Choice ?

[Nick 329]

I've had a few 1918's over the years. The best I've had is this one:

[Coinery 1,157]

I make no distinction between wear and weakness. The fact remains that a substantial portion of the design is missing. It wouldn't be more than EF money to my mind, regardless of the given grade.

I totally agree with your last sentence. However, I can't follow the idea that a weakly struck coin, fresh out of the mint, couldn't attract the truth of its status as UNC?

[Coinery 1,157]

I've had a few 1918's over the years. The best I've had is this one:

Oh, that's just horrible!

[Nick 329]

I've had a few 1918's over the years. The best I've had is this one:

Oh, that's just horrible!

It is indeed. I suspect that CGS might give it a 78.

[TomGoodheart 403]

Tom, sorry I missed your post which was evidently in the "net" prior to my response.I agree, your 1916 has a nice reverse; the obverse, even if softly struck has large issues with the aforementioned brow, beard and hair detail that severely limit its value. I tend to think (IMO) that the TPGs may respect or give more weight to the obverse, but this is obviously just a guess.

I should have been clearer. I wasn't suggesting my coin was an equal to the London/CGS one. Just that if I were in the market for one I'd want a stronger reverse. That makes the 1918 unappealing to me, irrespective of the amount of wear CGS have decided it has been subject to ...

.

[sound 25]

Tom, sorry I missed your post which was evidently in the "net" prior to my response.I agree, your 1916 has a nice reverse; the obverse, even if softly struck has large issues with the aforementioned brow, beard and hair detail that severely limit its value. I tend to think (IMO) that the TPGs may respect or give more weight to the obverse, but this is obviously just a guess.

I should have been clearer. I wasn't suggesting my coin was an equal to the London/CGS one. Just that if I were in the market for one I'd want a stronger reverse. That makes the 1918 unappealing to me, irrespective of the amount of wear CGS have decided it has been subject to ....

Well Tom I think your coin is interesting it's EF/UNC IMO. It demonstrates that this period throws up some anomalies. One being a whole grade differences between one side and another.

Mark

[Paulus 1,975]

This one is top of the CGS charts, finest known out of 32 graded, it was graded 85.

Not as nice as Nicks IMO, at least judging by the pics alone.

... and the CGS valuation? An astonishing £350, compared to a Spink 2015 value of £120 in UNC ....

[sound 25]

And I'm charging a modest £80.00 for this. I think I should apply for Job with CGS LOL.

Mark

Edited February 19, 2015 by sound

[azda 979]

Did a quick search myself and came up with a couple

[Coinery 1,157]

And I'm charging a modest £80.00 for this. I think I should apply for Job with CGS LOL.

Mark image.jpg

Nice coin, and good price!

[Peter 615]

I was at the Midland a few years ago and heard dealers saying that another dealer was trying to sell an UNC 1918 2/6 for £25 and he must be mad.

I paid £2.50 each for my GV pre 1920 2/6's ranging from EF to Unc from a jeweler's.

Right place at the right time.

Marks coin is a beauty.

[Sword 1,488]

I really like Nick's and Mark's examples.

This is from the FAQ section of the CGS Forum:

"When grading a whole range of attributes are considered. Although a coin may have the appearance of being brilliant uncirculated without any apparent blemishes, if the striking is not exact and deep it could end up with a grade of VF45 something that can frequently occur with early Victorian Bronze pennies yet many dealers and collectors would assume the coin to be uncirculated. That is the point of the CGS service, if a coin is determined to be UNC80 then it will be worth at least the common catalogue value for UNC. When it is higher grade it is likely to be higher value that any catalogue would suggest."

Looks like CGS has not always been consistent when it comes to strike.

[ozjohn 661]

As I observed earlier being a grading company and a coin dealer at the same time is incompatible as discussed in these forums earlier regarding the US outfit National Numismatic Certification. If CGS want to maintain their integrity as a third party coin grader they should make a choice and get rid of their London Coins outlet.

[PWA 1967 2,142]

That will never happen ozjohn ,its that side that have kept c.g.s going i would assume.

[jacinbox 36]

That will never happen ozjohn ,its that side that have kept c.g.s going i would assume.

On the money. Mate of mine wanted to send a CGS 82 graded coin to NGC hoping to get a MS 65. Turns out there was an edgeknock that was well concealed by the inner capsule. Now he's considering sending it back to CGS for an explanation.

[Peter 615]

That will never happen ozjohn ,its that side that have kept c.g.s going i would assume.

On the money. Mate of mine wanted to send a CGS 82 graded coin to NGC hoping to get a MS 65. Turns out there was an edgeknock that was well concealed by the inner capsule. Now he's considering sending it back to CGS for an explanation.

Another one. This has been noted before.

It MUST go back.

[PWA 1967 2,142]

I assume these were not sent for grading and were already slabbed.

Although c.g.s. SUPPOSEDLY knock the coin down on the grading for edge knocks.Surely if noticeable would show on the pictures taken before slabbing.

[ozjohn 661]

Can you be sure that CGS weren't the source of the edge knock?

[azda 979]

Don't CGS photograpph all the coins? If it was at a lower level then perhaps not, but like ANY TPG they could just say it was'nt like that when they graded and set it in the holder

[Sword 1,488]

Don't CGS photograpph all the coins? If it was at a lower level then perhaps not, but like ANY TPG they could just say it was'nt like that when they graded and set it in the holder

A few years back, cgs offered the option of no photo (for 2 or 3 pounds less) if the value of the coin was less than £200. However, they have removed that option and photograph every coin now.

I agree with Dave. There is no point in sending it back to cgs as it is impossible to prove who is at fault. If the photo shows the edge knock, then cgs will say it was like that when you submitted it and it has already been taken into account when the grade of 82 was given. If photo shows no edge knock, then it is just as likely that NGC has caused the damage when taking the coin out of the holder. NGC would of course say it was done by cgs.