Is CGS -UK coin grading service equall to PCGS?

icsoccer

Just wondering where the quality of their slabs falls in.

wybrit

I don't have any of their certified coins yet, so I can't really comment. CGS is a relatively new player, so some time will be needed to establish a reputation.

JCMhouston

From the ones I have seen they are stupidly tight on grading. They use a 100 point scale just to be different, and I have seen one that crossed to PCGS64, it was in the equivelent of a GEF in their holder, something like a EF73.

Doogy

<< <i>From the ones I have seen they are stupidly tight on grading. They use a 100 point scale just to be different, and I have seen one that crossed to PCGS64, it was in the equivelent of a GEF in their holder, something like a EF73. >>



i have a PCGS Victorian MS66 Florin, that used to be CGS 77. They are way more conservative from what i've seen, although a small sample size of the half dozen CGS coins i've owned and this example.

StubbyMcNumbthumbs

I don't know about CGS, but from what I've seen, British grading standards seem to be more conservative than U.S. grading standards (i.e. US XF does not equal UK XF, etc.). I'm fairly new to collecting British coins, so I'm still learning.


Time will tell.

Lancastercoin

I saw a few Victoria and George IIII coppers in CGS 85 holders at the St. Louis show recently, and thought they were MS63-65 quality. One 1825 farthing I thought was a lock PCGS 65. Overall I think if they stay on course they can eventually be one of the major services.

MacCrimmon

<< <i>

<< <i>From the ones I have seen they are stupidly tight on grading. They use a 100 point scale just to be different, and I have seen one that crossed to PCGS64, it was in the equivelent of a GEF in their holder, something like a EF73. >>



i have a PCGS Victorian MS66 Florin, that used to be CGS 77. They are way more conservative from what i've seen, although a small sample size of the half dozen CGS coins i've owned and this example. >>




What date, Doogy?


Below is the only CGS coin which I have presently; it's graded CGS80. I'm leaving in the slab for the novelty, but it would have over a 90% chance of grading MS64BN at PCGS. Only drawback holding it from a 65 would be that it doesn't quite have monster lustre.

The Brit scale (definition) is tighter than US stds., but my experience says most UK dealers are as clueless or 'dishonest' as US dealers when it comes to accurately adhering to that scale on raw coins.

7Jaguars

I have specimen 1935 Crowns in NGC65 and CGS85 with the former being just a bit nicer and if I can ever figure out a photo system to show will do so - sorry about that.

Bjorn

British (and accurate Canadian and Australian) grading is much, much tighter than U.S., particularly current U.S., grading...

7Jaguars

I am never too comfortable with broad platitudes. IMO, generally that is true - that grading standards are a bit tougher in England - but that is not always true, and one example would be with regards to hairlines or rub where I have seen the opposite to be true.

But, the question posed was how CGS compared to grading companies in the US such as PCGS. I do not think that it has not yet been established that CGS is harder on grades.A different question entirely if it had been asked how the old Spink or Glendinning alphabetical grading compared to PCGS numerical. In that case, I would say that definately they were tougher.

As a side point, I have seen quite a few of the CGS coins and have not seen them to use odd numbering other than those grades ending in "5" such as the 73 or 77 numbers quoted above, and wonder if a check on the original grade might be made.

PS - the original question was as to the quality of the slab and NOT to grade. If that were answered correctly I would say good, and rather attractive. Also seems to me that CGS does not use as much plastic per slab.

SYRACUSIAN

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>From the ones I have seen they are stupidly tight on grading. They use a 100 point scale just to be different, and I have seen one that crossed to PCGS64, it was in the equivelent of a GEF in their holder, something like a EF73. >>



i have a PCGS Victorian MS66 Florin, that used to be CGS 77. They are way more conservative from what i've seen, although a small sample size of the half dozen CGS coins i've owned and this example. >>




What date, Doogy?


Below is the only CGS coin which I have presently; it's graded CGS80. I'm leaving in the slab for the novelty, but it would have over a 90% chance of grading MS64BN at PCGS. Only drawback holding it from a 65 would be that it doesn't quite have monster lustre.

The Brit scale (definition) is tighter than US stds., but my experience says most UK dealers are as clueless or 'dishonest' as US dealers when it comes to accurately adhering to that scale on raw coins.




>>





So, how is colour on copper coins counted by CGS? If this was a 70% red brown example, would it grade higher than 80?

MacCrimmon

<< <i>So, how is colour on copper coins counted by CGS? If this was a 70% red brown example, would it grade higher than 80? >>




In viewing examples on their website in the past, I'd estimate a 70% red example would be graded as CGS85.


Generally, it would appear that the specimen has to be full red with minimal bag marks to garner an "88"; i.e. BU - Full lustre.


I don't know that I've seen any grades above 90 at CGS, but one thing is for sure, the two scales are not linear.

billpuguk

Interesting comment (and I know I am late in responding). I had forty British coins graded by NGC, PCGS, NNC and others that I submitted to CGS for re-grading and was initially appalled by the lower grades that most of the coins received from CGS. In one case an NGC graded MS64 Red was actually rejected as the coin had been repaired and re-colored.
CGS invited me to their offices to see the grading service they undertake and the result was ‘I was convinced’. I actually wrote an article for the UK Coin News that was published in April 2010 giving my views on CGS service and why I now seek CGS graded coins.

The only comparable graded coins to those of CGS were from PCGS. With two exceptions all other gradings ended up lower than originally suggested. Included in two exceptions was a circulation coin wrongly originally graded as Proof (it was merely a polished die) that when regarded from PR67 ended up the equivalent of MS68.

CGS do not profess to be experts on anything other than British Coins and accordingly use an extensive benchmark of British Coins dating back to the 1600’s to compare all British Coins against that they do grade. As to the grading of 100 (as in percentile), why not? The view that anything above MS63 is Uncirculated leaves a maximum of seven points of interim grades before ‘perfection’ is achieved. With CGS 75 to 79 is AU and 80 and above is UNC – and because of the consistency of their service (and the never changing bench marks) I am content that my EF70 Florin that is registered as best graded to date by CGS is probably the best one available that has been graded.

7Jaguars

Well, Doogy was a bit shy on the date of his florin, Pug what date are you referring to. I may have knowledge of a couple of these dates. Do I hear "1854"?

Glad you are an enthusiast of CGS, but will note that at NYINC year before last I had to point out that their encapsulated 1875 farthing actually was an 1875 H - no small miscue. Also that the NGC65 Specimen 1935 Jubilee Crown is clearly superior to the CGS encapsulated 85 as I had mentioned above.

In general, I agree but caveat emptor would be fair IMO with regards to their grading.

RobP

In my experience, CGS are very similar to PCGS or NGC. Some you agree with, some you don't with some overgraded and some under. Inevitably a few are incorrectly described with opportunities for the observant or knowledgeable collector.

With relatively few in the market compared to the US TPGs the grading will inevitably appear tighter, but over time there should be a perceptible reduction in standards because overgraded coins tend not to be removed from the slab whereas undergraded or accurately graded coins may well be removed by collectors who prefer to keep their coins in cabinets. A small but detectable increase in the relative proportion of overgraded coins should therefore ensue.

On the plus side, their slabs require less destruction to extract the contents.

wybrit

I hope to have a couple of data points to add to the discussion before year's end.

Welcome to the site, billpuguk. Great first post. Think I've seen a lot of you on ebay.

JCMhouston

Having thought about this a bit more I just want to ask, how in the world can anyone consistantly see the difference between an UNC90 and UNC91? And there are examples on the Londoncoins site by the way.

It is hard enough for a very good grader (PCGS/NGC) to consistantly tell the difference between a US MS66 and MS67 for example and we only have a range of 11 points for uncirculated, now try doubling that to 21 points of spread. I guess you could say it's similar to the (in my opinion crazy) move to + grades for coins that are almost the next grade up.

RobP

<< <i>Having thought about this a bit more I just want to ask, how in the world can anyone consistantly see the difference between an UNC90 and UNC91? And there are examples on the Londoncoins site by the way.

It is hard enough for a very good grader (PCGS/NGC) to consistantly tell the difference between a US MS66 and MS67 for example and we only have a range of 11 points for uncirculated, now try doubling that to 21 points of spread. I guess you could say it's similar to the (in my opinion crazy) move to + grades for coins that are almost the next grade up. >>



With all TPG's both good and bad, it is as always just another's opinion where a different grader may well have reached a different opinion. If consistency was the order of the day, there would be no point in resubmitting as you could never get the grade changed.

Unless you are actively trying to obtain a third party's approval rating as a criteria and maximise the average score of your slabs, most collectors go by their own assessment of grade and eye appeal and consequently end up with a selection of coins that gives more pleasure than a number which gives no guarantees of attractiveness to a particular individual. In answer to your question, the difference between a 90 and a 91 or a 66 and a 67 is the last digit in both cases. I can see the difference on the label every time.

7Jaguars

OK, Rob that was a smartie remark!LOL. Yes, I have had significant differences with TPGs on grading as well (ie matte proofs of off years at ATS grading, and even of currency Edward VII at our own hosts - please don't ban me for such comments).

bidask

<< <i>I have specimen 1935 Crowns in NGC65 and CGS85 with the former being just a bit nicer and if I can ever figure out a photo system to show will do so - sorry about that. >>

Nice coins!

JCMhouston

<< <i>most collectors go by their own assessment of grade and eye appeal >>



I actually was not discussing most collectors, but the absurdity of trying to break Uncirculated down into 21 different grades of Uncirculated. If you want to argue the absudity of collectors then go look at the prices being paid for slabbed, common moderns in MS/PF70 holders. Then we could discuss the price of AU58 coins going through the roof when the Everyman Registry Sets started .

7Jaguars

Thanks Bidask, they are very nice in appearance and relatively cheap, the NGC ex-Cheshire. I also have four of the raised edge proofs with two incuse edged proofs and a garbled edge proof, so have a few of these...

wybrit

I actually was not discussing most collectors, but the absurdity of trying to break Uncirculated down into 21 different grades of Uncirculated.

We're already practically there in the US. As everyone here knows, there are now "+" grades starting at MS62, so there are 11 regular grades + 8 "+" grades = 19 grades of uncirculated. That is absurd, and I would challenge, is a measurement that not only lacks lacks any traceable standard, but also is highly unrepeatable.

Hussulo

For anyone that hasn't seen a CGS-UK slab heres my only one:




They are quite flat on the front but on the back they have four raised corners (legs) and the coin is raised but the rest of the slab is thin.

coinkat

interesting thread-

Grading is subjective

thought I would be brief for once

canadanz

<< <i>For anyone that hasn't seen a CGS-UK slab heres my only one:



They are quite flat on the front but on the back they have four raised corners (legs) and the coin is raised but the rest of the slab is thin. >>



That is a wild looking slab!

wybrit

First data point:

1923 Sixpence: CGS 85 ==> PCGS MS65, as expected

AZLARRY

I've crossed two CGS graded coins.

1. 1920 3 P CGS85 to PCGS 65
2. 1944 3 P CGS82 to PCGS 64

The above two coins were graded correctly by both companies in my opinion.

I have also looked at three or four other CGS graded coins in the 82 TO 85 level and felt they would have crossed to PCGS at 64 and 65.

Hussulo

Did you crack them out before submiting?

wybrit

Did you crack them out before submitting?

Yes, I did

AZLARRY

I cracked them out also.

Zoins

Nice coin Hussulo!

I've noticed that you can use "CGS" in the title of eBay auctions, so it appears eBay thinks they are equal.

Pokermandude

<< <i>Nice coin Hussulo!

I've noticed that you can use "CGS" in the title of eBay auctions, so it appears eBay thinks they are equal. >>



Either that, or they just think it's a typo of "PCGS"

I haven't seen too many CGS graded coins, but the ones I have look accurately/tightly graded.