@PerryHall said:
I'm not so sure that CAC would reject that coin for a sticker. A few days ago there was a thread concerning a PCGS straight graded coin with a serious staple scratch on the reverse that got a CAC sticker.
If this stickers, it is time to stop taking CAC seriously.
So you are no longer taking PCGS seriously? After all, it slabbed but didn't CAC. This might bolster the argument FOR CAC.
Mistakes like this are unacceptable from any professional grader. When you form a new service claiming the other guys aren't doing a good job, then you better not miss mistakes like this or you are no better and are completely unnecessary. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If you claim to grade the graders, you should expect to be held to a higher standard or else what is the point?
I'll also go out on a limb - let's say this were market acceptable (something which I vehemently disagree with). It would be a low end for the grade coin and the service could in that scenario be justified in assigning a grade to it. CAC is not merely grading a coin but is stating that it is solid or high end for the grade. Could you look someone in the eye with a straight face and say this is solid or high end for the grade?
I'm just not sure why CAC got dragged into this for a coin without a CAC.
@PerryHall said:
I'm not so sure that CAC would reject that coin for a sticker. A few days ago there was a thread concerning a PCGS straight graded coin with a serious staple scratch on the reverse that got a CAC sticker.
If this stickers, it is time to stop taking CAC seriously.
So you are no longer taking PCGS seriously? After all, it slabbed but didn't CAC. This might bolster the argument FOR CAC.
Mistakes like this are unacceptable from any professional grader. When you form a new service claiming the other guys aren't doing a good job, then you better not miss mistakes like this or you are no better and are completely unnecessary. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If you claim to grade the graders, you should expect to be held to a higher standard or else what is the point?
I'll also go out on a limb - let's say this were market acceptable (something which I vehemently disagree with). It would be a low end for the grade coin and the service could in that scenario be justified in assigning a grade to it. CAC is not merely grading a coin but is stating that it is solid or high end for the grade. Could you look someone in the eye with a straight face and say this is solid or high end for the grade?
@PerryHall said:
I'm not so sure that CAC would reject that coin for a sticker. A few days ago there was a thread concerning a PCGS straight graded coin with a serious staple scratch on the reverse that got a CAC sticker.
If this stickers, it is time to stop taking CAC seriously.
So you are no longer taking PCGS seriously? After all, it slabbed but didn't CAC. This might bolster the argument FOR CAC.
Mistakes like this are unacceptable from any professional grader. When you form a new service claiming the other guys aren't doing a good job, then you better not miss mistakes like this or you are no better and are completely unnecessary. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If you claim to grade the graders, you should expect to be held to a higher standard or else what is the point?
I'll also go out on a limb - let's say this were market acceptable (something which I vehemently disagree with). It would be a low end for the grade coin and the service could in that scenario be justified in assigning a grade to it. CAC is not merely grading a coin but is stating that it is solid or high end for the grade. Could you look someone in the eye with a straight face and say this is solid or high end for the grade?
I'm just not sure why CAC got dragged into this for a coin without a CAC.
I mean, other than all threads lead to CAC.
Some else said they could see the coin with a CAC sticker. My comments were in response to that comment.
This thread reminds me of a better date early 10c piece I purchased at auction in a 63 holder. Fully original coin but somehow, I entirely missed a rather large scratch. Of course, it went cheap (to me). When I offered it to Rich Urhich at the FUN show (with full disclosure that he obviously did not need) his response upon viewing the coin was "But other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" I laughed my butt off. I sold the coin on-line at a small loss, again, with full disclosure, and later saw that it had been dipped and upgraded to a 64, which proceeded to sell at auction for less than I sold it for. Which gives me some hope that perhaps people really do buy the coin and not the holder.
Wasn't the whole purpose behind having a TPG company that coins could be traded sight-unseen and the buyer could have some reasonable assurance that the coin would meet the grade assigned and be essentially "problem-free"? I always viewed CAC as more of an endorsement that not only the coin meets the grade, but also offers some superior eye-appeal that goes above just technical grade... (attractive toning, super clean fields, etc.)
That said, of course errors are going to be made. Of the thousands upon thousands of coins that have been accurately graded by our hosts, I'm sure a handful might sneak by... and be grist for threads like this...
Collecting: Dansco 7070; Middle Date Large Cents (VF-AU); Box of 20;
Obviously, PCGS screwed up on the encapsulation of this coin. It deserves to be in a Genuine holder as tooled or scratched. My guess is that if anyone ever took the time, money and resources to send it back to PCGS to have it properly encapsulated that they would be happy to do so.
@TomB said:
Obviously, PCGS screwed up on the encapsulation of this coin. It deserves to be in a Genuine holder as tooled or scratched. My guess is that if anyone ever took the time, money and resources to send it back to PCGS to have it properly encapsulated that they would be happy to do so.
You still have to pay a fee at least initially and wait for however long it takes. They seem backlogged at the moment. I’d blow it out cheap and let the coin be someone else’s problem personally.
@MFeld said:
I don’t fully understand why it matters to grading companies or anyone else, whether such marks are the result of intentional actions or unintentional mishandling/damage through circulation. Why not issue either a details or straight grade, based upon the extent of the damage, rather than speculate about (possible) intent.
For me, there's something troublesome about a coin that has graffiti on it unless it's nicely engraved. That sometime long ago, some flunkie deliberately marked up the coin you're purchasing.
That bothers me, too. But so do > @cameonut2011 said:
@PerryHall said:
I'm not so sure that CAC would reject that coin for a sticker. A few days ago there was a thread concerning a PCGS straight graded coin with a serious staple scratch on the reverse that got a CAC sticker.
If this stickers, it is time to stop taking CAC seriously.
So you are no longer taking PCGS seriously? After all, it slabbed but didn't CAC. This might bolster the argument FOR CAC.
Mistakes like this are unacceptable from any professional grader. When you form a new service claiming the other guys aren't doing a good job, then you better not miss mistakes like this or you are no better and are completely unnecessary. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If you claim to grade the graders, you should expect to be held to a higher standard or else what is the point?
I'll also go out on a limb - let's say this were market acceptable (something which I vehemently disagree with). It would be a low end for the grade coin and the service could in that scenario be justified in assigning a grade to it. CAC is not merely grading a coin but is stating that it is solid or high end for the grade. Could you look someone in the eye with a straight face and say this is solid or high end for the grade?
To my knowledge, CAC has never said the other guys aren’t doing a good job or anything resembling that.
Edited to add: It seems like quite a stretch to raise the possibility of this coin receiving a sticker, based on the other coin - the Saint you referenced.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said:
I don’t fully understand why it matters to grading companies or anyone else, whether such marks are the result of intentional actions or unintentional mishandling/damage through circulation. Why not issue either a details or straight grade, based upon the extent of the damage, rather than speculate about (possible) intent.
For me, there's something troublesome about a coin that has graffiti on it unless it's nicely engraved. That sometime long ago, some flunkie deliberately marked up the coin you're purchasing.
I do it all the time. I've used coins as emergency screwdrivers or spacers. I keep coins in my car in a container with a nail file that scratches them. I've even experimented on pocket change. That coin could have been marked up while circulating by someone board while waiting at the blacksmith.
So he's gonna pay the blacksmith with a coin he just carved up?
@MFeld said:
I don’t fully understand why it matters to grading companies or anyone else, whether such marks are the result of intentional actions or unintentional mishandling/damage through circulation. Why not issue either a details or straight grade, based upon the extent of the damage, rather than speculate about (possible) intent.
For me, there's something troublesome about a coin that has graffiti on it unless it's nicely engraved. That sometime long ago, some flunkie deliberately marked up the coin you're purchasing.
That bothers me, too. But so do > @cameonut2011 said:
@PerryHall said:
I'm not so sure that CAC would reject that coin for a sticker. A few days ago there was a thread concerning a PCGS straight graded coin with a serious staple scratch on the reverse that got a CAC sticker.
If this stickers, it is time to stop taking CAC seriously.
So you are no longer taking PCGS seriously? After all, it slabbed but didn't CAC. This might bolster the argument FOR CAC.
Mistakes like this are unacceptable from any professional grader. When you form a new service claiming the other guys aren't doing a good job, then you better not miss mistakes like this or you are no better and are completely unnecessary. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If you claim to grade the graders, you should expect to be held to a higher standard or else what is the point?
I'll also go out on a limb - let's say this were market acceptable (something which I vehemently disagree with). It would be a low end for the grade coin and the service could in that scenario be justified in assigning a grade to it. CAC is not merely grading a coin but is stating that it is solid or high end for the grade. Could you look someone in the eye with a straight face and say this is solid or high end for the grade?
To my knowledge, CAC has never said the other guys aren’t doing a good job or anything resembling that.
Edited to add: It seems like quite a stretch to raise the possibility of this coin receiving a sticker, based on the other coin - the Saint you referenced.
Isn’t that at least implicit with talks of grade inflation and doctoring rampant that slid by the services or am I conflating it with the statements of a couple of ardent supporters?
P.S. It was PerryHall who brought up the Saint. I’m inclined to agree that this coin is distinguishable but I have seen some real head scratchers when it comes to scratches that were given a free pass.
@MFeld said:
I don’t fully understand why it matters to grading companies or anyone else, whether such marks are the result of intentional actions or unintentional mishandling/damage through circulation. Why not issue either a details or straight grade, based upon the extent of the damage, rather than speculate about (possible) intent.
For me, there's something troublesome about a coin that has graffiti on it unless it's nicely engraved. That sometime long ago, some flunkie deliberately marked up the coin you're purchasing.
That bothers me, too. But so do > @cameonut2011 said:
@PerryHall said:
I'm not so sure that CAC would reject that coin for a sticker. A few days ago there was a thread concerning a PCGS straight graded coin with a serious staple scratch on the reverse that got a CAC sticker.
If this stickers, it is time to stop taking CAC seriously.
So you are no longer taking PCGS seriously? After all, it slabbed but didn't CAC. This might bolster the argument FOR CAC.
Mistakes like this are unacceptable from any professional grader. When you form a new service claiming the other guys aren't doing a good job, then you better not miss mistakes like this or you are no better and are completely unnecessary. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If you claim to grade the graders, you should expect to be held to a higher standard or else what is the point?
I'll also go out on a limb - let's say this were market acceptable (something which I vehemently disagree with). It would be a low end for the grade coin and the service could in that scenario be justified in assigning a grade to it. CAC is not merely grading a coin but is stating that it is solid or high end for the grade. Could you look someone in the eye with a straight face and say this is solid or high end for the grade?
To my knowledge, CAC has never said the other guys aren’t doing a good job or anything resembling that.
Edited to add: It seems like quite a stretch to raise the possibility of this coin receiving a sticker, based on the other coin - the Saint you referenced.
Isn’t that at least implicit with talks of grade inflation and doctoring rampant that slid by the services or am I conflating it with the statements of a couple of ardent supporters?
P.S. It was PerryHall who brought up the Saint. I’m inclined to agree that this coin is distinguishable but I have seen some real head scratchers when it comes to scratches that were given a free pass.
My guess is that you’re thinking of statements made by some ardent supporters. In fact, I considered mentioning that in my previous post.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Definitely no accident happened to that coin. I've seen MS60s and 61s with more wear than that one. Maybe they net-graded it. There are many collectors that would prefer net-graded coins. I will never be one of them. Jmo.
@MFeld said:
I don’t fully understand why it matters to grading companies or anyone else, whether such marks are the result of intentional actions or unintentional mishandling/damage through circulation. Why not issue either a details or straight grade, based upon the extent of the damage, rather than speculate about (possible) intent.
For me, there's something troublesome about a coin that has graffiti on it unless it's nicely engraved. That sometime long ago, some flunkie deliberately marked up the coin you're purchasing.
I do it all the time. I've used coins as emergency screwdrivers or spacers. I keep coins in my car in a container with a nail file that scratches them. I've even experimented on pocket change. That coin could have been marked up while circulating by someone board while waiting at the blacksmith.
So he's gonna pay the blacksmith with a coin he just carved up?
Why not? It doesn't change the value. It's for commerce not collectibility. Graffiti on large cents is quite common with cent being changed to c u next Tuesday. Hobo nickels. Potty dollars.
Comments
I'm just not sure why CAC got dragged into this for a coin without a CAC.
I mean, other than all threads lead to CAC.
AH HMMMM They already have made mistakes!
Some else said they could see the coin with a CAC sticker. My comments were in response to that comment.
This thread reminds me of a better date early 10c piece I purchased at auction in a 63 holder. Fully original coin but somehow, I entirely missed a rather large scratch. Of course, it went cheap (to me). When I offered it to Rich Urhich at the FUN show (with full disclosure that he obviously did not need) his response upon viewing the coin was "But other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" I laughed my butt off. I sold the coin on-line at a small loss, again, with full disclosure, and later saw that it had been dipped and upgraded to a 64, which proceeded to sell at auction for less than I sold it for. Which gives me some hope that perhaps people really do buy the coin and not the holder.
Tom
Wasn't the whole purpose behind having a TPG company that coins could be traded sight-unseen and the buyer could have some reasonable assurance that the coin would meet the grade assigned and be essentially "problem-free"? I always viewed CAC as more of an endorsement that not only the coin meets the grade, but also offers some superior eye-appeal that goes above just technical grade... (attractive toning, super clean fields, etc.)
That said, of course errors are going to be made. Of the thousands upon thousands of coins that have been accurately graded by our hosts, I'm sure a handful might sneak by... and be grist for threads like this...
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.
Obviously, PCGS screwed up on the encapsulation of this coin. It deserves to be in a Genuine holder as tooled or scratched. My guess is that if anyone ever took the time, money and resources to send it back to PCGS to have it properly encapsulated that they would be happy to do so.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
You still have to pay a fee at least initially and wait for however long it takes. They seem backlogged at the moment. I’d blow it out cheap and let the coin be someone else’s problem personally.
That bothers me, too. But so do > @cameonut2011 said:
To my knowledge, CAC has never said the other guys aren’t doing a good job or anything resembling that.
Edited to add: It seems like quite a stretch to raise the possibility of this coin receiving a sticker, based on the other coin - the Saint you referenced.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I love how JA and co. live rent-free in some peoples heads.
Coin in this thread deserves a details grade.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
So he's gonna pay the blacksmith with a coin he just carved up?
Isn’t that at least implicit with talks of grade inflation and doctoring rampant that slid by the services or am I conflating it with the statements of a couple of ardent supporters?
P.S. It was PerryHall who brought up the Saint. I’m inclined to agree that this coin is distinguishable but I have seen some real head scratchers when it comes to scratches that were given a free pass.
My guess is that you’re thinking of statements made by some ardent supporters. In fact, I considered mentioning that in my previous post.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Definitely no accident happened to that coin. I've seen MS60s and 61s with more wear than that one. Maybe they net-graded it. There are many collectors that would prefer net-graded coins. I will never be one of them. Jmo.
Why not? It doesn't change the value. It's for commerce not collectibility. Graffiti on large cents is quite common with cent being changed to c u next Tuesday. Hobo nickels. Potty dollars.