Wow, what a humorous comment. Your facetious CAC digs on every thread never get old, and they bring amusement to us all.
It's a valid consideration. Which one would I likely be able to flip for a profit in the future? If there are some problems that caused the first coin to fail to sticker, then many may treat it as a problem coin too. And if there are two problem coins, why not go with the most attractive one?
If that’s the case, then I apologize for my misinterpretation. I agree with that logic.
No need to apologize. I'm sometimes less clear than I should be. And not to condemn the first coin but the services are good for silently net grading or letting problems slip by on circulated key date coins. I'd want to see both in hand, but the second coin is unusually nice for a "problem" coin.
From photos, #2, but would need to see in hand how lightly cleaned. Also light cleaning is way more obvious on AU and above grades. If the TPGs are going to let something be net graded, its the lower graded and priced key dates. The VF might have also been cleaned. But you don't want to make a mistake on #2 when that mistake is $thousands.
@skier07 said:
I wouldn’t buy either coin but if I was forced to make a decision I would reluctantly pick the straight graded one. There’s no good reason to buy a details 16-D IMHO. They’re expensive but certainly not rare and there’s no reason to compromise.
All 16-D's are way overpriced to the point of ridiculousness. Despite being a key, it is as common as mud in a wet field except in MS grades where it is uncommon (certainly not rare). But bc it is called a key, demand is high and folks pay way too much for these. So I agree with you that I would not spend my money on either, or, any other 16-D in existence. Certainly for the money for one of these in any grade one can buy truly rare coins in less common series.....................
I paid $565 for an AG3 in haste just to be done with that set thinking of upgrading it later. Don't exactly regret it but guess I should have waited a little longer.
I have a hard time believing that both coins can be had at the same price. Every real 16D dime goes for fairly strong money and if coin #2 is genuine cleaned I can't see it dropping all the way down to a VF price. Maybe to XF price but still desirable, especially cracked out and in an album.
I agree with many that I tend to shy away from problem coins. If my choices were only these 2 coins, I think I would take the gamble on #2. But I'd also keep in mind that it's not like it's going to be 10 years until the next 16D comes for sale if you pass on both.
The problem is the binary world the TPGs have created, in which every straight-graded coin, no matter how ugly, exists on a higher plane than every details-graded coin, no matter how attractive.
That's the beauty of buying a coin with a CAC. It becomes a binary decision if the price is acceptable. If you don't like the way it looks, don't buy it.
The problem is the binary world the TPGs have created, in which every straight-graded coin, no matter how ugly, exists on a higher plane than every details-graded coin, no matter how attractive.
That's the beauty of buying a coin with a CAC. It becomes a binary decision if the price is acceptable. If you don't like the way it looks, don't buy it.
While I agree that CAC is useful (in the sense that I generally will pay more for a coin with a CAC sticker than I would for the same one without), I have seen many CAC-stickered coins that are butt-ugly. To me, it is obvious that CAC uses the same flawed standards as PCGS and NGC, allowing ugly coins to be straight-graded while consigning some attractive coins to purgatory).
So, to me, the only value-added of a CAC sticker is that I believe that the details on the coin are strong for the grade. But I still don't feel that a CAC sticker bestows any magic pixie-dust on a coin, that says it's without problems (by my standards).
The problem is the binary world the TPGs have created, in which every straight-graded coin, no matter how ugly, exists on a higher plane than every details-graded coin, no matter how attractive.
That's the beauty of buying a coin with a CAC. It becomes a binary decision if the price is acceptable. If you don't like the way it looks, don't buy it.
While I agree that CAC is useful (in the sense that I generally will pay more for a coin with a CAC sticker than I would for the same one without), I have seen many CAC-stickered coins that are butt-ugly. To me, it is obvious that CAC uses the same flawed standards as PCGS and NGC, allowing ugly coins to be straight-graded while consigning some attractive coins to purgatory).
So, to me, the only value-added of a CAC sticker is that I believe that the details on the coin are strong for the grade. But I still don't feel that a CAC sticker bestows any magic pixie-dust on a coin, that says it's without problems (by my standards).
Grading is only an opinion, and that’s all it will ever be until the day that AI takes over. The point of @DisneyFan’s comment was that when you buy a CAC coin, you’re getting the opinion of two authorities that the coin is grade accurately, and it is not a problem. CAC’s opinion being less forgiving with originality and surface manipulation.
With me, even when I plan on buying PCGS/CAC and I already know that the eye appeal meets my standards, I might even seek more opinions from other acquaintances and professionals depending on the amount of money I’m spending. Most of the time I’m buying coins that I don’t get to see in hand first, and It’s never a bad idea to seek opinions from those with more experience than you. This applies to many other topics other than numismatics.
@skier07 said:
I wouldn’t buy either coin but if I was forced to make a decision I would reluctantly pick the straight graded one. There’s no good reason to buy a details 16-D IMHO. They’re expensive but certainly not rare and there’s no reason to compromise.
All 16-D's are way overpriced to the point of ridiculousness. Despite being a key, it is as common as mud in a wet field except in MS grades where it is uncommon (certainly not rare). But bc it is called a key, demand is high and folks pay way too much for these. So I agree with you that I would not spend my money on either, or, any other 16-D in existence. Certainly for the money for one of these in any grade one can buy truly rare coins in less common series.....................
I paid $565 for an AG3 in haste just to be done with that set thinking of upgrading it later. Don't exactly regret it but guess I should have waited a little longer.
You're only 2 points away from PO01 upgrade and $$$!
@124Spider said:
Another example of how destructive it is for the TPGs to kill nice coins. #2 is a nice-looking coin, but the TPG decided that it's not "market acceptable." The reaction on this thread would suggest otherwise....
I don't buy "details"-graded coins, in large part because I have no way of determining whether I'm paying a reasonable price for it (since there cannot be a useful price guide for "details"-graded coins). As much as B would cost, I would not feel confident that I could get a large portion of my money back, if I had to sell.
I like #2 better, but I would not buy it, alas.
Sure but you are judging it solely from images, see it in hand and say again #2 is better...................
Sure. But I wish the TPGs would leave that up to us. Without doubt, there are many coins with details-grades that are, in fact, quite attractive in hand, while we all know that there are lots of ugly coins that get straight grades. That's a flawed system.
Perhaps you should not buy what the TPG is selling. Coins in the raw would suit you better.
I disagree with the following broad statement by @124Spider.
"I have seen many CAC-stickered coins that are butt-ugly. To me, it is obvious that CAC uses the same flawed standards as PCGS and NGC, allowing ugly coins to be straight-graded while consigning some attractive coins to purgatory."
I think most people agree that CAC grading standards are clearly not the same as PCGS or NGC. He defined flawed as "allowing ugly coins to be straight-graded while consigning some attractive coins to purgatory." There has never been a perfect grading system, all grading systems are flawed by this definition.
I think it's important to step back and look at the big picture. Look at a large sample size and determine the percentage of coins graded by each company that meet your standards. Then compare the results to get a general sense of how your standards compare to each company's standards. This can be particularly helpful when applied to a specific series.
@shish said:
I disagree with the following broad statement by @124Spider.
"I have seen many CAC-stickered coins that are butt-ugly. To me, it is obvious that CAC uses the same flawed standards as PCGS and NGC, allowing ugly coins to be straight-graded while consigning some attractive coins to purgatory."
I think most people agree that CAC grading standards are clearly not the same as PCGS or NGC. He defined flawed as "allowing ugly coins to be straight-graded while consigning some attractive coins to purgatory." There has never been a perfect grading system, all grading systems are flawed by this definition.
I think it's important to step back and look at the big picture. Look at a large sample size and determine the percentage of coins graded by each company that meet your standards. Then compare the results to get a general sense of how your standards compare to each company's standards. This can be particularly helpful when applied to a specific series.
@124Spider said:
Another example of how destructive it is for the TPGs to kill nice coins. #2 is a nice-looking coin, but the TPG decided that it's not "market acceptable." The reaction on this thread would suggest otherwise....
I don't buy "details"-graded coins, in large part because I have no way of determining whether I'm paying a reasonable price for it (since there cannot be a useful price guide for "details"-graded coins). As much as B would cost, I would not feel confident that I could get a large portion of my money back, if I had to sell.
I like #2 better, but I would not buy it, alas.
Sure but you are judging it solely from images, see it in hand and say again #2 is better...................
Sure. But I wish the TPGs would leave that up to us. Without doubt, there are many coins with details-grades that are, in fact, quite attractive in hand, while we all know that there are lots of ugly coins that get straight grades. That's a flawed system.
Perhaps you should not buy what the TPG is selling. Coins in the raw would suit you better.
Not for expensive coins. I don't want to buy one that hasn't been vetted, and it's hard to sell one that hasn't been vetted. I just object to the serious flaws in the system.
@shish said:
I disagree with the following broad statement by @124Spider.
"I have seen many CAC-stickered coins that are butt-ugly. To me, it is obvious that CAC uses the same flawed standards as PCGS and NGC, allowing ugly coins to be straight-graded while consigning some attractive coins to purgatory."
I think most people agree that CAC grading standards are clearly not the same as PCGS or NGC. He defined flawed as "allowing ugly coins to be straight-graded while consigning some attractive coins to purgatory." There has never been a perfect grading system, all grading systems are flawed by this definition.
I think it's important to step back and look at the big picture. Look at a large sample size and determine the percentage of coins graded by each company that meet your standards. Then compare the results to get a general sense of how your standards compare to each company's standards. This can be particularly helpful when applied to a specific series.
Yes and no.
As I've said, I think we're better off, as collectors, with TPGs, and with CAC. I just disagree with their definition of "market acceptable" coins, which results in many attractive coins being consigned to purgatory and many truly ugly coins being straight graded.
But I'm always ready to offer a system advice on how to improve.
The problem is the binary world the TPGs have created, in which every straight-graded coin, no matter how ugly, exists on a higher plane than every details-graded coin, no matter how attractive.
Did the TGPs create this dynamic, though? I would argue that if collectors didn’t care about cleaned coins, the TGPs wouldn’t either.
The problem is the binary world the TPGs have created, in which every straight-graded coin, no matter how ugly, exists on a higher plane than every details-graded coin, no matter how attractive.
Did the TGPs create this dynamic, though? I would argue that if collectors didn’t care about cleaned coins, the TGPs wouldn’t either.
The TPGs made it binary. In my ideal world, people would be allowed to choose what they liked; in the world created by TPGs, we can't (because lots of nice coins are details-graded, precluding them from consideration for most of us, regardless of how attractive they may be).
Sure, it's nice to have a cleaned coin identified. But not all "cleaned" coins are equally bad; and many take an expert to detect. I submit that, if the TPGs didn't make it a binary world, where all cleaned coins were treated equally badly, our hobby would be better.
I picked #1 because it has the pewter gray look I like on circ silver. #2 appears more attractive in these photos but.... viewing at another angle might show some distracting issues. For the umpteenth time, in hand viewing is recommended for coins costing thousands.
The TPGs made it binary. In my ideal world, people would be allowed to choose what they liked; in the world created by TPGs, we can't (because lots of nice coins are details-graded, precluding them from consideration for most of us, regardless of how attractive they may be).
Sure, it's nice to have a cleaned coin identified. But not all "cleaned" coins are equally bad; and many take an expert to detect. I submit that, if the TPGs didn't make it a binary world, where all cleaned coins were treated equally badly, our hobby would be better.
I think you might be attributing too much agency to the TGPs here. There’s nothing stopping collectors from choosing what they like and drawing their own lines in the sand as to what is and isn’t acceptable regarding cleaned coins… except for the the fear that they’ll have trouble selling a cleaned coin to another collector down the road.
The TPGs made it binary. In my ideal world, people would be allowed to choose what they liked; in the world created by TPGs, we can't (because lots of nice coins are details-graded, precluding them from consideration for most of us, regardless of how attractive they may be).
Sure, it's nice to have a cleaned coin identified. But not all "cleaned" coins are equally bad; and many take an expert to detect. I submit that, if the TPGs didn't make it a binary world, where all cleaned coins were treated equally badly, our hobby would be better.
I think you might be attributing too much agency to the TGPs here. There’s nothing stopping collectors from choosing what they like and drawing their own lines in the sand as to what is and isn’t acceptable regarding cleaned coins… except for the the fear that they’ll have trouble selling a cleaned coin to another collector down the road.
Sure there is: Once a coin has been graded "details," it's forever tainted. I won't buy one, and many people won't buy one. No matter how nice the coin may be. And that's because the TPGs have a binary system. I'm not rich enough to not care whether I can resell an expensive coin, so I'm held hostage to the system.
I get it that many people are fine with that system. I'm not. But I'm powerless to do anything about it, other than point out the many, many examples of the destructive nature of the binary system.
@124Spider said:
Sure there is: Once a coin has been graded "details," it's forever tainted.
That's not true. I have cracked a couple of details coins and gotten straight grades on resubmisson.
Which only shows how silly the "details" grades can be, doesn't it?
My point, obviously, is that TPGs make the purely-subjective--and not-always-correct) decision on which coins are damaged enough to only get a "details" grade. Once it has received a details grade, a coin is consigned to oblivion (well, unless someone wants to throw the dice again, and pay for the privilege, with the table stacked against you).
But, getting back to the coins that started this thread.... I would prefer a world where the second coin received a full grade, and perhaps a notation that it had been cleaned. This isn't a coin that has been whizzed or polished (both of which, IMO, ruin coins), or is otherwise physically damaged. A three-tier system would be much better than the present two-tier system--start a new, intermediate layer, containing coins that have problems, but have not been ruined; this could include coins with horrible strikes, and other suboptimal coins, but coins that are not so awful as to be put in a body bag.
As this poll was for pics only selection, I would no issue select #2. For the OP's offering we cannot choose other than from our eyes or hatred of details coins.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
@124Spider said:
Sure there is: Once a coin has been graded "details," it's forever tainted.
That's not true. I have cracked a couple of details coins and gotten straight grades on resubmisson.
Which only shows how silly the "details" grades can be, doesn't it?
Opinions are opinions. Sometimes they change.
Which, again, only shows how silly the present system is.
Then ignore it. Collect what you like.
I would love to. But the economic reality of ignoring the flaws in the system prevent that.
Limit your expenses on coins to disposable income. Problem solved.
No, that doesn't solve the problem; it's not that simple.
I congratulate you if you're wealthy enough to spend well into six figures on this hobby, without concern for ever seeing your money again. I'm not. I can justify these expenditures only if I am reasonably satisfied that I likely will be able to get a good portion of my money back if/when I want to.
I'd rather see shortcomings in the system be fixed.
@124Spider said:
Sure there is: Once a coin has been graded "details," it's forever tainted.
That's not true. I have cracked a couple of details coins and gotten straight grades on resubmisson.
Which only shows how silly the "details" grades can be, doesn't it?
Opinions are opinions. Sometimes they change.
Which, again, only shows how silly the present system is.
Then ignore it. Collect what you like.
I would love to. But the economic reality of ignoring the flaws in the system prevent that.
Limit your expenses on coins to disposable income. Problem solved.
No, that doesn't solve the problem; it's not that simple.
I congratulate you if you're wealthy enough to spend well into six figures on this hobby, without concern for ever seeing your money again. I'm not.
I can't do that. Not even close. I don't spend any more on coins than I'm willing to lose. Kind of like going out for a dinner and a movie. You don't ever get your money back from that, do you? I'm not saying you have to do the same but you have that option.
@124Spider said:
Sure there is: Once a coin has been graded "details," it's forever tainted.
That's not true. I have cracked a couple of details coins and gotten straight grades on resubmisson.
Which only shows how silly the "details" grades can be, doesn't it?
Opinions are opinions. Sometimes they change.
Which, again, only shows how silly the present system is.
Then ignore it. Collect what you like.
I would love to. But the economic reality of ignoring the flaws in the system prevent that.
Limit your expenses on coins to disposable income. Problem solved.
No, that doesn't solve the problem; it's not that simple.
I congratulate you if you're wealthy enough to spend well into six figures on this hobby, without concern for ever seeing your money again. I'm not.
I can't do that. Not even close. I don't spend any more on coins than I'm willing to lose. Kind of like going out for a dinner and a movie. You don't ever get your money back from that, do you? I'm not saying you have to do the same but you have that option.
Different strokes. I'm happy for you that that works for you.
@MasonG said:
Thanks. Hope you can figure out something that works for you.
Thanks. Sure I can, and have been doing for a long time. But I would prefer a system with fewer shortcomings, so I didn't have to work around them. I'm wired to see problems, and to solve them. This system would be easy to improve, but I'm not holding my breath.
@124Spider said:
Sure there is: Once a coin has been graded "details," it's forever tainted.
That's not true. I have cracked a couple of details coins and gotten straight grades on resubmisson.
Which only shows how silly the "details" grades can be, doesn't it?
My point, obviously, is that TPGs make the purely-subjective--and not-always-correct) decision on which coins are damaged enough to only get a "details" grade. Once it has received a details grade, a coin is consigned to oblivion (well, unless someone wants to throw the dice again, and pay for the privilege, with the table stacked against you).
But, getting back to the coins that started this thread.... I would prefer a world where the second coin received a full grade, and perhaps a notation that it had been cleaned. This isn't a coin that has been whizzed or polished (both of which, IMO, ruin coins), or is otherwise physically damaged. A three-tier system would be much better than the present two-tier system--start a new, intermediate layer, containing coins that have problems, but have not been ruined; this could include coins with horrible strikes, and other suboptimal coins, but coins that are not so awful as to be put in a body bag.
But we already have this. Details holders. Problem coins get grades. Truly terrible coins get bodybagged. There is no question that the second coin above, for example, is authentic. Further, the holder will tell the informed buyer what the issue is, so he can decide what price he's willing to pay for an old cleaning, or questionable toning, or whatever. Also, if whatever the issue is someday becomes acceptable, the coins which may have been bodybagged a few years ago now stand out as huge candidates for an upgrade.
@124Spider said:
Sure there is: Once a coin has been graded "details," it's forever tainted.
That's not true. I have cracked a couple of details coins and gotten straight grades on resubmisson.
Which only shows how silly the "details" grades can be, doesn't it?
My point, obviously, is that TPGs make the purely-subjective--and not-always-correct) decision on which coins are damaged enough to only get a "details" grade. Once it has received a details grade, a coin is consigned to oblivion (well, unless someone wants to throw the dice again, and pay for the privilege, with the table stacked against you).
But, getting back to the coins that started this thread.... I would prefer a world where the second coin received a full grade, and perhaps a notation that it had been cleaned. This isn't a coin that has been whizzed or polished (both of which, IMO, ruin coins), or is otherwise physically damaged. A three-tier system would be much better than the present two-tier system--start a new, intermediate layer, containing coins that have problems, but have not been ruined; this could include coins with horrible strikes, and other suboptimal coins, but coins that are not so awful as to be put in a body bag.
But we already have this. Details holders. Problem coins get grades. Truly terrible coins get bodybagged. There is no question that the second coin above, for example, is authentic. Further, the holder will tell the informed buyer what the issue is, so he can decide what price he's willing to pay for an old cleaning, or questionable toning, or whatever. Also, if whatever the issue is someday becomes acceptable, the coins which may have been bodybagged a few years ago now stand out as huge candidates for an upgrade.
I have already explained about a dozen times, on this thread alone, why I find the present system unsatisfactory. Apparently, you disagree. But you have done so only by ignoring everything I said, so it wouldn't be of much use for me to say the same thing yet again.
So if I understand what you're saying, except for the egregious whizzing, etc, you're advocating net grading on everything else? A little notation of the issue on the holder would be the same as the current system, just smaller print. The TPGs didn't create the problem of details not getting respect, its the market's perception that they don't want those coins. And I, and I believe the majority of collectors, want to be notified by the TPGs if these issues exist. Then we'll make the call on whether the issue bothers us and the price is acceptable.
Also appears you are equating 'your' opinion of 'ugly' toning to light cleanings, scratches, rim dings, etc. That they should be judged the same. Not even close. As long as not corrosion or environmental damage, this toning should only lower the grade, if needed, and not get a details grade. What one views as butt ugly another may like its originality and evidence it has not been messed with. And ugly toning can usually be removed. True details issues can usually not be fixed. Maybe hidden or worn away, but not fixed. JMHO
@coastaljerseyguy said:
So if I understand what you're saying, except for the egregious whizzing, etc, you're advocating net grading on everything else? A little notation of the issue on the holder would be the same as the current system, just smaller print. The TPGs didn't create the problem of details not getting respect, its the market's perception that they don't want those coins. And I, and I believe the majority of collectors, want to be notified by the TPGs if these issues exist. Then we'll make the call on whether the issue bothers us and the price is acceptable.
Also appears you are equating 'your' opinion of 'ugly' toning to light cleanings, scratches, rim dings, etc. That they should be judged the same. Not even close. As long as not corrosion or environmental damage, this toning should only lower the grade, if needed, and not get a details grade. What one views as butt ugly another may like its originality and evidence it has not been messed with. And ugly toning can usually be removed. True details issues can usually not be fixed. Maybe hidden or worn away, but not fixed. JMHO
Sigh.... I'll try one last time. Then I'll give up, since new ideas seem not to find fertile ground here.
My issue is the binary nature of the present system. I have said, explicitly, that I'm happy to have flaws mentioned on the slab. What I'm not a fan of is that a coin either gets a straight grade, or is consigned to oblivion (yes, a "details" grade is oblivion). Under this system, some very attractive coins get a "details" grade, and some very ugly coins get a straight grade. And, as the market has adjusted to the system, every singly straight-graded coin, no matter how ugly, exists on a higher plane than every singly details-graded coin.
This is silly, to say the least.
It is NOT my "opinion" that ugly toning and light cleanings, scratches, rim dings, etc. should all be judged the same. I have no idea how you came up with that, but you worked hard to do so, ignoring things I said and making other things up. Rather, I believe that the TPGs shouldn't be making all-or-nothing judgments on coins (in effect, projecting their opinion that all damaged coins, whether a parking lot find or a very light cleaning 50 years old, "should all be judged the same"). In this thread alone, we see that the market would like to value slightly-damaged coins higher, but is held back by the binary nature of the present system; all I'm advocating is the lessen the adverse impact of slight flaws by having three (or more) tiers. The market has no problem dealing with straight-graded ugly coins; I believe that the market would have no problem dealing with slightly damaged coins, if the TPGs weren't consigning them to oblivion (and, no, the market can't change the fact that the TPG has condemned a coin to "details" level; we read here all the time how people won't touch a "details" graded coin, no matter how attractive).
I would rather see at least a three-tier system with problem-free coins going into the highest tier And, yes, if they can pretend to use a 70-point system to distinguish coins now, I think it's not too much of a stretch to expect them to be able to use three buckets to distinguish the physical condition of various coins, instead of only two buckets. The top bucket would be for problem-free coins. The middle bucket would be for coins with some problems, but not destroyed (e.g., gentle cleanings; a particularly bad strike; too many dings to qualify for the top bucket; particularly ugly toning); these also would get a full grade, but the flaw(s) would be noted on the label. Finally, more damaged coins (e.g., whizzed, too many dings, corrosion) would just get a general details grade, with the flaw(s) noted on the label.
This system would be less damaging to the value of lots of coins, and would replace the silly "all-or-nothing" nature of the present system with a more nuanced system.
I understand that a part of many people's makeup is loving simple binary labels (good or bad). I'm not one of those people.
Sorry if I misinterpreted you, but the below comment appeared to be equated ugly coins to detailed attractive coins and putting both of them in this new 2nd tier you mentioned. The market ultimately decides a coins value and TPGs cannot override that with a 3rd class of coins.
I have seen many CAC-stickered coins that are butt-ugly. To me, it is obvious that CAC uses the same flawed standards as PCGS and NGC, allowing ugly coins to be straight-graded while consigning some attractive coins to purgatory."
Based on those pictures, I'd take the second one. Maybe the hairlines are much worse when you see it in person, but from the information provided, I'd rather have the second coin.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Comments
Based on the pictures... Number two for sure. Not worried about resale, just a better looking Merc. Cheers, RickO
No need to apologize. I'm sometimes less clear than I should be. And not to condemn the first coin but the services are good for silently net grading or letting problems slip by on circulated key date coins. I'd want to see both in hand, but the second coin is unusually nice for a "problem" coin.
From photos, #2, but would need to see in hand how lightly cleaned. Also light cleaning is way more obvious on AU and above grades. If the TPGs are going to let something be net graded, its the lower graded and priced key dates. The VF might have also been cleaned. But you don't want to make a mistake on #2 when that mistake is $thousands.
Found some slab shots for number 2:
This confirms my earlier opinion - I'd want number 1.
Young Numismatist, Coin Photographer.
I paid $565 for an AG3 in haste just to be done with that set thinking of upgrading it later. Don't exactly regret it but guess I should have waited a little longer.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
1 because it fits better.
I have a hard time believing that both coins can be had at the same price. Every real 16D dime goes for fairly strong money and if coin #2 is genuine cleaned I can't see it dropping all the way down to a VF price. Maybe to XF price but still desirable, especially cracked out and in an album.
Even with the new slab pics, I still say #2.
I agree with many that I tend to shy away from problem coins. If my choices were only these 2 coins, I think I would take the gamble on #2. But I'd also keep in mind that it's not like it's going to be 10 years until the next 16D comes for sale if you pass on both.
Successful transactions with: wondercoin, Tetromibi, PerryHall, PlatinumDuck, JohnMaben/Pegasus Coin & Jewelry, CoinFlip, and coinlieutenant.
If the coin looks like the slab photos suggest, I would have no interest in owning it.
It simply can’t be overstated that the in-hand look is more important than any photo. Seemingly, this advice needs to be repeated frequently too.
That's the beauty of buying a coin with a CAC. It becomes a binary decision if the price is acceptable. If you don't like the way it looks, don't buy it.
While I agree that CAC is useful (in the sense that I generally will pay more for a coin with a CAC sticker than I would for the same one without), I have seen many CAC-stickered coins that are butt-ugly. To me, it is obvious that CAC uses the same flawed standards as PCGS and NGC, allowing ugly coins to be straight-graded while consigning some attractive coins to purgatory).
So, to me, the only value-added of a CAC sticker is that I believe that the details on the coin are strong for the grade. But I still don't feel that a CAC sticker bestows any magic pixie-dust on a coin, that says it's without problems (by my standards).
Grading is only an opinion, and that’s all it will ever be until the day that AI takes over. The point of @DisneyFan’s comment was that when you buy a CAC coin, you’re getting the opinion of two authorities that the coin is grade accurately, and it is not a problem. CAC’s opinion being less forgiving with originality and surface manipulation.
With me, even when I plan on buying PCGS/CAC and I already know that the eye appeal meets my standards, I might even seek more opinions from other acquaintances and professionals depending on the amount of money I’m spending. Most of the time I’m buying coins that I don’t get to see in hand first, and It’s never a bad idea to seek opinions from those with more experience than you. This applies to many other topics other than numismatics.
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
You're only 2 points away from PO01 upgrade and $$$!
Im not worried about resale.
2 looks better to me
Successful BST transactions with....Coinslave87, ChrisH821, Walkerguy21D, SanctionII.......................Received "You Suck" award 02/18/23
Perhaps you should not buy what the TPG is selling. Coins in the raw would suit you better.
1
I disagree with the following broad statement by @124Spider.
"I have seen many CAC-stickered coins that are butt-ugly. To me, it is obvious that CAC uses the same flawed standards as PCGS and NGC, allowing ugly coins to be straight-graded while consigning some attractive coins to purgatory."
I think most people agree that CAC grading standards are clearly not the same as PCGS or NGC. He defined flawed as "allowing ugly coins to be straight-graded while consigning some attractive coins to purgatory." There has never been a perfect grading system, all grading systems are flawed by this definition.
I think it's important to step back and look at the big picture. Look at a large sample size and determine the percentage of coins graded by each company that meet your standards. Then compare the results to get a general sense of how your standards compare to each company's standards. This can be particularly helpful when applied to a specific series.
And that's why I bought mine slabbed. I never would have known a "raw" #2 was cleaned.
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
1
I do not care for the dirty spots that remain on #2 and I just like knowing that #1 is nature and untouched.
Just my opinion. Thanks.
Bingo!
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
Not for expensive coins. I don't want to buy one that hasn't been vetted, and it's hard to sell one that hasn't been vetted. I just object to the serious flaws in the system.
Yes and no.
As I've said, I think we're better off, as collectors, with TPGs, and with CAC. I just disagree with their definition of "market acceptable" coins, which results in many attractive coins being consigned to purgatory and many truly ugly coins being straight graded.
But I'm always ready to offer a system advice on how to improve.
Did the TGPs create this dynamic, though? I would argue that if collectors didn’t care about cleaned coins, the TGPs wouldn’t either.
The TPGs made it binary. In my ideal world, people would be allowed to choose what they liked; in the world created by TPGs, we can't (because lots of nice coins are details-graded, precluding them from consideration for most of us, regardless of how attractive they may be).
Sure, it's nice to have a cleaned coin identified. But not all "cleaned" coins are equally bad; and many take an expert to detect. I submit that, if the TPGs didn't make it a binary world, where all cleaned coins were treated equally badly, our hobby would be better.
I picked #1 because it has the pewter gray look I like on circ silver. #2 appears more attractive in these photos but.... viewing at another angle might show some distracting issues. For the umpteenth time, in hand viewing is recommended for coins costing thousands.
>
I think you might be attributing too much agency to the TGPs here. There’s nothing stopping collectors from choosing what they like and drawing their own lines in the sand as to what is and isn’t acceptable regarding cleaned coins… except for the the fear that they’ll have trouble selling a cleaned coin to another collector down the road.
Number 1 for me.
Sure there is: Once a coin has been graded "details," it's forever tainted. I won't buy one, and many people won't buy one. No matter how nice the coin may be. And that's because the TPGs have a binary system. I'm not rich enough to not care whether I can resell an expensive coin, so I'm held hostage to the system.
I get it that many people are fine with that system. I'm not. But I'm powerless to do anything about it, other than point out the many, many examples of the destructive nature of the binary system.
That's not true. I have cracked a couple of details coins and gotten straight grades on resubmisson.
Which only shows how silly the "details" grades can be, doesn't it?
My point, obviously, is that TPGs make the purely-subjective--and not-always-correct) decision on which coins are damaged enough to only get a "details" grade. Once it has received a details grade, a coin is consigned to oblivion (well, unless someone wants to throw the dice again, and pay for the privilege, with the table stacked against you).
But, getting back to the coins that started this thread.... I would prefer a world where the second coin received a full grade, and perhaps a notation that it had been cleaned. This isn't a coin that has been whizzed or polished (both of which, IMO, ruin coins), or is otherwise physically damaged. A three-tier system would be much better than the present two-tier system--start a new, intermediate layer, containing coins that have problems, but have not been ruined; this could include coins with horrible strikes, and other suboptimal coins, but coins that are not so awful as to be put in a body bag.
Opinions are opinions. Sometimes they change.
Which, again, only shows how silly the present system is.
Then ignore it. Collect what you like.
I would love to. But the economic reality of ignoring the flaws in the system prevent that.
As this poll was for pics only selection, I would no issue select #2. For the OP's offering we cannot choose other than from our eyes or hatred of details coins.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Limit your expenses on coins to disposable income. Problem solved.
Yes and I would make about $300 profit on it too, but would an upgrade justify the monies spent?
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
No, that doesn't solve the problem; it's not that simple.
I congratulate you if you're wealthy enough to spend well into six figures on this hobby, without concern for ever seeing your money again. I'm not. I can justify these expenditures only if I am reasonably satisfied that I likely will be able to get a good portion of my money back if/when I want to.
I'd rather see shortcomings in the system be fixed.
I can't do that. Not even close. I don't spend any more on coins than I'm willing to lose. Kind of like going out for a dinner and a movie. You don't ever get your money back from that, do you? I'm not saying you have to do the same but you have that option.
Different strokes. I'm happy for you that that works for you.
Thanks. Hope you can figure out something that works for you.
Thanks. Sure I can, and have been doing for a long time. But I would prefer a system with fewer shortcomings, so I didn't have to work around them. I'm wired to see problems, and to solve them. This system would be easy to improve, but I'm not holding my breath.
But we already have this. Details holders. Problem coins get grades. Truly terrible coins get bodybagged. There is no question that the second coin above, for example, is authentic. Further, the holder will tell the informed buyer what the issue is, so he can decide what price he's willing to pay for an old cleaning, or questionable toning, or whatever. Also, if whatever the issue is someday becomes acceptable, the coins which may have been bodybagged a few years ago now stand out as huge candidates for an upgrade.
I have already explained about a dozen times, on this thread alone, why I find the present system unsatisfactory. Apparently, you disagree. But you have done so only by ignoring everything I said, so it wouldn't be of much use for me to say the same thing yet again.
So if I understand what you're saying, except for the egregious whizzing, etc, you're advocating net grading on everything else? A little notation of the issue on the holder would be the same as the current system, just smaller print. The TPGs didn't create the problem of details not getting respect, its the market's perception that they don't want those coins. And I, and I believe the majority of collectors, want to be notified by the TPGs if these issues exist. Then we'll make the call on whether the issue bothers us and the price is acceptable.
Also appears you are equating 'your' opinion of 'ugly' toning to light cleanings, scratches, rim dings, etc. That they should be judged the same. Not even close. As long as not corrosion or environmental damage, this toning should only lower the grade, if needed, and not get a details grade. What one views as butt ugly another may like its originality and evidence it has not been messed with. And ugly toning can usually be removed. True details issues can usually not be fixed. Maybe hidden or worn away, but not fixed. JMHO
Sigh.... I'll try one last time. Then I'll give up, since new ideas seem not to find fertile ground here.
My issue is the binary nature of the present system. I have said, explicitly, that I'm happy to have flaws mentioned on the slab. What I'm not a fan of is that a coin either gets a straight grade, or is consigned to oblivion (yes, a "details" grade is oblivion). Under this system, some very attractive coins get a "details" grade, and some very ugly coins get a straight grade. And, as the market has adjusted to the system, every singly straight-graded coin, no matter how ugly, exists on a higher plane than every singly details-graded coin.
This is silly, to say the least.
It is NOT my "opinion" that ugly toning and light cleanings, scratches, rim dings, etc. should all be judged the same. I have no idea how you came up with that, but you worked hard to do so, ignoring things I said and making other things up. Rather, I believe that the TPGs shouldn't be making all-or-nothing judgments on coins (in effect, projecting their opinion that all damaged coins, whether a parking lot find or a very light cleaning 50 years old, "should all be judged the same"). In this thread alone, we see that the market would like to value slightly-damaged coins higher, but is held back by the binary nature of the present system; all I'm advocating is the lessen the adverse impact of slight flaws by having three (or more) tiers. The market has no problem dealing with straight-graded ugly coins; I believe that the market would have no problem dealing with slightly damaged coins, if the TPGs weren't consigning them to oblivion (and, no, the market can't change the fact that the TPG has condemned a coin to "details" level; we read here all the time how people won't touch a "details" graded coin, no matter how attractive).
I would rather see at least a three-tier system with problem-free coins going into the highest tier And, yes, if they can pretend to use a 70-point system to distinguish coins now, I think it's not too much of a stretch to expect them to be able to use three buckets to distinguish the physical condition of various coins, instead of only two buckets. The top bucket would be for problem-free coins. The middle bucket would be for coins with some problems, but not destroyed (e.g., gentle cleanings; a particularly bad strike; too many dings to qualify for the top bucket; particularly ugly toning); these also would get a full grade, but the flaw(s) would be noted on the label. Finally, more damaged coins (e.g., whizzed, too many dings, corrosion) would just get a general details grade, with the flaw(s) noted on the label.
This system would be less damaging to the value of lots of coins, and would replace the silly "all-or-nothing" nature of the present system with a more nuanced system.
I understand that a part of many people's makeup is loving simple binary labels (good or bad). I'm not one of those people.
Sorry if I misinterpreted you, but the below comment appeared to be equated ugly coins to detailed attractive coins and putting both of them in this new 2nd tier you mentioned. The market ultimately decides a coins value and TPGs cannot override that with a 3rd class of coins.
I have seen many CAC-stickered coins that are butt-ugly. To me, it is obvious that CAC uses the same flawed standards as PCGS and NGC, allowing ugly coins to be straight-graded while consigning some attractive coins to purgatory."
Based on those pictures, I'd take the second one. Maybe the hairlines are much worse when you see it in person, but from the information provided, I'd rather have the second coin.