@amwldcoin said:
Maybe it was white when rated. Looks like a dipped coin that wasn't rinsed properly and is turning. If so it will continue to darken until addressed.
@amwldcoin said:
Maybe it was white when rated. Looks like a dipped coin that wasn't rinsed properly and is turning. If so it will continue to darken until addressed.
That is the problem with a lot of dipped coins after they sit for awhile.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
I wonder if conservation would get that garbage off. Appears many years toning accumulation. Horribly tarnished piece.
I know that coins can go bad in the Holder which means the sticker would become defunct or a joke as nobody would want the coin but this soon if that’s the case.....Flip your coins in a timely manner bc if they go bad in the Holder....”Coins a long term hold” lol. Ever read the coin preservation handbook?
Would be difficult sell that piece. Well just start it on the bay at 99c.
I often wonder why lots of coins get the Bean...(scratching head). For example, on my own subs to the Bean Factory, I've had some coins "win", and others "lose" and cannot honestly see why either way when I had been thinking the exact opposite. It's really just a game for me anyway.
I suspect the coin looks better in hand than it does in that terrible photo. It probably has nice luster for the grade like that AU58 someone posted that looked much better in the better photo.
I, too, thought it might have turned in the holder but the TrueView below suggests not. However, the TrueView does make the coin look much better. I'm guessing the truth may lie between the op's picture and the TrueView, likely closer to the TrueView, which makes it a bit easier to grasp why it received the CAC sticker.
@Mark said:
I, too, thought it might have turned in the holder but the TrueView below suggests not. However, the TrueView does make the coin look much better. I'm guessing the truth may lie between the op's picture and the TrueView, likely closer to the TrueView, which makes it a bit easier to grasp why it received the CAC sticker.
As I suspected, it appears to have much better (almost MS) luster than a typical 55. So it likely got "net" graded from 58 to 55 for the mottled toning. JA then concluded it was at least a "B" for a 55. Not unreasonable to me.
I don't like the coin; however, I believe it is natural toning and solid for the grade. Based on CAC's stated criteria that is sufficient enough to garner a bean.
As I suspected, it appears to have much better (almost MS) luster than a typical 55. So it likely got "net" graded from 58 to 55 for the mottled toning. JA then concluded it was at least a "B" for a 55. Not unreasonable to me.
Though I'm not a fan of this coin either, using this logic, I guess I can agree also.
There's no rule that says that even two experienced numismatists have to like the same coin!
What this DID do was make a coin that might be ignored by many a saleable coin, since it has the "magic bean".
"Originality" is something we pay lip service to, sometimes. CAC saw this as original, and I think they like original....even ugly original. Some others saw it as the result of an unwashed dip....so we can't even agree on "Original" sometimes.
Buy what you like, and don't sweat someone else's choices.
The tarnish damage to the coin is unmistakable. I don’t think this can be explained away as a trick of light.
Now that one clearly can view the TV it makes more sense and justifies the bean. While we might not love the tone, some will, and it def bean worthy as graded 55.
The tarnish damage to the coin is unmistakable. I don’t think this can be explained away as a trick of light.
Now that one clearly can view the TV it makes more sense and justifies the bean. While we might not love the tone, some will, and it def bean worthy as graded 55.
Was this a newp for you KollctorKoin?
Nope I was surfing the HA site & saw this (questionable beaned) coin.
The more compelling question is why the so-called bean enters into the thought process for this coin. Either you like the coin or you don't and a bean at this grade level should not be persuasive unless one collects beans instead of coins. It is AU and it likely looks better in hand with attributes that some collectors may not appreciate.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
The tarnish damage to the coin is unmistakable. I don’t think this can be explained away as a trick of light.
Now that one clearly can view the TV it makes more sense and justifies the bean. While we might not love the tone, some will, and it def bean worthy as graded 55.
Was this a newp for you KollctorKoin?
Nope I was surfing the HA site & saw this (questionable beaned) coin.
Perhaps you’d be happier with a scrubbed up bright and shiny example...
The tarnish damage to the coin is unmistakable. I don’t think this can be explained away as a trick of light.
Now that one clearly can view the TV it makes more sense and justifies the bean. While we might not love the tone, some will, and it def bean worthy as graded 55.
Was this a newp for you KollctorKoin?
Nope I was surfing the HA site & saw this (questionable beaned) coin.
Perhaps you’d be happier with a scrubbed up bright and shiny example...
Comments
Because Mr. John Albanese, finalizer for CAC, liked it and it is an A or B example?
End Systemic Elitism - It Takes All Of Us
They like crust at CAC.
“I may not believe in myself but I believe in what I’m doing” ~Jimmy Page~
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947)
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Maybe it was white when rated. Looks like a dipped coin that wasn't rinsed properly and is turning. If so it will continue to darken until addressed.
Poor lighting as criticizing another scanned coin reminds me of the Seinfeld "Two Face" Girlfriend episode.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFeUrC2gR30
Seems to me that in your last 1916 thread you showed quite nicely how pictures can lie
geez, the thing is only AU.....
crusty the clown must have gotten a stint there
Great example! I am a huge Seinfeld fan, and I cannot tell you how often I tell my wife or kids, "This is just like that Seinfeld episode..."
Does CAC image the approved coins for reference?
That is the problem with a lot of dipped coins after they sit for awhile.
Pete
I don't think it turned in the holder.
CAC likes original toning......even if it's not pretty.
“I may not believe in myself but I believe in what I’m doing” ~Jimmy Page~
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947)
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Not sure if this is pot stirring or what but from what you show (crappy pics lol) it does look solid for 55 imho.
Ugly coin - I give it a C.
I wonder if conservation would get that garbage off. Appears many years toning accumulation. Horribly tarnished piece.
I know that coins can go bad in the Holder which means the sticker would become defunct or a joke as nobody would want the coin but this soon if that’s the case.....Flip your coins in a timely manner bc if they go bad in the Holder....”Coins a long term hold” lol. Ever read the coin preservation handbook?
Would be difficult sell that piece. Well just start it on the bay at 99c.
Not a fan.
I often wonder why lots of coins get the Bean...(scratching head). For example, on my own subs to the Bean Factory, I've had some coins "win", and others "lose" and cannot honestly see why either way when I had been thinking the exact opposite. It's really just a game for me anyway.
I suspect the coin looks better in hand than it does in that terrible photo. It probably has nice luster for the grade like that AU58 someone posted that looked much better in the better photo.
I, too, thought it might have turned in the holder but the TrueView below suggests not. However, the TrueView does make the coin look much better. I'm guessing the truth may lie between the op's picture and the TrueView, likely closer to the TrueView, which makes it a bit easier to grasp why it received the CAC sticker.
Its unbelievable it got a bean.
The tarnish damage to the coin is unmistakable. I don’t think this can be explained away as a trick of light.
Clock can be right rwice a day or wrong more often.
I am a big fan of JA but even I do not always agree with him. but not often at all.
Before disagreeing with him, I woul like to see the coin in person.
As I suspected, it appears to have much better (almost MS) luster than a typical 55. So it likely got "net" graded from 58 to 55 for the mottled toning. JA then concluded it was at least a "B" for a 55. Not unreasonable to me.
Juan Valdez, the king of beans, approves.
The decline from democracy to tyranny is both a natural and inevitable one.
I don't like the coin; however, I believe it is natural toning and solid for the grade. Based on CAC's stated criteria that is sufficient enough to garner a bean.
As I suspected, it appears to have much better (almost MS) luster than a typical 55. So it likely got "net" graded from 58 to 55 for the mottled toning. JA then concluded it was at least a "B" for a 55. Not unreasonable to me.
Though I'm not a fan of this coin either, using this logic, I guess I can agree also.
The coin looks solid for a 55, ergo the CAC sticker. The tarnish is ugly, yes, as is most tarnish IMO....Cheers, RickO
Buy the coin not the bean. I like original toning but the toning as shown in the photos is unappealing to my eye. JMO.
There's no rule that says that even two experienced numismatists have to like the same coin!
What this DID do was make a coin that might be ignored by many a saleable coin, since it has the "magic bean".
"Originality" is something we pay lip service to, sometimes. CAC saw this as original, and I think they like original....even ugly original. Some others saw it as the result of an unwashed dip....so we can't even agree on "Original" sometimes.
Buy what you like, and don't sweat someone else's choices.
Someone send it to me, I'll keep it for a few years and let you know what I think.
Maybe the OP's picture was taken with "bad lighting on the porch" (ala Jerry Sienfeld)... the TruView looks much better...
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
Correction, they’re HA pics.
Here are mine of a different coin:
Seller’s pics of the same coin:
Now that one clearly can view the TV it makes more sense and justifies the bean. While we might not love the tone, some will, and it def bean worthy as graded 55.
Was this a newp for you KollctorKoin?
Nope I was surfing the HA site & saw this (questionable beaned) coin.
The more compelling question is why the so-called bean enters into the thought process for this coin. Either you like the coin or you don't and a bean at this grade level should not be persuasive unless one collects beans instead of coins. It is AU and it likely looks better in hand with attributes that some collectors may not appreciate.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I like it.
Ike Specialist
Finest Toned Ike I've Ever Seen, been looking since 1986
Perhaps you’d be happier with a scrubbed up bright and shiny example...
Like these