Someone Did Fabulously Well On A Pair Of Gold CAC Washington Quarter Upgrades

TomB

A pair of PCGS MS68 early date WQs recently closed at auction and likely realized a very handsome profit for the consigner.

The two coins were a 1936 and a 1937 WQ, both PCGS MS66 OGH coins and both with gold CAC stickers. They were listed on ebay around December, 2022 and, if I recall correctly, were listed as auctions (not BINs) with decent images and the seller was offering them with no right to return. Again, I could be off a little on the details as I did not save the original ebay pages, but I followed the coins and read through the listings in real-time. They were offered at around $1,650 and $1,850 and received no bids. They were then offered again on ebay at least a second time without bids and then disappeared.

Shortly thereafter they appeared on Great Collections with better images and closed on February 26, 2023. The 1936 PCGS OGH MS66/Gold CAC realized $717 ($806.62 with BP) while the 1937 PCGS OGH MS66/Gold CAC realized $747 ($840.38 with BP). These sales prices would have yielded 95% of high bid for the consigner or $681.15 for the 1936 and $709.65 for the 1937. At those price levels I was interested in the coins. However, the images merely told me they were very nice coins, but they did not convey to me that they were super gems. The GC images are below-

Recently, I came across new GC listings for a 1936 PCGS MS68 WQ and a 1937 PCGS MS68 WQ in new holders and immediately recognized the coins as being from the earlier auction. They appear to have been submitted without anything being done to their surfaces and they not only now have in-slab GC images, but also have PCGS TrueView images. The GC images are below followed by the PCGS TrueView images.

The two coins, in their new PCGS MS68 holders, closed for $12,500 ($14,062.50 with BP) and $6,750 ($7,593.75 with BP).

I still think they are really nice coins and still agree with CAC that they were nicer than the OGH assigned grades of MS66. In-hand they must have terrific luster because in the images I would likely have graded them MS67+ with the 1936 having a shot at MS68. Regardless, it doesn't matter what I think as no one is going around paying for TB graded coins, nor are they looking for TB stickered coins. A hearty congratulations go out to the consigner who purchased the coins from GC and recycled them through the TPG and auction route to realize an impressive return on investment.

PS: The CAC website still shows the old cert numbers as active with a Gold CAC sticker. They are both issues that had only a single Gold CAC sticker for the date so the CAC pop report should be adjusted and the total silver WQ MS66 Gold CAC pop should drop from 49-coins to 47-coins.

U1chicago

A very nice result for someone!
Sometimes you don't even need a gold sticker to achieve the same thing.
My favorite example is below. I never owned this coin; the auction result at the first grade was quite reasonable, even without knowing the future results but I was not watching the auction at that time.

BAJJERFAN

Funny that they weren't resubmitted to CAC in their new plastic. Amazing how mushy the hair detail looks in the GC pics.

lilolme

PS: The CAC website still shows the old cert numbers as active with a Gold CAC sticker. They are both issues that had only a single Gold CAC sticker for the date so the CAC pop report should be adjusted and the total silver WQ MS66 Gold CAC pop should drop from 49-coins to 47-coins.
.
.
Checking the pcgs cert verification the two OGH cert numbers are still active. Either pcgs just whiffed on deleting out the cert numbers on a regrade/reconsideration... or they were cracked out and sent in raw (more likely ).

TomB

@U1chicago was the first auction on the GC venue? I ask because that image looks like how GC images coins. I imagine the price of the coin went up quite a bit while its grade went up, as well, but I have no idea the level it sold at with any of its certification points.

@BAJJERFAN yes, the hair for GW looks mushy on the GC images, but the hair on these quarters really isn't well defined at all when in-hand. This makes the hair in the PCGS TV images all the more impressive.

@lilolme I never even thought to check if the cert numbers were active at PCGS! Since there are just so many MS66 WQs from these dates in PCGS holders it didn't occur to me to see how the numbers would change. For a Gold CAC sticker, however, I know that these are not common coins throughout the silver WQ series in MS66.

coinbuf

@BAJJERFAN said:
Funny that they weren't resubmitted to CAC in their new plastic. Amazing how mushy the hair detail looks in the GC pics.

Do you know that they were not submitted to CAC in the new plastic? It is conceivable that they failed CAC at the new MS68 level.

U1chicago

@TomB said:
@U1chicago was the first auction on the GC venue? I ask because that image looks like how GC images coins. I imagine the price of the coin went up quite a bit while its grade went up, as well, but I have no idea the level it sold at with any of its certification points.

@BAJJERFAN yes, the hair for GW looks mushy on the GC images, but the hair on these quarters really isn't well defined at all when in-hand. This makes the hair in the PCGS TV images all the more impressive.

@lilolme I never even thought to check if the cert numbers were active at PCGS! Since there are just so many MS66 WQs from these dates in PCGS holders it didn't occur to me to see how the numbers would change. For a Gold CAC sticker, however, I know that these are not common coins throughout the silver WQ series in MS66.

The 81-S sold for $660 (that included the buyer's fee) at GC in February 2016. This was a period at GC when many toners weren't bringing the same type of premiums we have seen in the last years. Certain examples did very well but there were plenty of reasonable prices. As a 67+ it sold for $2,585 at HA in June 2016. I don't know if AB got the final upgrade or whoever sold it to him.

coinbuf

This thread is a perfect example of what some hope CAC grading will avoid, crazy.

Walkerlover

@U1chicago said:
A very nice result for someone!
Sometimes you don't even need a gold sticker to achieve the same thing.
My favorite example is below. I never owned this coin; the auction result at the first grade was quite reasonable, even without knowing the future results but I was not watching the auction at that time.

This is strange as it was upgraded from a more recent holder 2 times, not an older holder. Hard to believe

U1chicago

@Walkerlover said:

@U1chicago said:
A very nice result for someone!
Sometimes you don't even need a gold sticker to achieve the same thing.
My favorite example is below. I never owned this coin; the auction result at the first grade was quite reasonable, even without knowing the future results but I was not watching the auction at that time.

This is strange as it was upgraded from a more recent holder 2 times, not an older holder. Hard to believe

I've seen it happen; even from new NGC holders to PCGS (maybe not 2 times but often just 1 upgrade is good enough).

JoeLewis

@coinbuf said:
This thread is a perfect example of what some hope CAC grading will avoid, crazy.

Except CAC played a part in U1chicago’s example too.

VanHalen

@Walkerlover said:

This is strange as it was upgraded from a more recent holder 2 times, not an older holder. Hard to believe

Modern holder PCGS MS65+ to modern holder PCGS MS68? That is a head scratcher.

coinbuf

@JoeLewis said:

@coinbuf said:
This thread is a perfect example of what some hope CAC grading will avoid, crazy.

Except CAC played a part in U1chicago’s example too.

I said CAC grading not CAC, different functions and goals between the two, having said that it doesn't mean that this could not happen just that some hope it will be less of an issue.

Dave99B

Wow, someone scored. Geez! Beautiful coins.

Also, another good reminder that grading is simply an opinion at a specific point in time.

Dave

DelawareDoons

I have a feeling some Orange County dealers make a VERY nice living buying undergraded coins from GC that they've seen in hand.

BAJJERFAN

@coinbuf said:

@BAJJERFAN said:
Funny that they weren't resubmitted to CAC in their new plastic. Amazing how mushy the hair detail looks in the GC pics.

Do you know that they were not submitted to CAC in the new plastic? It is conceivable that they failed CAC at the new MS68 level.

I just assumed that they weren't even tho it would make sense to do so. It would have been a WTH moment had both gotten a green at ms68.

Walkerlover

This is a fun gambling game taking shots with older holders that have nice looking coins

TomB

@Walkerlover said:
This is a fun gambling game taking shots with older holders that have nice looking coins

It's grading arbitrage and the low hanging fruit has long been picked. This is why there are so precious few early holder NGC coins still around and why the extant population of PCGS OGHs has steadily declined over the years. If you have the eye, the funds and the patience you can do quite well doing the crackout game. However, as I have written, the low hanging fruit is long gone and it is much harder now to do this than it was some years ago.

TomB

As for the speculation that the newly certified MS68 coins were sent to CAC prior to GC, my guess is that they were and that they failed the CAC evaluation since the cost of an express review at CAC is well worth the gamble if even only one of the two coins passed the process.

Zoins

@U1chicago said:
A very nice result for someone!
Sometimes you don't even need a gold sticker to achieve the same thing.
My favorite example is below. I never owned this coin; the auction result at the first grade was quite reasonable, even without knowing the future results but I was not watching the auction at that time.

Nice grade progression.

Congrats to @AuroraBorealis!

Walkerlover

@Zoins said:

@U1chicago said:
A very nice result for someone!
Sometimes you don't even need a gold sticker to achieve the same thing.
My favorite example is below. I never owned this coin; the auction result at the first grade was quite reasonable, even without knowing the future results but I was not watching the auction at that time.

Nice grade progression.

Congrats to @AuroraBorealis!

It’s unfair though to the original owners that the coin got upgraded this much. I would be very unhappy if someone upgraded my coin by 3 levels.
.

Zoins

@Walkerlover said:

@Zoins said:

@U1chicago said:
A very nice result for someone!
Sometimes you don't even need a gold sticker to achieve the same thing.
My favorite example is below. I never owned this coin; the auction result at the first grade was quite reasonable, even without knowing the future results but I was not watching the auction at that time.

Nice grade progression.

Congrats to @AuroraBorealis!

It’s unfair though to the original owners that the coin got upgraded this much. I would be very unhappy if someone upgraded my coin by 3 levels.

At the end of the day, it's PCGS that is doing the upgrades here.

Walkerlover

@TomB said:
A pair of PCGS MS68 early date WQs recently closed at auction and likely realized a very handsome profit for the consigner.

The two coins were a 1936 and a 1937 WQ, both PCGS MS66 OGH coins and both with gold CAC stickers. They were listed on ebay around December, 2022 and, if I recall correctly, were listed as auctions (not BINs) with decent images and the seller was offering them with no right to return. Again, I could be off a little on the details as I did not save the original ebay pages, but I followed the coins and read through the listings in real-time. They were offered at around $1,650 and $1,850 and received no bids. They were then offered again on ebay at least a second time without bids and then disappeared.

Shortly thereafter they appeared on Great Collections with better images and closed on February 26, 2023. The 1936 PCGS OGH MS66/Gold CAC realized $717 ($806.62 with BP) while the 1937 PCGS OGH MS66/Gold CAC realized $747 ($840.38 with BP). These sales prices would have yielded 95% of high bid for the consigner or $681.15 for the 1936 and $709.65 for the 1937. At those price levels I was interested in the coins. However, the images merely told me they were very nice coins, but they did not convey to me that they were super gems. The GC images are below-

Recently, I came across new GC listings for a 1936 PCGS MS68 WQ and a 1937 PCGS MS68 WQ in new holders and immediately recognized the coins as being from the earlier auction. They appear to have been submitted without anything being done to their surfaces and they not only now have in-slab GC images, but also have PCGS TrueView images. The GC images are below followed by the PCGS TrueView images.

The two coins, in their new PCGS MS68 holders, closed for $12,500 ($14,062.50 with BP) and $6,750 ($7,593.75 with BP).

I still think they are really nice coins and still agree with CAC that they were nicer than the OGH assigned grades of MS66. In-hand they must have terrific luster because in the images I would likely have graded them MS67+ with the 1936 having a shot at MS68. Regardless, it doesn't matter what I think as no one is going around paying for TB graded coins, nor are they looking for TB stickered coins. A hearty congratulations go out to the consigner who purchased the coins from GC and recycled them through the TPG and auction route to realize an impressive return on investment.

PS: The CAC website still shows the old cert numbers as active with a Gold CAC sticker. They are both issues that had only a single Gold CAC sticker for the date so the CAC pop report should be adjusted and the total silver WQ MS66 Gold CAC pop should drop from 49-coins to 47-coins.

What’s really interesting is that to achieve this result the buyer had to either crack out or regrade these coins at PCGS. Quite a gamble to risk losing gold sticker coins and the old green holder. He must either be a professional grader or had some advice to be able to take this risk.

Maywood

@Zoins said: At the end of the day, it's PCGS that is doing the upgrades here.

Here's what's strange to me: PCGS has a grade guarantee so that if I ask for a re-grade and the coin downgrades I am compensated for any loss. What @Walkerlover seems to be saying is why no compensation when a coin upgrades?? This supposes that the coin is submitted in the original capsule. The coins highlighted by the OP seem to illustrate the point, that the original submitter lost money due to an error by PCGS.

BigMoose

D.S. Is the only fellow I know of that can do this consistently at present. Best grader I know.

Manifest_Destiny

Nice write up and great research! Very interesting.

MFeld

@Maywood said:
@Zoins said: At the end of the day, it's PCGS that is doing the upgrades here.

Here's what's strange to me: PCGS has a grade guarantee so that if I ask for a re-grade and the coin downgrades I am compensated for any loss. What @Walkerlover seems to be saying is why no compensation when a coin upgrades?? This supposes that the coin is submitted in the original capsule. The coins highlighted by the OP seem to illustrate the point, that the original submitter lost money due to an error by PCGS.

How would you go about determining which grade or grades were "errors" and which were "correct"?
For the record, in the case of such grading disparities, I do feel that either a submitter was treated unfairly, a subsequent one was treated too well or there was some combination of the two.

DoubleEagle59

Grading diamonds for 30 years and knowing how consistency is very hard to maintain, I always give the grading companies plenty of leeway and understanding when grades differ.

But my rule of thumb is one grade only.

When a coin grades two or more grades in difference, there is no excuse for this and either at the initial grade or the second grade, someone goofed.

ElmerFusterpuck

What I found very ironic is that the 1881-S dollar above never got a gold CAC sticker!!!

BAJJERFAN

@Maywood said:
@Zoins said: At the end of the day, it's PCGS that is doing the upgrades here.

Here's what's strange to me: PCGS has a grade guarantee so that if I ask for a re-grade and the coin downgrades I am compensated for any loss. What @Walkerlover seems to be saying is why no compensation when a coin upgrades?? This supposes that the coin is submitted in the original capsule. The coins highlighted by the OP seem to illustrate the point, that the original submitter lost money due to an error by PCGS.

There is/was an old gent from IIRC Illinois who was vehement about the grade guarantee favoring only coins that downgrade. He felt that it should apply both ways. I forget his board name.

privatecoin

Straight as the letter Z.

BAJJERFAN

Is it common for gold stickered coins to upgrade by 2 points?

skier07

There are a couple of prominent posters here who commented elsewhere that they don’t care about gold stickers and all they care about is what will a coin grade today. TB’s example seems to confirm this.

davewesen

@DelawareDoons said:
I have a feeling some Orange County dealers make a VERY nice living buying undergraded coins from GC that they've seen in hand.

Do they have lot viewing at GC ?

PeakRarities

@BAJJERFAN said:
Is it common for gold stickered coins to upgrade by 2 points?

I wouldn't say "common", because most wouldn't even try to upgrade a gold stickered coin. Most times, it's not fiscally wise. In this case it was, since MS68 is top pop with a dramatic price difference. That said, gold stickers imo are not given out freely to coins that are only under graded by a point. The general consensus is that the coin is under graded by 1.5, meaning it would be super solid in the next grade up, and possibly even 1 grade higher than that as in this case.

Zoins

Would the discussion of getting compensated for a future upgrade made by someone else be like a seller getting compensated for being cherrypicked? The comparison is that in both scenarios, the previous owner was not able to capture the value themselves, but is seeking compensation for value captured by someone else at a later time.

savoyspecial

@Zoins Grading is subjective and cherrypicking a variety is not

Zoins

@savoyspecial said:
@Zoins Grading is subjective and cherrypicking a variety is not

So would it be that the previous owner should be less able to capture future profit in the subjective scenarios than the objective ones?

Maywood

@Zoins, I think the point, at least to me, is that when PCGS grades a coin they "guarantee" the grade.

MonsterCoinz

@Maywood said:
@Zoins said: At the end of the day, it's PCGS that is doing the upgrades here.

Here's what's strange to me: PCGS has a grade guarantee so that if I ask for a re-grade and the coin downgrades I am compensated for any loss. What @Walkerlover seems to be saying is why no compensation when a coin upgrades?? This supposes that the coin is submitted in the original capsule. The coins highlighted by the OP seem to illustrate the point, that the original submitter lost money due to an error by PCGS.

If you could pay extra to insure against future upgrades, I'd do it most of the time. I hate it when I can't get a coin to upgrade and then see it in a 1 or 2 point increase later.

logger7

It's very tough to get a WQ to grade MS68, very low percentages. I got one in a second tier company's holder.

What numismatist can really peg coins that will grade MS67 or MS68?

JoeLewis

The whole thing about the guarantee against upgrades doesn’t make sense to me. For most coins there are multiple previous owners. Should they all get compensated?

DelawareDoons

@davewesen said:

@DelawareDoons said:
I have a feeling some Orange County dealers make a VERY nice living buying undergraded coins from GC that they've seen in hand.

Do they have lot viewing at GC ?

I'm sure it can be arranged if you're a local who buys regularly. Would be silly if you couldn't.

@logger7 said:
What numismatist can really peg coins that will grade MS67 or MS68?

The great ones. Also you gotta remember, these guys will submit these things a dozen times if they really believe in the coin.

coinkat

This thread really reinforces that grading has and will always have a subjective component

Nice coins

savoyspecial

@Zoins I just meant with a variety individual opinion is removed from the equation - the variety is demonstrable

Zoins

@JoeLewis said:
The whole thing about the guarantee against upgrades doesn’t make sense to me. For most coins there are multiple previous owners. Should they all get compensated?

Good point. If multiple people need to be compensated, there could be double counting and more.

Also, the financial benefit is being captured by the latest submitter, so it’s the latest submitter that has funds to compensate previous owners. The other option is for the TPG to charge a percentage value for all upgrades to distribute to previous submitters.

Overall, it sounds like a complex scenario.

skier07

@davewesen said:

@DelawareDoons said:
I have a feeling some Orange County dealers make a VERY nice living buying undergraded coins from GC that they've seen in hand.

Do they have lot viewing at GC ?

Yes. All you have to do is call up and make arrangements. Even a little guy like me has viewed coins at GC without any difficulty.

Zoins

@savoyspecial said:
@Zoins I just meant with a variety individual opinion is removed from the equation - the variety is demonstrable

Still, it seems the scenario could be similar if the coin was slabbed without the variety initially and it was added after being identified.

Walkerfan

No way in the world I would ever pay an extra $20,000 just for the number(s) on an insert.

I want to be a cherrypicker not the end user.

lablover

@MFeld said:

@Maywood said:
@Zoins said: At the end of the day, it's PCGS that is doing the upgrades here.

Here's what's strange to me: PCGS has a grade guarantee so that if I ask for a re-grade and the coin downgrades I am compensated for any loss. What @Walkerlover seems to be saying is why no compensation when a coin upgrades?? This supposes that the coin is submitted in the original capsule. The coins highlighted by the OP seem to illustrate the point, that the original submitter lost money due to an error by PCGS.

How would you go about determining which grade or grades were "errors" and which were "correct"?
For the record, in the case of such grading disparities, I do feel that either a submitter was treated unfairly, a subsequent one was treated too well or there was some combination of the two.

Under the Reconsideration Submission there is "compensation", but only to the grading company itself. Example PCGS has a Guarantee Premium of 1% of Final Value if the coin upgrades...which I have no issue with, for the most part. However, how would one go about providing compensation to the first party? If I owned the coins and sold them in any manner, how would the grading company know to compensate me? Or would one expect the second party who bought said coins and upgraded be required to provide me the compensation?

I believe it's been said: "To the victor go the spoils".

I have experienced multiple times the same outcome, but who do I blame? Me, for not knowing what I had to begin with. Although I could provide a few examples that would argue the point there was perhaps more involved.

I am curious of Mr. Feld's take on how the submitter was treated unfairly and the subsequent one was treated too well, etc? Could you explain that thought further?

2ltdjorn

they did well.

certainly knowledge and specialization are rewarded.