Best Of

Since the US Mint is getting off on striking older designs in gold, I am a bit surprised they have not struck Sac dollars in gold of a "current" date....
I always wanted a true pattern-type Cheerios dollar coin but felt the prices just too high to justify.

@FlyingAl said:
@PeakRarities

Even amongst CAC coins, you have an incredibly wide variance on what is a "DMPL". For example:


.
.
I'd agree that CAC can be a good check point, but I certainly don't believe it's fair to say that CAC is saving someone's ass here. The standards for DMPLs are so wonky and subjective that I think the point changes from month to month. Even looking at GC listings for OGH DMPLs, a significant amount have deeper mirrors than the 04-O above. Of course, I'm assuming that TPGs and CAC don't change the standards for different years (you and I have discussed this, and we know that is a bit of a naive assumption). Additionally, we're comparing one coin to many, and generally CAC DMPLs are slightly better overall.

Bottom line is that the collector has to actually look at the coin if they want a good coin. If they want a CAC DMPL, then buy a CAC DMPL. If they want a true DMPL, they're gonna have to actually figure out which coin to buy, regardless of the plastic.

Just because the top coin doesn't have the dark fields in the photo doesn't mean the coin does not meet strict DMPL standards. Some DMPLs photograph really well, some do not. I'm not sure how to explain why but I would have not doubt the top coin exhibits mirrors better than any of my CAC-mirror-rejected coins.

Edited to add:
Note that the standard is usually something like 'text legible in reflection at x inches,' but note that this is one standard for which you have a coin that barely meets the standard (ie. exactly x inches) and another coin that blows it away (ie 3x inches) and both get the same designation.

@PerryHall said:

@allnewsanchor said:

@Downtown1974 said:
2024 was a slow year. Think I only picked up 5 or 6 coins.
This one is definitely my favorite for the year. The eye appeal is just off the charts on this one. I like it better than my 64.

How is that 1911 just a 62? So much better than that, IMO. Have you thought about resubmitting or crossing over?

There's a rim issue on the reverse at 10:00 that might have knocked it down a couple of points. Also, there may be some hairlines that aren't showing up in the pics. It's still a great looking coin.

I'm impressed!

Don't forget, it wasn't until five years after issuance that the pattern was identified. Presumably most of those found In cereal boxes were spent.

You can remove PVC, but if the PVC has etched into the surface it will give a mottled look to the coin when viewed at an angle because the PVC has not etched the surface evenly, so you may have pristine surfaces that were not impacted (or as much) next to spots of bad residue which ate away at the original surfaces. Viewed straight on in good light this may be less obvious but the coin will usually not exhibit full luster. I might have an example of this on a walker but it would take some digging.

Older coins likely went from PVC flips into PCGS holders before it was known that PVC would damage coins. This usually shows as a milky residue.
Take this coin for instance. You can tell this is an original looking UNC but you can see a milky haze AND upon closer inspection.. green blobs. The PVC can be removed but you never know what is going to be under those spots. Usually its nothing, but it can either be lightly etched to slightly pebbled look. I have successfully removed the green blobs and the coins straight graded and even later received CAC approval, so PVC isn't always a death sentence.

The only coin I've ever seen where the PVC had visibly eaten into the surface was on a 40% Kennedy half.

(right click and "open in new tab" for a closer look)

@GuzziSport said:

Also, curious why it is that old holdered coins are more likely to have PVC damage?

I think if a coin was contaminated, that you or the grader couldn't see or detect at the time of holdering, it would grow or propagate on the coin over time. Just like an invisible/undetected fingerprint on a coin that was slabbed years ago, will miraculously appear today.

@GoldFinger1969 said:
Do I take it that some of the FH's are DCAM's that look jet-black but others look regular gold ? Or is that the lighting in the picture ?

Yes and yes.

All the FHs are DCAM. The color of the fields in each pic depends on what they are reflecting.