores are being reserved for proofs, which, as you say, should be treated separately and are not an indication of grade

[Paulus 1,975]

Bearing in mind there are such things as brand spanking new currency dies...if you could press the very first currency coin from that pair of dies and remove it from the machine with cotton gloves and present it to CGS, that would be FDC and worth 100 wouldn't it?

Nb: I'm going to post my bright, former AU, now UNC, 1897 XII, just to ask your thoughts on its tonal status!

I would love to see your toned UNC 1897, just so that this post can morph from TPG toning through cross-TPG grading to toning! Is it bright or toned?

[Nick 329]

Bearing in mind there are such things as brand spanking new currency dies...if you could press the very first currency coin from that pair of dies and remove it from the machine with cotton gloves and present it to CGS, that would be FDC and worth 100 wouldn't it?

Nb: I'm going to post my bright, former AU, now UNC, 1897 XII, just to ask your thoughts on its tonal status!

Not for me, no. Imagine the exact same situation with brand new proof dies and a polished blank. It's still going to be slightly sharper than your currency piece and should get a higher score.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Nick

[Paulus 1,975]

Bearing in mind there are such things as brand spanking new currency dies...if you could press the very first currency coin from that pair of dies and remove it from the machine with cotton gloves and present it to CGS, that would be FDC and worth 100 wouldn't it?

Nb: I'm going to post my bright, former AU, now UNC, 1897 XII, just to ask your thoughts on its tonal status!

Not for me, no. Imagine the exact same situation with brand new proof dies and a polished blank. It's still going to be slightly sharper than your currency piece and should get a higher score.

I agree Nick, but what if there are no proofs for that denomination/year? The way CGS say they do things (which I agree with), is relative to benchmark coins for the same year and denomination, so it should be theoretically possible to achieve any score out of 100 in any year for any coin?

[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?

If you look at CGS UIN 2043. It is an 1816 shilling and has been graded as a 91. However, if you're expecting to be dazzled by the quality of the photograph, you may be disappointed.

CGS UIN 8978 is an interesting one. It's an 1884 shilling that is ex-Cheshire collection, previously NGS MS-64. CGS has graded it as 90.

[Rob 3,152]

There are divergences in both directions.

[Nick 329]

Bearing in mind there are such things as brand spanking new currency dies...if you could press the very first currency coin from that pair of dies and remove it from the machine with cotton gloves and present it to CGS, that would be FDC and worth 100 wouldn't it?

Nb: I'm going to post my bright, former AU, now UNC, 1897 XII, just to ask your thoughts on its tonal status!

Not for me, no. Imagine the exact same situation with brand new proof dies and a polished blank. It's still going to be slightly sharper than your currency piece and should get a higher score.

I agree Nick, but what if there are no proofs for that denomination/year? The way CGS say they do things (which I agree with), is relative to benchmark coins for the same year and denomination, so it should be theoretically possible to achieve any score out of 100 in any year for any coin?

You couldn't have a different scale for every year. It would be chaos. I would imagine that in a year with no proofs, the maximum grade achievable would be 90-ish.

[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?

If you look at CGS UIN 2043. It is an 1816 shilling and has been graded as a 91. However, if you're expecting to be dazzled by the quality of the photograph, you may be disappointed.

CGS UIN 8978 is an interesting one. It's an 1884 shilling that is ex-Cheshire collection, previously NGS MS-64. CGS has graded it as 90.

I do have a problem the the grading and pics of the first few thousand CGS slabbed coins, and am very wary when considering buying any! They seem to have become a lot better with grading, photography and consistency after the first couple of years, IMO

[Coinery 1,148]

Is it bright or toned?

Blistering white! I'll put up the UIN tomorrow, and get a photo up too! I've been meaning to crack it out for about 6 months, so will do so when the camera next comes out!

[Rob 3,152]

I'm soooooooooooo happy that all I require is an example which is at or near the top of those available (by my own assessment).

[Paulus 1,975]

Bearing in mind there are such things as brand spanking new currency dies...if you could press the very first currency coin from that pair of dies and remove it from the machine with cotton gloves and present it to CGS, that would be FDC and worth 100 wouldn't it?

Nb: I'm going to post my bright, former AU, now UNC, 1897 XII, just to ask your thoughts on its tonal status!

Not for me, no. Imagine the exact same situation with brand new proof dies and a polished blank. It's still going to be slightly sharper than your currency piece and should get a higher score.

I agree Nick, but what if there are no proofs for that denomination/year? The way CGS say they do things (which I agree with), is relative to benchmark coins for the same year and denomination, so it should be theoretically possible to achieve any score out of 100 in any year for any coin?

You couldn't have a different scale for every year. It would be chaos. I would imagine that in a year with no proofs, the maximum grade achievable would be 90-ish.

I don't think they should have a different scale at all. I think a proof coin is a different coin type, and grade-able on its own merits relative to others of the same type

[Coinery 1,148]

Bearing in mind there are such things as brand spanking new currency dies...if you could press the very first currency coin from that pair of dies and remove it from the machine with cotton gloves and present it to CGS, that would be FDC and worth 100 wouldn't it?

Nb: I'm going to post my bright, former AU, now UNC, 1897 XII, just to ask your thoughts on its tonal status!

Not for me, no. Imagine the exact same situation with brand new proof dies and a polished blank. It's still going to be slightly sharper than your currency piece and should get a higher score.

So I guess there is a finite number, less than 100, for a currency piece, not that we'd ever get CGS to acknowledge what that number is? A currency 91 must already be a scary proposition for them!

[Coinery 1,148]

I'm soooooooooooo happy that all I require is an example which is at or near the top of those available (by my own assessment).

[Sword 1,458]

This is the first serious coin I have brought and so has sentimental value. Virtually toneless when I brought it. Would you say this is natural or has been previously lightly dipped?

[RLC35 288]

This is the first serious coin I have brought and so has sentimental value. Virtually toneless when I brought it. Would you say this is natural or has been previously lightly dipped?

1927 crown observe.jpg

1927 crown reverse.jpg

Beautiful coin Sword. It doesn't look dipped to me. Nice clear fields!

[Paulus 1,975]

This is the first serious coin I have brought and so has sentimental value. Virtually toneless when I brought it. Would you say this is natural or has been previously lightly dipped?

1927 crown observe.jpg

1927 crown reverse.jpg

Beautiful coin Sword. It doesn't look dipped to me. Nice clear fields!

I agree, looks like natural beauty to me!

[Sword 1,458]

This is the first serious coin I have brought and so has sentimental value. Virtually toneless when I brought it. Would you say this is natural or has been previously lightly dipped?

1927 crown observe.jpg

1927 crown reverse.jpg

Beautiful coin Sword. It doesn't look dipped to me. Nice clear fields!

I agree, looks like natural beauty to me!

Thanks guys!

[rpeddie 119]

your grade beat my grade?

[Peter 615]

I would give you £10 for that.