@amwldcoin said:
I own or have sold around 5000 Certified Barber Halves. I have no idea how many thousands of Raw Barber Halves I have handled as I don't keep a spreadsheet on them.
According to the census report at CAC, they have beaned 3946 barber half dollars as of today, if that represents 40% of the barber half dollars submitted (likely based on what they say the bean rate is), it means just since CAC started, JA has seen and evaluated around 10K barber half dollars. That represents about 12 years of his career, he started TPGS in l986 on. So 1986-2009 is 24 years, so let's say JA has seen equivalent amounts of barber halves to evaluate over that time period. So since he started TPG's we can conclude that JA has evaluated around 30,000 barber halves. So I am thinking he knows what he likes to bean....... And as I said, it could go either way as to who has evaluated more barber halves, you, or JA.
Best, SH
The flaw in your argument is that the VAST majority of Barber halves sent to CAC are mint state (or at least AU). One only has to scan the CAC pop reports to confirm that.
I think JA can probably detect and assess problems on circulated examples just as well on uncirculated ones.😉
Presumably so, although once again you seem to be ignoring that I was addressing a specific question: who had likely seen more circulated Barber halves between JA and the OP.
Counting JA’s time as a young collector, junior dealer, a grader for Pcgs and a grader for NGC? Dunno.
He's literally looked at millions of coins. I'm sure some of them were circulated Barbers
Could we trouble you for your thoughts on the price of tea in China while you're here...?
It's quite inexpensive by comparison to New York prices. I do prefer the green tea to the black tea.
You're the one questioning his relative Barber experience. You don't need to question his experience relative to @amwldcoin to not like that one coin.
How do you feel about the price of Barber Halves in China?
You should have left "well enough" alone. Your initial response (first stanza) was pleasantly droll.
I'm not questioning either the OP's or JA's "Barber experience". There was some speculation about who had seen more circ Barber halves between the two, at which point you decided to chime in with a gratuitous comment which added nothing. Did somebody ring the dinner bell?
I simply observed that when you've graded 10 million coins, you are experienced with Barbers. You're the one who raised the relative number of coins as though it were relevant. You feel it added nothing, but only because it was a very subtle rebuttal.
I simply observed that if you've graded 10 million coins, of which perhaps a few hundred were well-circulated Barbers, your opinion may not be more valid than a dealer who specializes in such coins and has handled several thousand of them.
In other words, rebut THIS!
The number of coins isn't a relevant as the quality of the eye. But, again, their is no reason to even include this assumed factoid.
To me the most important factor is that the most trusted eye in the coin universe saw it in hand, everyone else has only seen a picture.
PCGS and CAC agree. Burden of proof is on those who want to REBUT THIS!
@amwldcoin said:
I own or have sold around 5000 Certified Barber Halves. I have no idea how many thousands of Raw Barber Halves I have handled as I don't keep a spreadsheet on them.
Sometimes the pros get it wrong. No one is being “attacked”. Some are questioning the opinion of those pros you default to. We frequent hear the phrase solid for the grade or high end for the grade. In this case some feel the coin is marginal for the grade and more in line with a 10. No attack, no assault, just an expression of a difference of opinion.
Problem is, you, nor I, nor many on this thread, are pros. And, you, I, and all on this thread have only seen images, not the coin in hand. It may look different in hand such that the grade, and the sticker are justified. The only professional advice I can provide is that numismatic items can look very different in hand compared to poor quality images such as those posted here for the coin in question. And also, we already know you are a CAC basher. You have made that clear in previous threads.........
The OP buys and sells coins for a living, with a strong specialization in Barber material. I'd wager that he's seen far more circulated Barber coins than has JA.
@jmlanzaf said:
To me the most important factor is that the most trusted eye in the coin universe saw it in hand, everyone else has only seen a picture.
PCGS and CAC agree. Burden of proof is on those who want to REBUT THIS!
Didn't know CU has message boards in braille now.
This thread is amusing to me because of the unnecessary taking of sides, and the propensity of people to argue anything. Here's my contribution...The coin is not a high-quality coin for the grade and doesn't deserve a CAC sticker. I don't need to see it in hand because the cleaning is obvious. I've looked at 1% of the Barbers JA has but I don't need huge experience to see that the coin has been cleaned. Not surprised a top dealer in Barber halves (The OP) these days agrees.
JA may be the God of grading but he's not infallible and this coin is evidence of that fact. All of JA's horses and all of JA's men here cannot change the fact that this coin has been cleaned. It's also not strong for an F12, IMO. So why defend what most likely appears to be an oversight when compared to the excellent quality of the huge majority of other coins he stickers?
Brace yourselves...Grading is not a science and TPG's can be inconsistent in their grading. Occasionally, so can JA. Here's the same coin, first as EF45 CAC-green and later as EF40 CAC-green after the PCGS holder was damaged in the mail (without sustaining any damage to the coin). Even the top TPG service and the "most trusted eye in the coin universe" vacillated on their grading and stickering here.
@jmlanzaf said:
To me the most important factor is that the most trusted eye in the coin universe saw it in hand, everyone else has only seen a picture.
PCGS and CAC agree. Burden of proof is on those who want to REBUT THIS!
Didn't know CU has message boards in braille now.
This thread is amusing to me because of the unnecessary taking of sides, and the propensity of people to argue anything. Here's my contribution...The coin is not a high-quality coin for the grade and doesn't deserve a CAC sticker. I don't need to see it in hand because the cleaning is obvious. I've looked at 1% of the Barbers JA has but I don't need huge experience to see that the coin has been cleaned. Not surprised a top dealer in Barber halves (The OP) these days agrees.
JA may be the God of grading but he's not infallible and this coin is evidence of that fact. All of JA's horses and all of JA's men here cannot change the fact that this coin has been cleaned. It's also not strong for an F12, IMO. So why defend what most likely appears to be an oversight when compared to the excellent quality of the huge majority of other coins he stickers?
Brace yourselves...Grading is not a science and TPG's can be inconsistent in their grading. Occasionally, so can JA. Here's the same coin, first as EF45 CAC-green and later as EF40 CAC-green after the PCGS holder was damaged in the mail (without sustaining any damage to the coin). Even the top TPG service and the "most trusted eye in the coin universe" vacillated on their grading and stickering here.
Yet JA and PCGS both agree. That is strong evidence that the coin meets the market standard. Based only on a picture, you are arguing against the consensus opinion of 6 professional graders... including the most trusted eye in the business.
@jmlanzaf said:
To me the most important factor is that the most trusted eye in the coin universe saw it in hand, everyone else has only seen a picture.
PCGS and CAC agree. Burden of proof is on those who want to REBUT THIS!
Didn't know CU has message boards in braille now.
This thread is amusing to me because of the unnecessary taking of sides, and the propensity of people to argue anything. Here's my contribution...The coin is not a high-quality coin for the grade and doesn't deserve a CAC sticker. I don't need to see it in hand because the cleaning is obvious. I've looked at 1% of the Barbers JA has but I don't need huge experience to see that the coin has been cleaned. Not surprised a top dealer in Barber halves (The OP) these days agrees.
JA may be the God of grading but he's not infallible and this coin is evidence of that fact. All of JA's horses and all of JA's men here cannot change the fact that this coin has been cleaned. It's also not strong for an F12, IMO. So why defend what most likely appears to be an oversight when compared to the excellent quality of the huge majority of other coins he stickers?
Brace yourselves...Grading is not a science and TPG's can be inconsistent in their grading. Occasionally, so can JA. Here's the same coin, first as EF45 CAC-green and later as EF40 CAC-green after the PCGS holder was damaged in the mail (without sustaining any damage to the coin). Even the top TPG service and the "most trusted eye in the coin universe" vacillated on their grading and stickering here.
Yet JA and PCGS both agree. That is strong evidence that the coin meets the market standard. Based only on a picture, you are arguing against the consensus opinion of 6 professional graders... including the most trusted eye in the business.
So the TPG graders are infallible huh? So remind me again why we need CAC in the first place and why do collectors use it as a grading service.
And CAC is not infallible. We have a former CAC business partner who has acknowledged (in multiple threads) even CAC’s standards change and that CAC has even acquiesced in grade inflation/sticker inflation. There are countless examples of coins that fail to sticker once that sticker on subsequent attempts or vice versa. Which time was correct? Green bean at multiple grades? Yes please. What about the blatantly AT Peace Dollar that ended up in a PCGS CAC holder and sold for strong money. I know the person that “made” the coin. It failed PCGS and NGC 7 times before it straight graded. And to add insult to injury it initially failed to sticker before stickering. So do we believe the initial 24 grading events (7x 3 + 1 CAC x3) or the last 6 grading events (3 + 1 CAC x 3). Then there is the altered FE 1856 cent that was altered despite being stickered. Rick Snow started an interesting thread about it. IIRC it was ultimately pulled from a major auction.
Bottom line: CAC does a decent job but is not infallible. Why should it be given any benefit of the doubt when it is obvious the coin is a problem coin? Yes photography isn’t perfect, but I have never seen a photographer take a problem free wholesome coin and make it look like the coin in the OP. If I am wrong, then someone please provide me with the physics/optics explanation of how to do it with tips on how to produce it using photography so we can all learn.
@jmlanzaf said:
Yet JA and PCGS both agree. That is strong evidence that the coin meets the market standard. Based only on a picture, you are arguing against the consensus opinion of 6 professional graders... including the most trusted eye in the business.
Huh? Regarding the 1849, JA and PCGS couldn't even agree with themselves, particularly PCGS, which had allowed the standards for EF40 and EF45 to relax a point or two. In this case, the 1849 is an "EF44" coin (IMO, but based upon prior PCGS standards) that was graded as EF45, and then later after tightening the grading standard as EF40.
I respect JA's grading ability and opinion greatly but YES, I AM arguing with the consensus of the 6 pro graders who now allow cleaned coins to be holdered, and then reward a CAC bean to a cleaned coin that barely meets the grade. You're defending 'windsock' grading standards and the market has nothing to do with this erosion of grading integrity other than providing more coins for TPGs to grade. Shifting standards throws everything out of whack.
My only contribution to this thread: people are focused on JA as the finalizer but there are at least two other world class graders at CAC who approved of it before it met his eyes. So you could say that from PCGS submission to final bean that at least 6 superb graders all agreed on the grade. That’s quite impressive.
@jmlanzaf said:
Yet JA and PCGS both agree. That is strong evidence that the coin meets the market standard. Based only on a picture, you are arguing against the consensus opinion of 6 professional graders... including the most trusted eye in the business.
Huh? Regarding the 1849, JA and PCGS couldn't even agree with themselves, particularly PCGS, which had allowed the standards for EF40 and EF45 to relax a point or two. In this case, the 1849 is an "EF44" coin (IMO, but based upon prior PCGS standards) that was graded as EF45, and then later after tightening the grading standard as EF40.
I respect JA's grading ability and opinion greatly but YES, I AM arguing with the consensus of the 6 pro graders who now allow cleaned coins to be holdered, and then reward a CAC bean to a cleaned coin that barely meets the grade. You're defending 'windsock' grading standards and the market has nothing to do with this erosion of grading integrity other than providing more coins for TPGs to grade. Shifting standards throws everything out of whack.
Again, pictures can be deceptive. I am not assuming that the coin is necessarily unacceptably cleaned. It might have been dipped. The coin might also be darker in hand. Unless I've seen the coin in hand, I'm accepting the consensus of 2 independent teams of 3 graders over one individual who has never handled the coin.
I’m sorry, but a green sticker on a 40 and then a 45 is exactly in line with CAC’s policies. He’s simply not going to put a gold sticker on a coin that he’d probably sticker at the next grade up - he'll only do it for a coin that ‘exceeds the standards for the next grade’. In other words, a flat out blatant undergrade.
@tradedollarnut said:
I’m sorry, but a green sticker on a 40 and then a 45 is exactly in line with CAC’s policies. He’s simply not going to put a gold sticker on a coin that he’d probably sticker at the next grade up - he'll only do it for a coin that ‘exceeds the standards for the next grade’. In other words, a flat out blatant undergrade.
Actually it’s not in line with publicly stated standard although your statement reflects my experiences on the way coins are actually evaluated. The CAC stated policy is that a gold sticker is awarded to coins that are solid for the next grade up or better.
You can’t claim that is only solid for the EF40 grade and also solid for the EF45. The EF45 grade is by definition one interval higher. So if it is a green EF45 it should be an EF40 gold if the stated policy is used.
@MasonG said:
I guess I missed where it was claimed that CAC is infallible. Anybody care to point that post out?
People treat it as such whether it expressly stated in those terms or not in this thread.
Can you point out a specific comment that's representative of your belief?
@cameonut2011 said:
And that is a close paraphrase of some of the nonsense spewed in the Hansen thread that was deleted by moderator before a poster or two was banned.
@MasonG said:
I guess I missed where it was claimed that CAC is infallible. Anybody care to point that post out?
People treat it as such whether it expressly stated in those terms or not in this thread.
Can you point out a specific comment that's representative of your belief?
@cameonut2011 said:
And that is a close paraphrase of some of the nonsense spewed in the Hansen thread that was deleted by moderator before a poster or two was banned.
Didn't read that thread, so I wouldn't know.
PM forthcoming. If cite specific members I’ll get a Nastygram from the moderators.
Thanks for the PM. The member you mentioned hasn't contributed to a thread for a couple of weeks so I think it's unfair, in the context of this current discussion, to paint the posters who are contributing here with what he might have said previously.
@MasonG said:
Thanks for the PM. The member you mentioned hasn't contributed to a thread for a couple of weeks so I think it's unfair, in the context of this current discussion, to paint the posters who are contributing here with what he might have said previously.
JMO, of course.
Fair enough, but when CAC threads are started we don’t write on a blank slate each time.
@cameonut2011 said:
Fair enough, but when CAC threads are started we don’t write on a blank slate each time.
Of course not. But if you don't identify previous conversations, you can't expect the current posters to have read the opinions you're referencing. This is why I questioned "infallibility", as nobody on this thread has made that claim that I can see. I haven't read such claims in other threads, but then, I don't read everything posted here so I'm sure it could happen and I just didn't see it.
Do you think anybody in this thread is taking the position that CAC is infallible?
@tradedollarnut said:
I’m sorry, but a green sticker on a 40 and then a 45 is exactly in line with CAC’s policies. He’s simply not going to put a gold sticker on a coin that he’d probably sticker at the next grade up - he'll only do it for a coin that ‘exceeds the standards for the next grade’. In other words, a flat out blatant undergrade.
Actually it’s not in line with publicly stated standard although your statement reflects my experiences on the way coins are actually evaluated. The CAC stated policy is that a gold sticker is awarded to coins that are solid for the next grade up or better.
You can’t claim that is only solid for the EF40 grade and also solid for the EF45. The EF45 grade is by definition one interval higher. So if it is a green EF45 it should be an EF40 gold if the stated policy is used.
What you think must be true doesn’t affect reality one iota.
@tradedollarnut said:
I’m sorry, but a green sticker on a 40 and then a 45 is exactly in line with CAC’s policies. He’s simply not going to put a gold sticker on a coin that he’d probably sticker at the next grade up - he'll only do it for a coin that ‘exceeds the standards for the next grade’. In other words, a flat out blatant undergrade.
Actually it’s not in line with publicly stated standard although your statement reflects my experiences on the way coins are actually evaluated. The CAC stated policy is that a gold sticker is awarded to coins that are solid for the next grade up or better.
You can’t claim that is only solid for the EF40 grade and also solid for the EF45. The EF45 grade is by definition one interval higher. So if it is a green EF45 it should be an EF40 gold if the stated policy is used.
What you think must be true doesn’t affect reality one iota.
I guess words have no meaning anymore, and logic has no role in this hobby. Collectors are to be sheep and believe everything they’re told while dealers and grading services do what they want and make tons of money in the process. Got it! This hobby is sick and the market desperately needs a reset.
@tradedollarnut said:
Just so I get this straight…this entire thread is over a properly graded but maybe not solid for the grade Fine barber half with a difference in value with or without a sticker of about $25. Right?
@tradedollarnut said:
I’m sorry, but a green sticker on a 40 and then a 45 is exactly in line with CAC’s policies. He’s simply not going to put a gold sticker on a coin that he’d probably sticker at the next grade up - he'll only do it for a coin that ‘exceeds the standards for the next grade’. In other words, a flat out blatant undergrade.
But that's not what he says to the media. In fact, he says nothing about gold-stickered coins because I suspect it's a can of worms for him...such as this example.
CAC founder John Albanese describes the CAC gold stickered coin as a coin that could “easily green sticker at the next highest grade level.” (-CoinWorld, January 13, 2013) That's kinda what happened here, i.e, it was green stickered at two grade levels.
I agree with you, though, as that's the understanding I eventually arrived at from looking at CAC stickered coins. The surfaces and wear on a lot of green-beaned coins often fit that of the next highest grade. Therefore, a gold bean must refer to a grade higher than the next highest grade, in the case of the 1849, AU50.
I also know the seller pointed that out to JA and he refused to gold-sticker the coin. IMO, this was a coin on the line between EF40 and EF45 (an "EF44" if you will) that JA liked both times for its quality for the grade (perhaps an A as a 40, and B as a 45). This will happen with attractive coins between grades when TPG grading standards fluctuate.
@tradedollarnut said:
I’m sorry, but a green sticker on a 40 and then a 45 is exactly in line with CAC’s policies. He’s simply not going to put a gold sticker on a coin that he’d probably sticker at the next grade up - he'll only do it for a coin that ‘exceeds the standards for the next grade’. In other words, a flat out blatant undergrade.
Actually it’s not in line with publicly stated standard although your statement reflects my experiences on the way coins are actually evaluated. The CAC stated policy is that a gold sticker is awarded to coins that are solid for the next grade up or better.
You can’t claim that is only solid for the EF40 grade and also solid for the EF45. The EF45 grade is by definition one interval higher. So if it is a green EF45 it should be an EF40 gold if the stated policy is used.
What you think must be true doesn’t affect reality one iota.
I guess words have no meaning anymore, and logic has no role in this hobby. Collectors are to be sheep and believe everything they’re told while dealers and grading services do what they want and make tons of money in the process. Got it! This hobby is sick and the market desperately needs a reset.
I'm not sure there is any inconsistencies. Let's say the coin is a B at XF45. Then it greens at 45. At 40, it only golds if it were definitely green at 45. So, if it's a close call, why can't it green at 40 also? There's nothing inconsistent there if the coin is middle of the pack at 45.
I'm not sure why your complaint isn't at our host who is far less consistent in the two grades of the coin is a B 45.
@jmlanzaf said:
I'm not sure there is any inconsistencies. Let's say the coin is a B at XF45. Then it greens at 45. At 40, it only golds if it were definitely green at 45. So, if it's a close call, why can't it green at 40 also? There's nothing inconsistent there if the coin is middle of the pack at 45.
I'm not sure why your complaint isn't at our host who is far less consistent in the two grades of the coin is a B 45.
You’re quoting my post out of context. TDN took the position that CAC is going to give gold stickers only to coins that exceed standards for the next higher up grade (I.e. at least two points/intervals under graded) which is a contradiction to it’s written policy. That is fact whether you agree with the application as to any one piece.
There is also no Schrödinger cat of numismatics. It cannot simultaneously be both an EF40 and EF45, with the grade state being indeterminate at any time. It is solid for the grade or it is not. I might be more open to your argument on uber higher grade mint state coins where the difference in quality can be more subjective, but the difference between EF45 and EF40 is much more clear cut. A 45 has luster and has claims to an AU50 grade. An EF40 does not have luster or will have it only in protected areas. Any ambiguity or closeness would likely be due to the surfaces and/or originality in which case you would expect it to vacillate between failing and stickering on submissions as opposed to being given a free pass at both grade levels.
I’d also be more amenable to your argument if people didn’t treat CAC as the end all, be all of numismatics and if every nonstickered coin wasn’t treated as a problem coin by a good share of the coin market.
Finally, the TPG services are supposedly experts at grading coins. If you come along and now claim to grade the graders, then you should expect to be held to a higher standard of grading and consistency. Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. The grading services are inconsistent but so is CAC.
@cameonut2011 said:
There is no Schrödinger cat of numismatics. It cannot simultaneously be both an EF40 and EF45, with the grade state being indeterminate at any time.
Not in a plastic slab with a label on it, it can't. Crack it out of that slab and, well...
Perhaps. Or perhaps CAC’s agenda just isn’t what you think it is. For instance, why should CAC expect its dealer network to pay the next higher grade for a coin that it thinks probably should upgrade but really isn’t a no brainer? Nah - save it for the A coins the next grade up.
@tradedollarnut said:
Perhaps. Or perhaps CAC’s agenda just isn’t what you think it is. For instance, why should CAC expect its dealer network to pay the next higher grade for a coin that it thinks probably should upgrade but really isn’t a no brainer? Nah - save it for the A coins the next grade up.
If that is CAC’s policy/agenda that is fine, but it shouldn’t publicly state one thing and then do another. At best it confuses the markets. At worst, it is reminiscent of the days when dealers would intentionally undergrade coins (pre-TPG days) to buy them off collectors at rock bottom prices. Again, if collectors stop treating CAC as a grading service and start recognizing for what it truly is - a market maker that is labeling coins it would buy at certain levels - then that approach makes much more sense. CAC is not a grading service and certainly is not completely objective since it stickering it with the intent of trading it as some point.
@cameonut2011 said:
CAC is not a grading service and certainly is not completely objective since it stickering it with the intent of trading it as some point.
What sort of conflict of interest are you seeing here?
@tradedollarnut said:
Just so I get this straight…this entire thread is over a properly graded but maybe not solid for the grade Fine barber half with a difference in value with or without a sticker of about $25. Right?
Pfffft.
You’re off by an order of magnitude here. DL recently sold a CAC F15 for $505. A problem F12 is probably <$250 in today’s market at best. I certainly don’t want to overpay by $200 for a problem coin that shouldn’t sticker and isn’t original.
The DL CACed F15 is gorgeous - it’s linked in CoinFacts if you want to check it out.
@tradedollarnut said:
Just so I get this straight…this entire thread is over a properly graded but maybe not solid for the grade Fine barber half with a difference in value with or without a sticker of about $25. Right?
Pfffft.
You’re off by an order of magnitude here. DL recently sold a CAC F15 for $505. A problem F12 is probably <$250 in today’s market at best. I certainly don’t want to overpay by $200 for a problem coin that shouldn’t sticker and isn’t original.
The DL CACed F15 is gorgeous - it’s linked in CoinFacts if you want to check it out.
The fact that it did ( get a sticker) means that it should have. Simple answer to initial question. What it should not do is garner such attention. At least it's in a PCGS holder. That being said, what were we to do (collectively) ? Between ANA standards and TPG standards , We had to have a seeing eye dog. Thankfully JA stepped up to the plate. We are as close to a standard as we will get.
@tradedollarnut said:
Just so I get this straight…this entire thread is over a properly graded but maybe not solid for the grade Fine barber half with a difference in value with or without a sticker of about $25. Right?
Pfffft.
You’re off by an order of magnitude here. DL recently sold a CAC F15 for $505. A problem F12 is probably <$250 in today’s market at best. I certainly don’t want to overpay by $200 for a problem coin that shouldn’t sticker and isn’t original.
The DL CACed F15 is gorgeous - it’s linked in CoinFacts if you want to check it out.
I don’t but thanks. Sounds like a nice coin - but irrelevant to the value of this one if it’s an amazing example one grade higher
@tradedollarnut said:
Just so I get this straight…this entire thread is over a properly graded but maybe not solid for the grade Fine barber half with a difference in value with or without a sticker of about $25. Right?
Pfffft.
You’re off by an order of magnitude here. DL recently sold a CAC F15 for $505. A problem F12 is probably <$250 in today’s market at best. I certainly don’t want to overpay by $200 for a problem coin that shouldn’t sticker and isn’t original.
The DL CACed F15 is gorgeous - it’s linked in CoinFacts if you want to check it out.
I'd grade the coin a VF20. IMO, the obverse shows 25 - 30 wear while the reverse is 20. Dinged-up surfaces drop it down to a solid VF20 for me. At F15 CAC, it sold for a solid VF20-VF25 price ($505). Looks like CAC didn't agree with NGC's penalty for the small hits and some very light corrosion (rims, neck) and liked the light wear for the grade and original-looking toning.
Any comments or critiques of my grading analysis here?
@MFeld said:
This is exactly one of the reasons this thread blows for me:
“Posts promoting or bashing other grading companies or services are not allowed.”
CAC is not a Grading Service as they only offer a Agreeing/Disagreeing service.
Call it what you want - I'm confident that the original thread title was addressed by one or more of the posted rules.
That's not the case, as there have been plenty of times when I've done so. Understandably, though, you likely didn't see or notice if they weren't threads started by you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@tradedollarnut said:
Just so I get this straight…this entire thread is over a properly graded but maybe not solid for the grade Fine barber half with a difference in value with or without a sticker of about $25. Right?
Pfffft.
You’re off by an order of magnitude here. DL recently sold a CAC F15 for $505. A problem F12 is probably <$250 in today’s market at best. I certainly don’t want to overpay by $200 for a problem coin that shouldn’t sticker and isn’t original.
The DL CACed F15 is gorgeous - it’s linked in CoinFacts if you want to check it out.
I'd grade the coin a VF20. IMO, the obverse shows 25 - 30 wear while the reverse is 20. Dinged-up surfaces drop it down to a solid VF20 for me. At F15 CAC, it sold for a solid VF20-VF25 price ($505). Looks like CAC didn't agree with PCGS's penalty for the small hits and some very light corrosion (rims, neck) and liked the light wear for the grade and original-looking toning.
Any comments or critiques of my grading analysis here?
Pretty sure it's NGC. I see dead peopleprongs.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Comments
Just when you think the thread couldn’t be anymore of a train wreck…
I miss the days when CAC threads were barred and the moderators would delete threads mentioning CAC on the spot.
It’s no longer the what but the how
The number of coins isn't a relevant as the quality of the eye. But, again, their is no reason to even include this assumed factoid.
To me the most important factor is that the most trusted eye in the coin universe saw it in hand, everyone else has only seen a picture.
PCGS and CAC agree. Burden of proof is on those who want to REBUT THIS!
True - and not to mention the guy that likes quantity of posts not quality.
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
"Popcorn icon"
Barbers?
Here you go...
Thanks Mason......
Didn't know CU has message boards in braille now.
This thread is amusing to me because of the unnecessary taking of sides, and the propensity of people to argue anything. Here's my contribution...The coin is not a high-quality coin for the grade and doesn't deserve a CAC sticker. I don't need to see it in hand because the cleaning is obvious. I've looked at 1% of the Barbers JA has but I don't need huge experience to see that the coin has been cleaned. Not surprised a top dealer in Barber halves (The OP) these days agrees.
JA may be the God of grading but he's not infallible and this coin is evidence of that fact. All of JA's horses and all of JA's men here cannot change the fact that this coin has been cleaned. It's also not strong for an F12, IMO. So why defend what most likely appears to be an oversight when compared to the excellent quality of the huge majority of other coins he stickers?
Brace yourselves...Grading is not a science and TPG's can be inconsistent in their grading. Occasionally, so can JA. Here's the same coin, first as EF45 CAC-green and later as EF40 CAC-green after the PCGS holder was damaged in the mail (without sustaining any damage to the coin). Even the top TPG service and the "most trusted eye in the coin universe" vacillated on their grading and stickering here.
Yet JA and PCGS both agree. That is strong evidence that the coin meets the market standard. Based only on a picture, you are arguing against the consensus opinion of 6 professional graders... including the most trusted eye in the business.
So the TPG graders are infallible huh? So remind me again why we need CAC in the first place and why do collectors use it as a grading service.
And CAC is not infallible. We have a former CAC business partner who has acknowledged (in multiple threads) even CAC’s standards change and that CAC has even acquiesced in grade inflation/sticker inflation. There are countless examples of coins that fail to sticker once that sticker on subsequent attempts or vice versa. Which time was correct? Green bean at multiple grades? Yes please. What about the blatantly AT Peace Dollar that ended up in a PCGS CAC holder and sold for strong money. I know the person that “made” the coin. It failed PCGS and NGC 7 times before it straight graded. And to add insult to injury it initially failed to sticker before stickering. So do we believe the initial 24 grading events (7x 3 + 1 CAC x3) or the last 6 grading events (3 + 1 CAC x 3). Then there is the altered FE 1856 cent that was altered despite being stickered. Rick Snow started an interesting thread about it. IIRC it was ultimately pulled from a major auction.
Bottom line: CAC does a decent job but is not infallible. Why should it be given any benefit of the doubt when it is obvious the coin is a problem coin? Yes photography isn’t perfect, but I have never seen a photographer take a problem free wholesome coin and make it look like the coin in the OP. If I am wrong, then someone please provide me with the physics/optics explanation of how to do it with tips on how to produce it using photography so we can all learn.
If I don’t like the coin it doesn’t matter to me if it has his sticker. Nor (even if like it) will I pay some huge premium for it because it does.
Huh? Regarding the 1849, JA and PCGS couldn't even agree with themselves, particularly PCGS, which had allowed the standards for EF40 and EF45 to relax a point or two. In this case, the 1849 is an "EF44" coin (IMO, but based upon prior PCGS standards) that was graded as EF45, and then later after tightening the grading standard as EF40.
I respect JA's grading ability and opinion greatly but YES, I AM arguing with the consensus of the 6 pro graders who now allow cleaned coins to be holdered, and then reward a CAC bean to a cleaned coin that barely meets the grade. You're defending 'windsock' grading standards and the market has nothing to do with this erosion of grading integrity other than providing more coins for TPGs to grade. Shifting standards throws everything out of whack.
My only contribution to this thread: people are focused on JA as the finalizer but there are at least two other world class graders at CAC who approved of it before it met his eyes. So you could say that from PCGS submission to final bean that at least 6 superb graders all agreed on the grade. That’s quite impressive.
I guess I missed where it was claimed that CAC is infallible. Anybody care to point that post out?
Again, pictures can be deceptive. I am not assuming that the coin is necessarily unacceptably cleaned. It might have been dipped. The coin might also be darker in hand. Unless I've seen the coin in hand, I'm accepting the consensus of 2 independent teams of 3 graders over one individual who has never handled the coin.
I’m sorry, but a green sticker on a 40 and then a 45 is exactly in line with CAC’s policies. He’s simply not going to put a gold sticker on a coin that he’d probably sticker at the next grade up - he'll only do it for a coin that ‘exceeds the standards for the next grade’. In other words, a flat out blatant undergrade.
People treat it as such whether it expressly stated in those terms or not in this thread.
And that is a close paraphrase of some of the nonsense spewed in the Hansen thread that was deleted by moderator before a poster or two was banned.
Actually it’s not in line with publicly stated standard although your statement reflects my experiences on the way coins are actually evaluated. The CAC stated policy is that a gold sticker is awarded to coins that are solid for the next grade up or better.
You can’t claim that is only solid for the EF40 grade and also solid for the EF45. The EF45 grade is by definition one interval higher. So if it is a green EF45 it should be an EF40 gold if the stated policy is used.
Can you point out a specific comment that's representative of your belief?
Didn't read that thread, so I wouldn't know.
PM forthcoming. If cite specific members I’ll get a Nastygram from the moderators.
Popped back into this thread thinking maybe some compelling and introspective new posts would appear but alas, nada.
Thinking here keep repeating and it will stick?
Thanks for the PM. The member you mentioned hasn't contributed to a thread for a couple of weeks so I think it's unfair, in the context of this current discussion, to paint the posters who are contributing here with what he might have said previously.
JMO, of course.
Fair enough, but when CAC threads are started we don’t write on a blank slate each time.
Of course not. But if you don't identify previous conversations, you can't expect the current posters to have read the opinions you're referencing. This is why I questioned "infallibility", as nobody on this thread has made that claim that I can see. I haven't read such claims in other threads, but then, I don't read everything posted here so I'm sure it could happen and I just didn't see it.
Do you think anybody in this thread is taking the position that CAC is infallible?
What you think must be true doesn’t affect reality one iota.
No
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I guess words have no meaning anymore, and logic has no role in this hobby. Collectors are to be sheep and believe everything they’re told while dealers and grading services do what they want and make tons of money in the process. Got it! This hobby is sick and the market desperately needs a reset.
That about sums it up.
But that's not what he says to the media. In fact, he says nothing about gold-stickered coins because I suspect it's a can of worms for him...such as this example.
CAC founder John Albanese describes the CAC gold stickered coin as a coin that could “easily green sticker at the next highest grade level.” (-CoinWorld, January 13, 2013) That's kinda what happened here, i.e, it was green stickered at two grade levels.
I agree with you, though, as that's the understanding I eventually arrived at from looking at CAC stickered coins. The surfaces and wear on a lot of green-beaned coins often fit that of the next highest grade. Therefore, a gold bean must refer to a grade higher than the next highest grade, in the case of the 1849, AU50.
I also know the seller pointed that out to JA and he refused to gold-sticker the coin. IMO, this was a coin on the line between EF40 and EF45 (an "EF44" if you will) that JA liked both times for its quality for the grade (perhaps an A as a 40, and B as a 45). This will happen with attractive coins between grades when TPG grading standards fluctuate.
I'm not sure there is any inconsistencies. Let's say the coin is a B at XF45. Then it greens at 45. At 40, it only golds if it were definitely green at 45. So, if it's a close call, why can't it green at 40 also? There's nothing inconsistent there if the coin is middle of the pack at 45.
I'm not sure why your complaint isn't at our host who is far less consistent in the two grades of the coin is a B 45.
If if if
This thread needs to find its way down to page 4
Your post will probably delay that.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I may bump it all week.
You’re quoting my post out of context. TDN took the position that CAC is going to give gold stickers only to coins that exceed standards for the next higher up grade (I.e. at least two points/intervals under graded) which is a contradiction to it’s written policy. That is fact whether you agree with the application as to any one piece.
There is also no Schrödinger cat of numismatics. It cannot simultaneously be both an EF40 and EF45, with the grade state being indeterminate at any time. It is solid for the grade or it is not. I might be more open to your argument on uber higher grade mint state coins where the difference in quality can be more subjective, but the difference between EF45 and EF40 is much more clear cut. A 45 has luster and has claims to an AU50 grade. An EF40 does not have luster or will have it only in protected areas. Any ambiguity or closeness would likely be due to the surfaces and/or originality in which case you would expect it to vacillate between failing and stickering on submissions as opposed to being given a free pass at both grade levels.
I’d also be more amenable to your argument if people didn’t treat CAC as the end all, be all of numismatics and if every nonstickered coin wasn’t treated as a problem coin by a good share of the coin market.
Finally, the TPG services are supposedly experts at grading coins. If you come along and now claim to grade the graders, then you should expect to be held to a higher standard of grading and consistency. Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. The grading services are inconsistent but so is CAC.
Not in a plastic slab with a label on it, it can't. Crack it out of that slab and, well...
Perhaps. Or perhaps CAC’s agenda just isn’t what you think it is. For instance, why should CAC expect its dealer network to pay the next higher grade for a coin that it thinks probably should upgrade but really isn’t a no brainer? Nah - save it for the A coins the next grade up.
If that is CAC’s policy/agenda that is fine, but it shouldn’t publicly state one thing and then do another. At best it confuses the markets. At worst, it is reminiscent of the days when dealers would intentionally undergrade coins (pre-TPG days) to buy them off collectors at rock bottom prices. Again, if collectors stop treating CAC as a grading service and start recognizing for what it truly is - a market maker that is labeling coins it would buy at certain levels - then that approach makes much more sense. CAC is not a grading service and certainly is not completely objective since it stickering it with the intent of trading it as some point.
What sort of conflict of interest are you seeing here?
The coin is junk. It shouldn’t have been straight graded, let alone stickered. Obvious problem coin I would avoid.
You’re off by an order of magnitude here. DL recently sold a CAC F15 for $505. A problem F12 is probably <$250 in today’s market at best. I certainly don’t want to overpay by $200 for a problem coin that shouldn’t sticker and isn’t original.
The DL CACed F15 is gorgeous - it’s linked in CoinFacts if you want to check it out.
I sold the last nice one I had for $375.
The fact that it did ( get a sticker) means that it should have. Simple answer to initial question. What it should not do is garner such attention. At least it's in a PCGS holder. That being said, what were we to do (collectively) ? Between ANA standards and TPG standards , We had to have a seeing eye dog. Thankfully JA stepped up to the plate. We are as close to a standard as we will get.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
I don’t but thanks. Sounds like a nice coin - but irrelevant to the value of this one if it’s an amazing example one grade higher
I'd grade the coin a VF20. IMO, the obverse shows 25 - 30 wear while the reverse is 20. Dinged-up surfaces drop it down to a solid VF20 for me. At F15 CAC, it sold for a solid VF20-VF25 price ($505). Looks like CAC didn't agree with NGC's penalty for the small hits and some very light corrosion (rims, neck) and liked the light wear for the grade and original-looking toning.
Any comments or critiques of my grading analysis here?
CAC is not a Grading Service as they only offer a Agreeing/Disagreeing service.
Call it what you want - I'm confident that the original thread title was addressed by one or more of the posted rules.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I think it's funny you defend some companies, sellers, etc. but won't defend our host when folks bash them!
That's not the case, as there have been plenty of times when I've done so. Understandably, though, you likely didn't see or notice if they weren't threads started by you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Pretty sure it's NGC. I see dead peopleprongs.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."