It would be priceless to open up this thread a month or two from now and see this coin paired with an inexplicable "not CAC" result. Is that a microscopic carbon spot on the neck? Send it in already!
@Catbert said:
I'd be surprised if CAC would tarnish their brand by gold stickering that.
I'm not sure that CAC would want to tarnish their brand by saying this quarter is not lock for at least two grade bumps. How can they justify not stickering this one unless it is cleaned or PVC or something drastic? If they did not sticker it would be like saying that in their opinion this quarter is not F15 quality or better.
My rationale is that it's an obvious mistake and why participate in a farce. That's my view anyway. The true test of course would be to send it in to see whose guess is correct.
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Well I just went on the CAC board and JA said this:
"No." "We wouldn’t want to monetize a “mistake” from a TPGS If it were to receive a gold sticker, it would unlikely be returned to pcgs and could be seen as an embarrassment."
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@Catbert said:
Well I just went on the CAC board and JA said this:
"No." "We wouldn’t want to monetize a “mistake” from a TPGS If it were to receive a gold sticker, it would unlikely be returned to pcgs and could be seen as an embarrassment."
I don’t really see where CAC would have a choice if it is going to be consistent.
@Catbert said:
Well I just went on the CAC board and JA said this:
"No." "We wouldn’t want to monetize a “mistake” from a TPGS If it were to receive a gold sticker, it would unlikely be returned to pcgs and could be seen as an embarrassment."
I don’t really see where CAC would have a choice if it is going to be consistent.
The man who makes the CAC sticker decisions just explained why CAC would not endorse such a scheme.
People who never make mistakes in life must be doing nothing at all. Stuff happens.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@Windycity said:
Yep, stuff happens!! CAC will not accept the coin. They call is a clerical error and will not accept for submission.
Rejected for a clerical error I guess is better than rejecting for a grading error. Otherwise how could they sleep at night putting a gold sticker on anything... let alone an AU58 that might jump up 5 points.
@ricko said:
Wow... certainly appears to be a label (mechanical) error.... Let us know what you do with it.... Cheers, RickO
To all - Could this mean that there’s a VG coin somewhere in a 64 holder?
Or is the mistake likely limited to this single coin?
Yep. That's exactly what it means. There's another one around that is the polar opposite.
Pete
I think this is a one coin error. This cert number is one of 9 consecutive 1947-D quarters. All the others are MS63. It also appears to be part of a larger submission of MS63ish quarters. I doubt there was a VG10 in that whole submission.
I think this is a one coin error. This cert number is one of 9 consecutive 1947-D quarters. All the others are MS63. It also appears to be part of a larger submission of MS63ish quarters. I doubt there was a VG10 in that whole submission.
It is part of a 152 coin submission of several different dates. Grades basically range from MS63-MS66. #43817002 is an AU58. I did not check every cert, just spot checking, but I saw 27 1947-Ds in the group. Enough for me to think that these were pulled from UNC rolls.
@Catbert said:
Well I just went on the CAC board and JA said this:
"No." "We wouldn’t want to monetize a “mistake” from a TPGS If it were to receive a gold sticker, it would unlikely be returned to pcgs and could be seen as an embarrassment."
I don’t really see where CAC would have a choice if it is going to be consistent.
The man who makes the CAC sticker decisions just explained why CAC would not endorse such a scheme.
He’s not a god nor should he be in the position of setting policy for the hobby and treated as such. CAC’s job is to decide if a coin is solid for the grade or better, and if the latter whether it is merely high end or undergraded by at least one point. If CAC doesn’t stick to its word and published standards, then what good is it? If CAC were more consistent (as opposed to even less consistent) with its application of the gold sticker then faux sticker rarity wouldn’t be an issue.
Edited: And CAC has stickered mechanical errors before (e.g. wrong date) so the decision really comes to perceived value of the coin with a sticker which should be immaterial to his decision making.
@Catbert said:
Well I just went on the CAC board and JA said this:
"No." "We wouldn’t want to monetize a “mistake” from a TPGS If it were to receive a gold sticker, it would unlikely be returned to pcgs and could be seen as an embarrassment."
I don’t really see where CAC would have a choice if it is going to be consistent.
The man who makes the CAC sticker decisions just explained why CAC would not endorse such a scheme.
He’s not a god nor should he be in the position of setting policy for the hobby and treated as such. CAC’s job is to decide if a coin is solid for the grade or better, and if the latter whether it is merely high end or undergraded by at least one point. If CAC doesn’t stick to its word and published standards, then what good is it? If CAC were more consistent (as opposed to even less consistent) with its application of the gold sticker then faux sticker rarity wouldn’t be an issue.
Edited: And CAC has stickered mechanical errors before (e.g. wrong date) so the decision really comes to perceived value of the coin with a sticker which should be immaterial to his decision making.
He didn’t try to set policy for the hobby. He stated CAC’s policy, which he has every right to do.
And the marketplace appears to be a bit more impressed with CAC’s application of their gold stickers than you are.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@spacehayduke said:
Cert number no longer in the PCGS data base..............
What does that mean?
100th pint of blood donated 7/19/2022 . Transactions with WilliamF, Relaxn, LukeMarshal, jclovescoins, braddick, JWP, Weather11am, Fairlaneman, Dscoins, lordmarcovan, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, JimW. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that who so believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.
@spacehayduke said:
Cert number no longer in the PCGS data base..............
What does that mean?
Not sure but I'm guessing they're pretending that slab doesn't exist anymore.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Not sure but I'm guessing they're pretending that slab doesn't exist anymore.
.
.
Well, they can poof the certification, but that doesn't poof the physical slab and coin.
100th pint of blood donated 7/19/2022 . Transactions with WilliamF, Relaxn, LukeMarshal, jclovescoins, braddick, JWP, Weather11am, Fairlaneman, Dscoins, lordmarcovan, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, JimW. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that who so believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.
@Catbert said:
Well I just went on the CAC board and JA said this:
"No." "We wouldn’t want to monetize a “mistake” from a TPGS If it were to receive a gold sticker, it would unlikely be returned to pcgs and could be seen as an embarrassment."
I don’t really see where CAC would have a choice if it is going to be consistent.
The man who makes the CAC sticker decisions just explained why CAC would not endorse such a scheme.
He’s not a god nor should he be in the position of setting policy for the hobby and treated as such. CAC’s job is to decide if a coin is solid for the grade or better, and if the latter whether it is merely high end or undergraded by at least one point. If CAC doesn’t stick to its word and published standards, then what good is it? If CAC were more consistent (as opposed to even less consistent) with its application of the gold sticker then faux sticker rarity wouldn’t be an issue.
Edited: And CAC has stickered mechanical errors before (e.g. wrong date) so the decision really comes to perceived value of the coin with a sticker which should be immaterial to his decision making.
He didn’t try to set policy for the hobby. He stated CAC’s policy, which he has every right to do.
And the marketplace appears to be a bit more impressed with CAC’s application of their gold stickers than you are.
If you can’t take some one at their word and a business knowingly and intentionally disregards its published standards, what good is it? That the coin could have yielded a profit for the OP is none of CAC’s concern nor does it satisfy CAC’s stated purpose and goals.
And regardless of the thread, it isn’t a mere issue of faux rarity alone but a lack of gold sticker (or any sticker at all) means that to many U.S. coin buyers the coin is tainted/a problem coin. Lack of adhering to its policy harms the OP. Whether CAC likes it or not, it has power in the market based on the assumption that it is going to be as objective as possible and follow its stated guidelines. If not, CAC needs to be more candid about its policies and the market needs to reassess its role/power accordingly.
This may be an inexpensive piece, but if CAC will waver on this, what will it do for more valuable coins? One man or company should not have that much power (I.e. to relegate a coin to the status of numismatic leper on whim/caprice).
@Catbert said:
Well I just went on the CAC board and JA said this:
"No." "We wouldn’t want to monetize a “mistake” from a TPGS If it were to receive a gold sticker, it would unlikely be returned to pcgs and could be seen as an embarrassment."
I don’t really see where CAC would have a choice if it is going to be consistent.
The man who makes the CAC sticker decisions just explained why CAC would not endorse such a scheme.
He’s not a god nor should he be in the position of setting policy for the hobby and treated as such. CAC’s job is to decide if a coin is solid for the grade or better, and if the latter whether it is merely high end or undergraded by at least one point. If CAC doesn’t stick to its word and published standards, then what good is it? If CAC were more consistent (as opposed to even less consistent) with its application of the gold sticker then faux sticker rarity wouldn’t be an issue.
Edited: And CAC has stickered mechanical errors before (e.g. wrong date) so the decision really comes to perceived value of the coin with a sticker which should be immaterial to his decision making.
He didn’t try to set policy for the hobby. He stated CAC’s policy, which he has every right to do.
And the marketplace appears to be a bit more impressed with CAC’s application of their gold stickers than you are.
If you can’t take some one at their word and a business knowingly and intentionally disregards its published standards, what good is it? That the coin could have yielded a profit for the OP is none of CAC’s concern nor does it satisfy CAC’s stated purpose and goals.
And regardless of the thread, it isn’t a mere issue of faux rarity alone but a lack of gold sticker (or any sticker at all) means that to many U.S. coin buyers the coin is tainted/a problem coin. Lack of adhering to its policy harms the OP. Whether CAC likes it or not, it has power in the market based on the assumption that it is going to be as objective as possible and follow its stated guidelines. If not, CAC needs to be more candid about its policies and the market needs to reassess its role/power accordingly.
This may be an inexpensive piece, but if CAC will waver on this, what will it do for more valuable coins? One man or company should not have that much power (I.e. to relegate a coin to the status of numismatic leper on whim/caprice).
The grade is obviously a mechanical error. If the coin is a “numismatic leper” - which I think is an absurd label for it - that’s not because CAC refuses to award it a gold sticker. You obviously have a giant CAC chip on your shoulder.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Catbert said:
Well I just went on the CAC board and JA said this:
"No." "We wouldn’t want to monetize a “mistake” from a TPGS If it were to receive a gold sticker, it would unlikely be returned to pcgs and could be seen as an embarrassment."
I don’t really see where CAC would have a choice if it is going to be consistent.
The man who makes the CAC sticker decisions just explained why CAC would not endorse such a scheme.
He’s not a god nor should he be in the position of setting policy for the hobby and treated as such. CAC’s job is to decide if a coin is solid for the grade or better, and if the latter whether it is merely high end or undergraded by at least one point. If CAC doesn’t stick to its word and published standards, then what good is it? If CAC were more consistent (as opposed to even less consistent) with its application of the gold sticker then faux sticker rarity wouldn’t be an issue.
Edited: And CAC has stickered mechanical errors before (e.g. wrong date) so the decision really comes to perceived value of the coin with a sticker which should be immaterial to his decision making.
He didn’t try to set policy for the hobby. He stated CAC’s policy, which he has every right to do.
And the marketplace appears to be a bit more impressed with CAC’s application of their gold stickers than you are.
If you can’t take some one at their word and a business knowingly and intentionally disregards its published standards, what good is it? That the coin could have yielded a profit for the OP is none of CAC’s concern nor does it satisfy CAC’s stated purpose and goals.
And regardless of the thread, it isn’t a mere issue of faux rarity alone but a lack of gold sticker (or any sticker at all) means that to many U.S. coin buyers the coin is tainted/a problem coin. Lack of adhering to its policy harms the OP. Whether CAC likes it or not, it has power in the market based on the assumption that it is going to be as objective as possible and follow its stated guidelines. If not, CAC needs to be more candid about its policies and the market needs to reassess its role/power accordingly.
This may be an inexpensive piece, but if CAC will waver on this, what will it do for more valuable coins? One man or company should not have that much power (I.e. to relegate a coin to the status of numismatic leper on whim/caprice).
Wow, that's a lot of slippery slope rhetoric over the completely logical decision not to sticker a coin with a label that has an obvious mechanical error.
CAC doesn't need to do anything in regards to their policies. Also, CAC has this much so-called "power" because the market gave CAC this much "power." If the market changes its mind, so be it. If it doesn't, it doesn't (and this seems to be the much more likely scenario). There's no right or wrong about it. Deal with it.
@Catbert said:
Well I just went on the CAC board and JA said this:
"No." "We wouldn’t want to monetize a “mistake” from a TPGS If it were to receive a gold sticker, it would unlikely be returned to pcgs and could be seen as an embarrassment."
I don’t really see where CAC would have a choice if it is going to be consistent.
The man who makes the CAC sticker decisions just explained why CAC would not endorse such a scheme.
He’s not a god nor should he be in the position of setting policy for the hobby and treated as such. CAC’s job is to decide if a coin is solid for the grade or better, and if the latter whether it is merely high end or undergraded by at least one point. If CAC doesn’t stick to its word and published standards, then what good is it? If CAC were more consistent (as opposed to even less consistent) with its application of the gold sticker then faux sticker rarity wouldn’t be an issue.
Edited: And CAC has stickered mechanical errors before (e.g. wrong date) so the decision really comes to perceived value of the coin with a sticker which should be immaterial to his decision making.
He didn’t try to set policy for the hobby. He stated CAC’s policy, which he has every right to do.
And the marketplace appears to be a bit more impressed with CAC’s application of their gold stickers than you are.
If you can’t take some one at their word and a business knowingly and intentionally disregards its published standards, what good is it? That the coin could have yielded a profit for the OP is none of CAC’s concern nor does it satisfy CAC’s stated purpose and goals.
And regardless of the thread, it isn’t a mere issue of faux rarity alone but a lack of gold sticker (or any sticker at all) means that to many U.S. coin buyers the coin is tainted/a problem coin. Lack of adhering to its policy harms the OP. Whether CAC likes it or not, it has power in the market based on the assumption that it is going to be as objective as possible and follow its stated guidelines. If not, CAC needs to be more candid about its policies and the market needs to reassess its role/power accordingly.
This may be an inexpensive piece, but if CAC will waver on this, what will it do for more valuable coins? One man or company should not have that much power (I.e. to relegate a coin to the status of numismatic leper on whim/caprice).
The grade is obviously a mechanical error. If the coin is a “numismatic leper” - which I think is an absurd label for it - that’s not because CAC refuses to award it a gold sticker. You obviously have a giant CAC chip on your shoulder.
I have problems with those that don’t honor their word or offer services that they refuse to honor to the detriment of others. That is by no means CAC specific, and I would be saying that regardless of who it is. That I find myself in the minority (and perhaps even alone) is troubling. Words have meaning, and the willingness of the hobby to ignore standards or make exceptions on whim is exactly why the hobby took a nose drive and purportedly one of the reasons for the creation of CAC.
And while you and others may find this one “obvious” (and perhaps it is obvious), how does one define “obvious mechanical error?” Your argument is a very slippery slope when you grant one person or company veto power over a coin. Where do we draw the line? 2 points? 3 points? 4 points? 5 points? What about a current market grade bust half that is MS64 with the faintest bit of rub in a PCGS rattler or a no line fatty in an AU58 holder? Is that coin worthy of being refused any sticker? What about the Northern Lights 1904-O monster toned Morgan Dollar in a MS64 that eventually made it to MS67 CAC? Should they have denied that one a gold sticker as a 64 even though it looked ridiculous there? Not everyone plays the crack out game. And whether you acknowledge it or not, much of the market will treat the coin without a sticker as numismatic trash - over graded, tooled, cleaned, etc. That is regardless of the price level.
In the archives here you’ll find several gem threads including a poster concerned his MS65 gem common date Peace Dollar wouldn’t sticker as he had read online that he should be “CAC only.” And let’s not forget the JA post mortem thread full of collectors worried what would become of their CAC coins “post JA” (the discussion wasn’t limited to retirement by any means). That shows you how monopolistic (and sick) the U.S. certified market has become. At least we were told that this would be based on the condition of the coin and not some subjective criteria that sticker alone would make a coin “too valuable” or that it might embarrass someone else. My argument isn’t about this coin so much as it is about the larger principle.
Edited to add: Let’s not forget the informal “contest” on the CAC forum to find out who has the least valuable CACed coin. So close OP.
Opinions are opinions. Rules are rules. CAC can make their own on both sides since they own the company. But if the CAC rules state they award a gold sticker for a coin that would be high-end in the grade above or higher, then that is the rules. If a VG10 slab has a coin that appears MS63 then that fits the rules and should be treated the same. If CAC has an opinion that this is an error label why does that matter? They ignore their rules to not sticker a coin that meets their parameters. And why would it make any difference to CAC or anyone else to have a gold sticker on an under-graded coin anyway? At this point it is more of a novelty item and a slab error collector's dream, I would imagine that the addition of a gold sticker would only make that collector happier.
I have never submitted any coins to CAC. I have a few CAC coins in my collection and I am warming up to the idea of CAC stickers. The cost of submitting is the thing I just could not justify doing as a collector. As a seller is a different discussion. I used to think that I had a couple of gold sticker candidates but now I am not so sure. For example, I have a graded AU58 seated half dollar. I bought this coin as an MS63 from a well known seated half dealer many years ago and I was surprised when it graded AU. Now that I see mechanical errors of grade can actually occur, my opinion for today is that this must be a mechanical error. I wonder if in CAC's opinion they too might consider this under-graded coin a mechanical error. If so, it looks like CAC won't put a sticker on it if I was to send it in. If I only knew what they would do... I wonder what CAC's definition of mechanical (clerical) error is. How many points does it take to go from under-graded gold sticker worthy to clerical error no-sticker for you status? All this opinion stuff is just so confusing!
Not sure but I'm guessing they're pretending that slab doesn't exist anymore.
.
.
Well, they can poof the certification, but that doesn't poof the physical slab and coin.
Yes, it does. Happens automatically. Best to stand back.
Turns into some sort of NFT...
100th pint of blood donated 7/19/2022 . Transactions with WilliamF, Relaxn, LukeMarshal, jclovescoins, braddick, JWP, Weather11am, Fairlaneman, Dscoins, lordmarcovan, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, JimW. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that who so believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.
_ The grade is obviously a mechanical error. If the coin is a “numismatic leper” - which I think is an absurd label for it - that’s not because CAC refuses to award it a gold sticker. You obviously have a giant CAC chip on your shoulder._
@Batman23 said:
Opinions are opinions. Rules are rules. CAC can make their own on both sides since they own the company. But if the CAC rules state they award a gold sticker for a coin that would be high-end in the grade above or higher, then that is the rules. If a VG10 slab has a coin that appears MS63 then that fits the rules and should be treated the same. If CAC has an opinion that this is an error label why does that matter? They ignore their rules to not sticker a coin that meets their parameters. And why would it make any difference to CAC or anyone else to have a gold sticker on an under-graded coin anyway? At this point it is more of a novelty item and a slab error collector's dream, I would imagine that the addition of a gold sticker would only make that collector happier.
I have never submitted any coins to CAC. I have a few CAC coins in my collection and I am warming up to the idea of CAC stickers. The cost of submitting is the thing I just could not justify doing as a collector. As a seller is a different discussion. I used to think that I had a couple of gold sticker candidates but now I am not so sure. For example, I have a graded AU58 seated half dollar. I bought this coin as an MS63 from a well known seated half dealer many years ago and I was surprised when it graded AU. Now that I see mechanical errors of grade can actually occur, my opinion for today is that this must be a mechanical error. I wonder if in CAC's opinion they too might consider this under-graded coin a mechanical error. If so, it looks like CAC won't put a sticker on it if I was to send it in. If I only knew what they would do... I wonder what CAC's definition of mechanical (clerical) error is. How many points does it take to go from under-graded gold sticker worthy to clerical error no-sticker for you status? All this opinion stuff is just so confusing!
Another slippery slope argument. When a coin is obviously uncirculated and is in a VG10 holder, that's a clear mechanical error. When a coin is one or two or three points undergraded by CAC standards, it is not necessarily an error. Just because in this scenario where a coin is very very obviously mislabeled, CAC does not agree to put a grade on the slab, does not mean that CAC will call any other undergraded coin a mechanical error when the distinction is not so obvious. Anyway, PCGS has now killed the cert, confirming that it is a mechanical error.
Not speaking to anyone in particular but it’s funny how JA must impose his rules for stickering coins to a letter but in another thread people are bitching about eBay sending 1099s so they will have to pay their taxes. Even though the taxes are due regardless. And even though JA gets to decide his own standards on a coin by coin basis.
I guess the letter of the law only applies to other people.
@bigjpst said:
Not speaking to anyone in particular but it’s funny how JA must impose his rules for stickering coins to a letter but in another thread people are bitching about eBay sending 1099s so they will have to pay their taxes. Even though the taxes are due regardless. And even though JA gets to decide his own standards on a coin by coin basis.
I guess the letter of the law only applies to other people.
I’m the main one taking issue with the impromptu CAC policy change, and for the record, I posted to the 1099 thread that other than bookkeeping it made no difference as tax obligations always existed. No irony or inconsistency there…
@bigjpst said:
Not speaking to anyone in particular but it’s funny how JA must impose his rules for stickering coins to a letter but in another thread people are bitching about eBay sending 1099s so they will have to pay their taxes. Even though the taxes are due regardless. And even though JA gets to decide his own standards on a coin by coin basis.
I guess the letter of the law only applies to other people.
I’m the main one taking issue with the impromptu CAC policy change, and for the record, I posted to the 1099 thread that other than bookkeeping it made no difference as tax obligations always existed. No irony or inconsistency there…
Edited: typo
Ok then. While your at it and being consistent, there is a post on the registry forum about price guide having an decimal error in price. Let’s get on PCGS about honoring the $125k price instead of $12,500. Clearly they should stand by their mistakes.
@bigjpst said:
Not speaking to anyone in particular but it’s funny how JA must impose his rules for stickering coins to a letter but in another thread people are bitching about eBay sending 1099s so they will have to pay their taxes. Even though the taxes are due regardless. And even though JA gets to decide his own standards on a coin by coin basis.
I guess the letter of the law only applies to other people. @cameonut2011 said:
@bigjpst said:
Not speaking to anyone in particular but it’s funny how JA must impose his rules for stickering coins to a letter but in another thread people are bitching about eBay sending 1099s so they will have to pay their taxes. Even though the taxes are due regardless. And even though JA gets to decide his own standards on a coin by coin basis.
I guess the letter of the law only applies to other people.
I’m the main one taking issue with the impromptu CAC policy change, and for the record, I posted to the 1099 thread that other than bookkeeping it made no difference as tax obligations always existed. No irony or inconsistency there…
Edited: typo
Where did you read their policy (that you have accused them of changing) regarding how they deal with obvious mechanical errors of this nature? There was no policy change here - not every situation is predicted or spelled out in advance. Situations arise and decisions are made. You've made it quite clear that you dislike their policy on this issue.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@bigjpst said:
Not speaking to anyone in particular but it’s funny how JA must impose his rules for stickering coins to a letter but in another thread people are bitching about eBay sending 1099s so they will have to pay their taxes. Even though the taxes are due regardless. And even though JA gets to decide his own standards on a coin by coin basis.
I guess the letter of the law only applies to other people.
I’m the main one taking issue with the impromptu CAC policy change, and for the record, I posted to the 1099 thread that other than bookkeeping it made no difference as tax obligations always existed. No irony or inconsistency there…
Edited: typo
Ok then. While your at it and being consistent, there is a post on the registry forum about price guide having an decimal error in price. Let’s get on PCGS about honoring the $125k price instead of $12,500. Clearly they should stand by their mistakes.
The analogy is not apt in anyway whatsoever. The price guide is not determinative of the individual quality of any one coin and as we all know the quality can vary significantly even within the same grade.
Where did you read their policy (that you have accused them of changing) regarding how they deal with obvious mechanical errors of this nature? There was no policy change here - not every situation is predicted or spelled out in advance. Situations arise and decisions are made. You've made it quite clear that you dislike their policy on this issue.
The stated policy is that coins under graded by at least one full point are awarded a gold sticker. There is no qualification regarding being too under graded for a sticker, and the language is categorical. Applying the plain meaning of the language on the CAC website leads to only one conclusion: The coin is unequivocally deserving of a gold sticker.
Perhaps even more perplexing is that CAC has stickered coins with other mechanical errors. For instance one forum member (Lance) here has a Bust half dollar that is certified with an incorrect date that CAC awarded a green sticker. In that case CAC would be justified in denying a sticker because CAC standards arguably cannot be applied given the conflicting label information (I.e. the coin cannot be certified as 182X date rather than 182Y date and doing so would undermine the sight unseen trading market it seeks to establish). No such conflict applies here and the application of the plain meaning of the language is clear: A coin that does not sticker upon review is low end for the grade or otherwise a problem coin. A coin that is solid or high end receive a green sticker. Coins that are one interval undergraded or more are awarded a gold sticker. Logically only one of these scenarios applies, and it is the position I took in this thread. And unlike a conflicting label, the standards can unambiguously be applied as written here. When there is nothing preventing an application of those straight forward standards and no ambiguity results, the standards should be applied as written.
Also, insofar as grade is determined, what level constitutes a mechanical error? In practice CAC coins have to be high end for the next grade up and gold sticker basically at 2 points undergraded. Why not state that it will sticker coins undergraded by X-Y points (a presumably narrow range)? Why beat around the bush and add ambiguity?
Basically the submitter of the coin is doubly penalized. He was denied a fair grade. It would cost more in shipping to have it regraded than the coin is worth. Now CAC refuses to state the obvious, and in doing so it creates ambiguity in the mind of some that perhaps the coin has some problem. If you all think my position is absurd, then it is time for you all to take a realistic look at how warped and distorted the market is. There really are collectors that will insist on a sticker on an ultra widget with even de minis numismatic value.
And again this about principle and not specific to any one coin. Someone could just as easily be shafted on a $10k or $100k coin as they would on a $10 coin. If CAC makes up new regulations on the fly, what other special exceptions will be created? What about those not announced before a submitter wastes postage and submission processing fees? It’s time to acknowledge that a CAC sticker isn’t really all about the quality of the coin alone and is not a grading service. It’s time for collectors to stop treating as such.
And finally, CAC harms no one by faithfully applying its standards here. Whether someone ascribes a large premium to it for the mechanical error isn’t CAC’s problem nor is the buyer being mislead. If it is such an obvious mechanical then the market will obviously know this based on images and the free market can set those prices. Last, its argument that the coin would somehow embarrass PCGS seems incredible to me. PCGS grades many multiples of what CAC grades every year, so of course some mistakes will slip through. I hardly call that embarrassing. I think PCGS does an excellent job overall. And if that would be embarrassing why wouldn’t gold stickering any coin or rejecting coins be any more or less embarrassing? CAC was literally started, at least in part, to grade the graders so why won’t he just go ahead and do it faithfully?
And finally, CAC harms no one by faithfully applying its standards here.
Except maybe CAC. Sticker if a coin with such an obvious grade mistake would likely open them up to ridicule by the people who seem to find any reason to bash them.
I think many would argue that this is a more obvious mechanical error than a wrong date. The coin with the wrong date in the label could be accurately graded and deserves a sticker. Maybe they actually missed that it was a wrong date.
Many coins that are at least one grade higher don’t receive a sticker for a number of reasons. The bottom line is that CAC doesn’t want their sticker on it. Just like I’m sure PCGS doesn’t want this out there.
And finally, CAC harms no one by faithfully applying its standards here.
Except maybe CAC. Sticker if a coin with such an obvious grade mistake would likely open them up to ridicule by the people who seem to find any reason to bash them.
I think many would argue that this is a more obvious mechanical error than a wrong date. The coin with the wrong date in the label could be accurately graded and deserves a sticker. Maybe they actually missed that it was a wrong date.
Many coins that are at least one grade higher don’t receive a sticker for a number of reasons. The bottom line is that CAC doesn’t want their sticker on it. Just like I’m sure PCGS doesn’t want this out there.
What exactly would be the criticism for accurately applying the standards that you created? That it sticks by its word? I’d love that “criticism“ if I were them. I think most others would feel the same.
I also find the “missed the date” argument extremely unlikely. If you haven’t inspected the major devices, how can you say the coin is solid or high end for the grade? I see how the person printing the label or inputting it into a computer could make a typographical error, but when in the grading the coin? CAC doesn’t have as much room for making errors as the services do as the evaluation process is different. Unlike the services which do everything de novo, CAC merely looks at the label and says yes or no. If you haven’t even looked at the date to see if it matches a known die marriage, how do you even authenticate the said coin? Some counterfeits are very subtle and every now and then one slips by the services. One would hope CAC would be looking out for these and making an independent assessment. If not, then again, what is the purpose of CAC for collectors? I assumed it was to bolster confidence in the coin as it had purportedly been independently assessed by multiple experts.
And you also miss the obvious purpose that CAC was meant to start a dealer to dealer network to trade coins sight unseen based on CAC’s opinion. Presumably that would entail verifying the contents of the TPG label or the whole system falls a part. It is more likely CAC saw the date and saw it fit to ignore for some reason.
@cameonut2011 would you give it a rest? You’re dramatizing something incredibly inconsequential to ridiculous and nonsensical proportions. There must be better ways you can make use of your time.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@Rexford said: @cameonut2011 would you give it a rest? You’re dramatizing something incredibly inconsequential to ridiculous and nonsensical proportions. There must be better ways you can make use of your time.
.
100th pint of blood donated 7/19/2022 . Transactions with WilliamF, Relaxn, LukeMarshal, jclovescoins, braddick, JWP, Weather11am, Fairlaneman, Dscoins, lordmarcovan, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, JimW. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that who so believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Comments
It would be priceless to open up this thread a month or two from now and see this coin paired with an inexplicable "not CAC" result. Is that a microscopic carbon spot on the neck?
Send it in already!
My rationale is that it's an obvious mistake and why participate in a farce. That's my view anyway. The true test of course would be to send it in to see whose guess is correct.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Well I just went on the CAC board and JA said this:
"No." "We wouldn’t want to monetize a “mistake” from a TPGS If it were to receive a gold sticker, it would unlikely be returned to pcgs and could be seen as an embarrassment."
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Send it to CAC for a gold bean.
Need a CAC platinum diamond sticker
Collector
75 Positive BST transactions buying and selling with 45 members and counting!
instagram.com/klnumismatics
I don’t really see where CAC would have a choice if it is going to be consistent.
The man who makes the CAC sticker decisions just explained why CAC would not endorse such a scheme.
I love it - what a score!!
Kind of makes you wonder what really happens during the QA step. There was another thread regarding mechanical errors too.
People who never make mistakes in life must be doing nothing at all. Stuff happens.
Yep, stuff happens!! CAC will not accept the coin. They call is a clerical error and will not accept for submission.
Rejected for a clerical error I guess is better than rejecting for a grading error. Otherwise how could they sleep at night putting a gold sticker on anything... let alone an AU58 that might jump up 5 points.
Yep. That's exactly what it means. There's another one around that is the polar opposite.
Pete
I think this is a one coin error. This cert number is one of 9 consecutive 1947-D quarters. All the others are MS63. It also appears to be part of a larger submission of MS63ish quarters. I doubt there was a VG10 in that whole submission.
It is part of a 152 coin submission of several different dates. Grades basically range from MS63-MS66. #43817002 is an AU58. I did not check every cert, just spot checking, but I saw 27 1947-Ds in the group. Enough for me to think that these were pulled from UNC rolls.
He’s not a god nor should he be in the position of setting policy for the hobby and treated as such. CAC’s job is to decide if a coin is solid for the grade or better, and if the latter whether it is merely high end or undergraded by at least one point. If CAC doesn’t stick to its word and published standards, then what good is it? If CAC were more consistent (as opposed to even less consistent) with its application of the gold sticker then faux sticker rarity wouldn’t be an issue.
Edited: And CAC has stickered mechanical errors before (e.g. wrong date) so the decision really comes to perceived value of the coin with a sticker which should be immaterial to his decision making.
He didn’t try to set policy for the hobby. He stated CAC’s policy, which he has every right to do.
And the marketplace appears to be a bit more impressed with CAC’s application of their gold stickers than you are.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Cert number no longer in the PCGS data base..............
What does that mean?
Not sure but I'm guessing they're pretending that slab doesn't exist anymore.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I hope it means they’re going to offer the OP a regrade free of cost (including shipping) since PCGS apparently voided the grade on this one.
.
.
Well, they can poof the certification, but that doesn't poof the physical slab and coin.
If you can’t take some one at their word and a business knowingly and intentionally disregards its published standards, what good is it? That the coin could have yielded a profit for the OP is none of CAC’s concern nor does it satisfy CAC’s stated purpose and goals.
And regardless of the thread, it isn’t a mere issue of faux rarity alone but a lack of gold sticker (or any sticker at all) means that to many U.S. coin buyers the coin is tainted/a problem coin. Lack of adhering to its policy harms the OP. Whether CAC likes it or not, it has power in the market based on the assumption that it is going to be as objective as possible and follow its stated guidelines. If not, CAC needs to be more candid about its policies and the market needs to reassess its role/power accordingly.
This may be an inexpensive piece, but if CAC will waver on this, what will it do for more valuable coins? One man or company should not have that much power (I.e. to relegate a coin to the status of numismatic leper on whim/caprice).
Just crack out and put in 2x2 as Gem BU.
Otherwise call PCGS customer service see what can be done get situation resolved.
Even if got 64 not even worth slab cost.
The grade is obviously a mechanical error. If the coin is a “numismatic leper” - which I think is an absurd label for it - that’s not because CAC refuses to award it a gold sticker. You obviously have a giant CAC chip on your shoulder.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Wow, that's a lot of slippery slope rhetoric over the completely logical decision not to sticker a coin with a label that has an obvious mechanical error.
CAC doesn't need to do anything in regards to their policies. Also, CAC has this much so-called "power" because the market gave CAC this much "power." If the market changes its mind, so be it. If it doesn't, it doesn't (and this seems to be the much more likely scenario). There's no right or wrong about it. Deal with it.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
I have problems with those that don’t honor their word or offer services that they refuse to honor to the detriment of others. That is by no means CAC specific, and I would be saying that regardless of who it is. That I find myself in the minority (and perhaps even alone) is troubling. Words have meaning, and the willingness of the hobby to ignore standards or make exceptions on whim is exactly why the hobby took a nose drive and purportedly one of the reasons for the creation of CAC.
And while you and others may find this one “obvious” (and perhaps it is obvious), how does one define “obvious mechanical error?” Your argument is a very slippery slope when you grant one person or company veto power over a coin. Where do we draw the line? 2 points? 3 points? 4 points? 5 points? What about a current market grade bust half that is MS64 with the faintest bit of rub in a PCGS rattler or a no line fatty in an AU58 holder? Is that coin worthy of being refused any sticker? What about the Northern Lights 1904-O monster toned Morgan Dollar in a MS64 that eventually made it to MS67 CAC? Should they have denied that one a gold sticker as a 64 even though it looked ridiculous there? Not everyone plays the crack out game. And whether you acknowledge it or not, much of the market will treat the coin without a sticker as numismatic trash - over graded, tooled, cleaned, etc. That is regardless of the price level.
In the archives here you’ll find several gem threads including a poster concerned his MS65 gem common date Peace Dollar wouldn’t sticker as he had read online that he should be “CAC only.” And let’s not forget the JA post mortem thread full of collectors worried what would become of their CAC coins “post JA” (the discussion wasn’t limited to retirement by any means). That shows you how monopolistic (and sick) the U.S. certified market has become. At least we were told that this would be based on the condition of the coin and not some subjective criteria that sticker alone would make a coin “too valuable” or that it might embarrass someone else. My argument isn’t about this coin so much as it is about the larger principle.
Edited to add: Let’s not forget the informal “contest” on the CAC forum to find out who has the least valuable CACed coin.
So close OP. 
Opinions are opinions. Rules are rules. CAC can make their own on both sides since they own the company. But if the CAC rules state they award a gold sticker for a coin that would be high-end in the grade above or higher, then that is the rules. If a VG10 slab has a coin that appears MS63 then that fits the rules and should be treated the same. If CAC has an opinion that this is an error label why does that matter? They ignore their rules to not sticker a coin that meets their parameters. And why would it make any difference to CAC or anyone else to have a gold sticker on an under-graded coin anyway? At this point it is more of a novelty item and a slab error collector's dream, I would imagine that the addition of a gold sticker would only make that collector happier.
I have never submitted any coins to CAC. I have a few CAC coins in my collection and I am warming up to the idea of CAC stickers. The cost of submitting is the thing I just could not justify doing as a collector. As a seller is a different discussion. I used to think that I had a couple of gold sticker candidates but now I am not so sure. For example, I have a graded AU58 seated half dollar. I bought this coin as an MS63 from a well known seated half dealer many years ago and I was surprised when it graded AU. Now that I see mechanical errors of grade can actually occur, my opinion for today is that this must be a mechanical error. I wonder if in CAC's opinion they too might consider this under-graded coin a mechanical error. If so, it looks like CAC won't put a sticker on it if I was to send it in. If I only knew what they would do... I wonder what CAC's definition of mechanical (clerical) error is. How many points does it take to go from under-graded gold sticker worthy to clerical error no-sticker for you status? All this opinion stuff is just so confusing!
Yes, it does. Happens automatically. Best to stand back.
Smitten with DBLCs.
Turns into some sort of NFT...
And to think people say PCGS grading was stricter back in the old days!
_ The grade is obviously a mechanical error. If the coin is a “numismatic leper” - which I think is an absurd label for it - that’s not because CAC refuses to award it a gold sticker. You obviously have a giant CAC chip on your shoulder._
This. Cameo - quit being an idiot
Another slippery slope argument. When a coin is obviously uncirculated and is in a VG10 holder, that's a clear mechanical error. When a coin is one or two or three points undergraded by CAC standards, it is not necessarily an error. Just because in this scenario where a coin is very very obviously mislabeled, CAC does not agree to put a grade on the slab, does not mean that CAC will call any other undergraded coin a mechanical error when the distinction is not so obvious. Anyway, PCGS has now killed the cert, confirming that it is a mechanical error.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Slopes,_arguments,_and_fallacies
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
I would send them the pic first and ask rather than waste the money submitting it.
Not speaking to anyone in particular but it’s funny how JA must impose his rules for stickering coins to a letter but in another thread people are bitching about eBay sending 1099s so they will have to pay their taxes. Even though the taxes are due regardless. And even though JA gets to decide his own standards on a coin by coin basis.
I guess the letter of the law only applies to other people.
My Ebay Store
I’m the main one taking issue with the impromptu CAC policy change, and for the record, I posted to the 1099 thread that other than bookkeeping it made no difference as tax obligations always existed. No irony or inconsistency there…
Edited: typo
CAC won’t touch it. Incorrectly labeled.
Ok then. While your at it and being consistent, there is a post on the registry forum about price guide having an decimal error in price. Let’s get on PCGS about honoring the $125k price instead of $12,500. Clearly they should stand by their mistakes.
My Ebay Store
Where did you read their policy (that you have accused them of changing) regarding how they deal with obvious mechanical errors of this nature? There was no policy change here - not every situation is predicted or spelled out in advance. Situations arise and decisions are made. You've made it quite clear that you dislike their policy on this issue.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The analogy is not apt in anyway whatsoever. The price guide is not determinative of the individual quality of any one coin and as we all know the quality can vary significantly even within the same grade.
The stated policy is that coins under graded by at least one full point are awarded a gold sticker. There is no qualification regarding being too under graded for a sticker, and the language is categorical. Applying the plain meaning of the language on the CAC website leads to only one conclusion: The coin is unequivocally deserving of a gold sticker.
Perhaps even more perplexing is that CAC has stickered coins with other mechanical errors. For instance one forum member (Lance) here has a Bust half dollar that is certified with an incorrect date that CAC awarded a green sticker. In that case CAC would be justified in denying a sticker because CAC standards arguably cannot be applied given the conflicting label information (I.e. the coin cannot be certified as 182X date rather than 182Y date and doing so would undermine the sight unseen trading market it seeks to establish). No such conflict applies here and the application of the plain meaning of the language is clear: A coin that does not sticker upon review is low end for the grade or otherwise a problem coin. A coin that is solid or high end receive a green sticker. Coins that are one interval undergraded or more are awarded a gold sticker. Logically only one of these scenarios applies, and it is the position I took in this thread. And unlike a conflicting label, the standards can unambiguously be applied as written here. When there is nothing preventing an application of those straight forward standards and no ambiguity results, the standards should be applied as written.
Also, insofar as grade is determined, what level constitutes a mechanical error? In practice CAC coins have to be high end for the next grade up and gold sticker basically at 2 points undergraded. Why not state that it will sticker coins undergraded by X-Y points (a presumably narrow range)? Why beat around the bush and add ambiguity?
Basically the submitter of the coin is doubly penalized. He was denied a fair grade. It would cost more in shipping to have it regraded than the coin is worth. Now CAC refuses to state the obvious, and in doing so it creates ambiguity in the mind of some that perhaps the coin has some problem. If you all think my position is absurd, then it is time for you all to take a realistic look at how warped and distorted the market is. There really are collectors that will insist on a sticker on an ultra widget with even de minis numismatic value.
And again this about principle and not specific to any one coin. Someone could just as easily be shafted on a $10k or $100k coin as they would on a $10 coin. If CAC makes up new regulations on the fly, what other special exceptions will be created? What about those not announced before a submitter wastes postage and submission processing fees? It’s time to acknowledge that a CAC sticker isn’t really all about the quality of the coin alone and is not a grading service. It’s time for collectors to stop treating as such.
And finally, CAC harms no one by faithfully applying its standards here. Whether someone ascribes a large premium to it for the mechanical error isn’t CAC’s problem nor is the buyer being mislead. If it is such an obvious mechanical then the market will obviously know this based on images and the free market can set those prices. Last, its argument that the coin would somehow embarrass PCGS seems incredible to me. PCGS grades many multiples of what CAC grades every year, so of course some mistakes will slip through. I hardly call that embarrassing. I think PCGS does an excellent job overall. And if that would be embarrassing why wouldn’t gold stickering any coin or rejecting coins be any more or less embarrassing? CAC was literally started, at least in part, to grade the graders so why won’t he just go ahead and do it faithfully?
Except maybe CAC. Sticker if a coin with such an obvious grade mistake would likely open them up to ridicule by the people who seem to find any reason to bash them.
I think many would argue that this is a more obvious mechanical error than a wrong date. The coin with the wrong date in the label could be accurately graded and deserves a sticker. Maybe they actually missed that it was a wrong date.
Many coins that are at least one grade higher don’t receive a sticker for a number of reasons. The bottom line is that CAC doesn’t want their sticker on it. Just like I’m sure PCGS doesn’t want this out there.
My Ebay Store
What exactly would be the criticism for accurately applying the standards that you created? That it sticks by its word? I’d love that “criticism“ if I were them. I think most others would feel the same.
I also find the “missed the date” argument extremely unlikely. If you haven’t inspected the major devices, how can you say the coin is solid or high end for the grade? I see how the person printing the label or inputting it into a computer could make a typographical error, but when in the grading the coin? CAC doesn’t have as much room for making errors as the services do as the evaluation process is different. Unlike the services which do everything de novo, CAC merely looks at the label and says yes or no. If you haven’t even looked at the date to see if it matches a known die marriage, how do you even authenticate the said coin? Some counterfeits are very subtle and every now and then one slips by the services. One would hope CAC would be looking out for these and making an independent assessment. If not, then again, what is the purpose of CAC for collectors? I assumed it was to bolster confidence in the coin as it had purportedly been independently assessed by multiple experts.
And you also miss the obvious purpose that CAC was meant to start a dealer to dealer network to trade coins sight unseen based on CAC’s opinion. Presumably that would entail verifying the contents of the TPG label or the whole system falls a part. It is more likely CAC saw the date and saw it fit to ignore for some reason.
@cameonut2011 would you give it a rest? You’re dramatizing something incredibly inconsequential to ridiculous and nonsensical proportions. There must be better ways you can make use of your time.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
It would be embarrassing for CAC to sticker this quarter.
It should be embarrassing for anyone to think otherwise.
peacockcoins
Why haven't the moderators shut down this thread?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
.
Our host is making a concerted effort to crack down on grade inflation.....