Cgs On Dipping?

[Sword 1,456]

your grade beat my grade?

12_opt.jpg23_opt.jpg

Very nice!

[Accumulator 52]

Beautiful examples of the crown, guys. And excellent photos. Every one I've looked at has a slight flaw somewhere.

[Colin G. 147]

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.

Oops I just realised I posted that 88 was what I thought was the highest for a currency strike, and then realised I have a currency farthing that was slabbed at 90

Out of the bundle I acquired a couple of years ago, I did submit a few that I had cherry picked as a bit of an exercise, and whilst the majority did grade at 82 or 85, I did manage an 88 and one 90.

I suppose for the proofs, it is a bit tough, because I would anticipate it would be much easier for a proof to drop points than it would for a currency coin, so do you have a separate scale for proofs, or accept that a low scoring proof is potentially still going to be better in terms of detail etc that its currency counterpart at the same score. I don't have the answer just wanted to make an observation

[Peckris 579]

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?

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

And as we've been told by the likes of Michael Gouby, nor is UNC a grade - it's a state, of a currency coin that shows no sign of circulation.

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?

The year doesn't matter. No-one is going to judge a coin solely on the comparative state of the year digits. On the other hand,, there is nearly always a proof for that denomination type, that an UNC coin of another year can be judged against.

I suppose for the proofs, it is a bit tough, because I would anticipate it would be much easier for a proof to drop points than it would for a currency coin, so do you have a separate scale for proofs, or accept that a low scoring proof is potentially still going to be better in terms of detail etc that its currency counterpart at the same score. I don't have the answer just wanted to make an observation

I would suggest that the top levels of the scale should be reserved only for proofs, along with the term FDC. A currency strike using proof dies might creep into the bottom of the proof scale but no higher. 'Impaired' proofs should no longer be judged as proofs (unless still markedly superior), especially if they've circulated, in which case they should be judged as currency pieces.

[Colin G. 147]

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?

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

And as we've been told by the likes of Michael Gouby, nor is UNC a grade - it's a state, of a currency coin that shows no sign of circulation.

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?

The year doesn't matter. No-one is going to judge a coin solely on the comparative state of the year digits. On the other hand,, there is nearly always a proof for that denomination type, that an UNC coin of another year can be judged against.

I suppose for the proofs, it is a bit tough, because I would anticipate it would be much easier for a proof to drop points than it would for a currency coin, so do you have a separate scale for proofs, or accept that a low scoring proof is potentially still going to be better in terms of detail etc that its currency counterpart at the same score. I don't have the answer just wanted to make an observation

I would suggest that the top levels of the scale should be reserved only for proofs, along with the term FDC. A currency strike using proof dies might creep into the bottom of the proof scale but no higher. 'Impaired' proofs should no longer be judged as proofs (unless still markedly superior), especially if they've circulated, in which case they should be judged as currency pieces.

I do agree with your comments, however I am just trying to explain that perhaps the reasoning for 5 levels of FDC is that using the same process as the currency coins there is inevitably some difference in the quality of proofs. Therefore how low can a proof go before it would become impaired? I should imagine that a proof could drop down the ladder quicker than a currency strike will rise up the ladder, therefore if they are placed on the same 100 point scale inevitably you will get a crossover whereby a proof drops into the perceived "currency" section of the scale

[davidrj 194]

And as we've been told by the likes of Michael Gouby, nor is UNC a grade - it's a state, of a currency coin that shows no sign of circulation.

So the top grade for any coin, currency or proof, should be As Struck - grading points should then be subtracted for weak strike, wear, ugly toning etc

[rpeddie 119]

any idea if weakly struck coins/badly worn dies get treated any differently during the grading process or do they just get treated in a way where the missing detail is counted as an overall -ve on their grading scale?

[mike 5]

any idea if weakly struck coins/badly worn dies get treated any differently during the grading process or do they just get treated in a way where the missing detail is counted as an overall -ve on their grading scale?

Proof coin is treated by CGS as any other coin during grading process. (please see below If you are not familiar with their grading process). Unimpaired proof coin obviously scores very high in all areas, especially for strike. However if the proof coin has got any (even tiny) hairlines, nicks, stains, edge knocks, handling marks etc it will have effect on the final garde – so the impaired proof coin can be easily graded as 70, 50, 30... On the other hand if you have got choice currency coin with very good (early) strike, full lustre, no hairlines, no nicks, stains etc it would grade as 90 or even higher, however currency coins in this state of preservation are extremely rare.

(CGS grading process: 2 graders have to refer to the extensive benchmark set of coins, each of which is allocated a unique number. When looking at such factors as striking, lustre, problems (for example, contact marks, stains), hairlines, haymarking, adjustment marks, cabinet friction etc, each grader compares the coin being graded to the relevant section of the benchmark set. When the benchmark coin that matches the aspect of the coin being graded is found, its unique number is fed into a computer. When all the factors have been entered, a programme that weights the numerous factors produces the numerical CGS UK grade. If there is a difference between two graders then the third grader comes into play)

[azda 979]

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.

Interesting, MS64 would be an 80 on the CGS scale and then taking into account that American TPGs generally overgrade British coins i wonder how they then came up with a 91. is it because its a Cheshire coin i wonder

[azda 979]

I'm curious how CGS are going to grade hammered coins. Striking splits, irregular flans etc would Lead to the, all being less than Fine surely

[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.

Interesting, MS64 would be an 80 on the CGS scale and then taking into account that American TPGs generally overgrade British coins i wonder how they then came up with a 91. is it because its a Cheshire coin i wonder

It's a nice looking coin, especially the reverse. On this occasion, it looks as if NGC slightly undergraded.

[Peckris 579]

I'm not sure I agree. I think a proof - being double struck on a specially prepared blank using specially polished dies - should be treated as the FDC (literally) that it is. They should be in numeric grades 91 - 100, UNLESS they've circulated, in which case they should be regarded the same way as early currency strikes and graded according to how much wear exists.

Minor impairments would place a proof somewhere between 91 and 99, whereas bigger impairments would place it lower among currency strikes.

On the other hand, an 'as struck' currency piece, early strike with no flaws, would be 90, taking into account that no special blanks, dies, or edge collars were used and that therefore the coin - almost by definition - has a degree of inferiority.

So I would say that a proof coin, with a minor impairment bordering on something bigger, could be rated 90, the same as a perfect currency strike ... accepting that the currency coin lacks the absolute precision (edge, detail, strike) of the proof.

[Colin G. 147]

And that is my point,a quick look at CGS shows that many of the George III proofs achieve a grade of 82-88 with hardly any going higher, therefore they must be on a much stricter points scale and getting deductions at a higher rate than a currency coin.

[Peckris 579]

And that is my point,a quick look at CGS shows that many of the George III proofs achieve a grade of 82-88 with hardly any going higher, therefore they must be on a much stricter points scale and getting deductions at a higher rate than a currency coin.

Yes, that doesn't make sense to me. CGS must be grading proofs according to the same criteria as currency pieces. As they are IMO superior artefacts, they should either have their own separate scale (like F1 drivers' times when they drive Top Gear's 'reasonably priced car' around the track), or - which I think a better solution - they should reserve the top 10% of the grading scale and only sink below it when they are sufficiently impaired that describing them as proofs is no longer tenable.