Dont read this if you have not slabbed a cgs coin

[PWA 1967 2,135]

Yes you are right azda and that is the reason they gave me,when i phoned them regarding something else.

[azda 979]

Well in my mind thats just BS. You've paid your money and NOT getting the service.

[PWA 1967 2,135]

Yes got to agree ,especially after sending so many anyway suppose you learn and not a big deal.Talking of c.g.s./london coins one of the coins i purchased at the last auction i phoned on receipt to say it was miss attributed.They said you should view the coins in hand and as i replied its not always possible however it was the wrong DATE.

[Coinery 1,153]

...however it was the wrong DATE.

What? Are you saying they wouldn't even eat humble pie over a date error? Unbelievable! I've guess I've just been lucky?

[Nick 329]

...however it was the wrong DATE.

What? Are you saying they wouldn't even eat humble pie over a date error? Unbelievable! I've guess I've just been lucky?

I'm sure that all TPG's small print absolves them of any responsibility for what they might call a labelling issue.

[azda 979]

Just goes to show, you pay your Money and then they don't give a shit

[mhcoins 95]

Not wishing to offend any user of or the owners of CGS but i simply cant understand why people are using them for grading .... I know this has been said again and again but there isnt a HUGE market yet for slabbed coins in the Uk and those few that do want graded coins (that i know of anyway) insist on PCGS or NGC only. Yes CGS may be cheaper and possibly more accurate but if your looking to maximise the coins potential value pay the litte extra and send them abroad.

[PWA 1967 2,135]

Think your comment of more accurate and only talking of pennies the varieties is surely what counts.I dont intend selling mine they will be left .But i no i am not leaving a box of rubbish in a safe building up dust.I have numerous pennies sold to me by reputable dealers who missed varieties etc.

[PWA 1967 2,135]

You have a nice range of pennies mh.Can i ask if i bought them and they were downgraded would you accept them back . allowing that it might take a month.The sellers i deal with have all been honest and in some instances due to c.g,s took a refund.My feeling are c.g.s give an honest independent opinion.That for a novice like me who spends money is happy about.As i said to cgs last week your not there to look after the grade just be independent and tell me the truth,although that is what i pay them for.Independent sellers miss varieties and overgrade that is a fact more often than not a lot of coins sent to cgs are rejected.If i had not dealt with reputable dealers and not sent coins to cgs i could of been buying rubbish.You have some lovely looking coins ,some i have seen in previous auctions.The point is i will pay for a £1000 coin to be told its ok,and although mistakes are still made i have a second opinion thats better than most

[PWA 1967 2,135]

Sorry got you mixed up with someone else mh coins.The story is the same i personally get cgs view/grading on most and that has turned up some different varieties ,rejects,finest known with them.I am happy to pay the service they provide,and if they are rejected then i like to no why.A lot of the other dealers do not pick up on the varieties the same and just concentrate on grade.Only last week i bought a ms65 ,graded unc 78 with cgs. and was cheap and a nice coin,it also had interest from a couple of forum members as was the finest known even at 78.English pennies sent to cgs suit me and what i want , i have no intention of selling any.The main thing is the quality and sending pennies to cgs giving me peace of mind .APOLOGIES for any bad spelling ,or if i did not explain properly.

[Guest]

Thought it would be better to keep to one thread.

I am going to start posting any coins rejected from CGS

Although not many and i understand not many people send them,would be interested in pictures from any forum members.

An 1889 graded as UNC but rejected for corrosion 

Its UIN 32576 and would like to see other coins with faults not obvious as i could not see anything wrong with this one that stood out.

[PWA 1967 2,135]

Should of logged in first

[Nordle11 564]

Here you go Pete

Edited January 8, 2016 by Nordle11

[PWA 1967 2,135]

Thanks Matt.

Its not a scarce date but was in a pretty good condition IMO.

The bigger pictures always tell you the truth.

Was still not sure about the rejection,but thats what i paid for and dont have a problem.

I am know expert and some i dont send as the faults are obvious and not worth paying the money for.

Any rejections i would be interested in that are not obvious.

 

Pete.

[Nonmortuus 900]

I think Paulus has had one or two that were rejected for various reasons. It would be interesting to see them and the reason for the rejection.

[Nordle11 564]

5 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

Should of logged in first

Is it because of the area around the lighthouse? Otherwise I can't see what they can, maybe it's obvious under magnification?

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

4 hours ago, Nordle11 said:

Here you go Pete

Possibly the rims got it rejected....

They look a bit rough in the images....

That being said, I wouldn't have a major problem having the coin in my collection...

[Guest]

I dont have any doubt the corrosion is there and thats what i paid for.

In this case though especially with the coin at normal size ,hard to spot.

[Paulus 1,975]

21 hours ago, Nonmortuus said:

I think Paulus has had one or two that were rejected for various reasons. It would be interesting to see them and the reason for the rejection.

I have submitted around 70 coins to CGS over the last few years, a handful of which have been rejected for various reasons. None of my last 20 coins have been rejected, so I guess I have learnt!

Here are some rejected coins, together with with reason for rejection

1763 'Northumberland' shilling - "Unauthenticated" (forgery)

1718 shilling - "Field Damage" (thought this was a bit harsh)

[Paulus 1,975]

1826 sixpence - "Cleaned"

1821 shilling - "Scratches"

[Paulus 1,975]

1819 crown - "Re-toned"

[PWA 1967 2,135]

Thank you Paul for sharing the images.

I have also become more aware after early mistakes on what to look more closely for.

The large photos can often bring up things you may miss just looking at the coin in hand.

[Nonmortuus 900]

Thanks for sharing Paulus. If I ever submit to CGS you are the first person I will speak to about it!

[Rob 3,152]

I always find the rejection of less than mint state coins for surface marks a little odd. Why is wear acceptable but not contact marks, as this is surely just another result arising from circulation? This is frequently contradicted by TPGs grading coins with bagmarks. Just as these are part of the normal minting process, so are contact marks from circulation part of normal useage.

[Paulus 1,975]

I agree Rob. Rejection reasons I find logical are:

• Unauthenticated (i.e. a forgery)
• Cleaned or dipped
• Tooled
• Artificially Toned (although the definition and identification of this may be controversial)
• Environmental damage
• Graffiti
•  

 

Edited January 9, 2016 by Paulus