Does a "QA" sticker add any value?

UncleDano

I am familiar with the CAC stickers, but wonder about the QA stickers I have seen on slabs. Are they an added value to a coin? And who provides these? I was told that any dealer can buy these and stick them on their coins, is this true?

Here is a photo of one
:

Smudge

Copycat gimmick. I would not pay more based on that.

BryceM

James Sego knows his stuff, so I think it’s a step above gimmick. That said, the reason that coins with stickers are worth more is usually that they’re better coins to start with.

Coinscratch

Looks pretty rough for a 67 in the first place.

Namvet69

I don't have enough digits to count the rim dings and jaw line razor burn. IMO.

sedulous

I personally do not attribute value to a QA sticker.

GRANDAM

I send a lot of coins to QA Check for possible stickering. I feel the sticker adds way more value to my selling price than the cost of the service. As said above James Sego knows his stuff and I value his opinion.

@BryceM said:
James Sego knows his stuff, so I think it’s a step above gimmick. That said, the reason that coins with stickers are worth more is usually that they’re better coins to start with.

I believe this comment would apply to CAC coins as well.

The_Dinosaur_Man

QA reads as "Questionable Authenticity" to me. Did they mean "Quality Assured" ?

coinbuf

Here is a link to the QA site, qacoins.com/ I understand that James is well respected and I'm sure that some collectors do place a value on that sticker. I do not recall ever doing any business with him and I'm not much of a modern collector so I've never had any reason to buy a QA stickered coin.

Coinscratch

The grade prolly is right for a NGC slab.

keyman64

Here’s an old video but I like it. James is a good guy.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3d7qWrujmOs

Coinscratch

I think I recognize him from a PCGS video where he was grading already graded coins as part of some type of challenge.

messydesk

He knows his stuff regarding these coins. I'll go through a box of submissions at a show now and then when I'm set up at his table. Coins that don't sticker that isn't obvious overgraded coins are typically unattractive, have spots, or there is a mark that makes you say, "I wish that mark wasn't there." Black spots on copper are deal breakers above MS64. Gold stickers are given out very sparingly and have to be really special looking coins in addition to being very strong for the grade or undergraded. An ASE graded 68 won't get a gold sticker because it looks like a 69 unless it also has really nice toning.

Barberian

That coin is beat to hell.

keyman64

@UncleDano I hope you watched the video I posted above. As far as your question in the title, I would certainly prefer a 2nd professional opinion I respect when making a purchase. So, in this case, I believe it can add value. That's said, if it is a very inexpensive coin, probably not much if anything. The coin you posted, based on auction history is only a couple hundred dollar coin in an NGC holder where the POP is 34. There are plenty of CAC coins that do not cross to PCGS. Does that make you not like CAC or question their value? Will your QA coin cross to PCGS where the pop is only 3?

Walkerlover

@Namvet69 said:
I don't have enough digits to count the rim dings and jaw line razor burn. IMO.

What causes rim dings? And how much does it affect the grade of a coin from PCGS?

jmlanzaf

@Coinscratch said:
The grade prolly is right for a NGC slab.

Shouldn't a sticker mean it is right for the grade PERIOD?

jmlanzaf

@Walkerlover said:

@Namvet69 said:
I don't have enough digits to count the rim dings and jaw line razor burn. IMO.

What causes rim dings? And how much does it affect the grade of a coin from PCGS?

Rim dings come from contact with other coins or surfaces. They are no different than contact marks on the surface of the coin.

It affects the grade like any other contact mark in a non-focal area.

Walkerlover

@jmlanzaf said:

@Walkerlover said:

@Namvet69 said:
I don't have enough digits to count the rim dings and jaw line razor burn. IMO.

What causes rim dings? And how much does it affect the grade of a coin from PCGS?

Rim dings come from contact with other coins or surfaces. They are no different than contact marks on the surface of the coin.

It affects the grade like any other contact mark in a non-focal area.

So in the case of this MS 67 Jefferson Nickel how much in your opinion should the rim dings lower the final grade of this coin 1/2 point 1point 2 points? Trying to learn.

Coinscratch

@jmlanzaf said:

@Coinscratch said:
The grade prolly is right for a NGC slab.

Shouldn't a sticker mean it is right for the grade PERIOD?

It should and I'm not expert so maybe somehow the luster is so thick it overrides the 64 label. Because if I sent that to PCGS it would get a 64/5.

jerseyben

That MS67 Jeff looks horrible...

Cougar1978

Only CAC Classic coins have a separate CPG value (above non CAC) because of a sticker. CAC does not sticker mods.

WAYNEAS

At this time, I have never bought a coin because of its sticker.
Now if @ricko would add his "BW" sticker to a PCGS slab, I might.
Wayne

OldIndianNutKase

I welcome any informed second opinion on the grade of any coin. I have seen the QA sticker before but never gave it any credence. Perhaps, based upon the newly disclosed credentials of the QA sticker I will consider it a positive.

But that said, I think the ANA grading standard is based way tooooo much on dealer input and ignores collector standards, and any second opinion is worthy of consideration. Especially of that opinion would provide a basis for a grading opinion explaining limiting features of the coin.

I would especially like to know the difference between a PR 69DCAM and a 70DCAM other than a flip of a coin.

OINK

Jzyskowski1

I was thinking the same thing about the sticker. Just kinda lumped it into the doesn’t matter much pile. Learned something new from the forum, again. Thanks 🙏

ricko

The QA sticker has a degree of support in the collector community. Mainly due to the individual behind it, and consistency of application. Cheers, RickO

GRANDAM

@ricko said:
The QA sticker has a degree of support in the collector community. Mainly due to the individual behind it, and consistency of application. Cheers, RickO

Huh,,,,,,, kinda like the CAC Sticker,,,,,,

Walkerfan

If I collected moderns; I would likely attach a small premium to the QA sticker.

marcmoish

Jeremy esplained, I am removing my comment as such.

airplanenut

I'll chime in with a few thoughts:

1- I've known James for a long time and he has a fantastic eye. Sticker or not, I greatly value his opinion on grades for both moderns and classics.

2- The photo of that nickel is awful with respect to its lighting. To my eye, almost all of the "chatter" in the fields looks to be die polish, not contact marks, and I think much of what's being pointed out on the rim is an artifact of the light, not significant contact, specifically on the area near the bottom of the bust. The tics and marks on the jaw are small and light even with this harsh lighting, and again, I'd think that translates to the coin looking much cleaner in hand. Could I be wrong? Sure. But when I question a photo, I'm at least willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the combination of a good grading company and the eye of someone I know and trust. It's not a guarantee, but it's more likely to me that the photo, and not two quality entities, are wrong.

foodude

I too have known James for a long time- almost 20 years. As Airplanenut said “he has a fantastic eye. Sticker or not, I greatly value his opinion on grades for both moderns and classics.”

I’ll also add, the QA stickers are not simply for sale.

As far as the particular coin that started this thread, as has been mentioned numerous times in the 20+ years I’ve been a member of this forum, it is challenging to properly evaluate the grade a coin from a picture. Further, the “marks” on the jaw are more than likely not bagmarks or tbe like, but rather a result of insufficient metal flow during the striking process. The latter is very, very common for Jefferson nickels.

messydesk

@Namvet69 said:
I don't have enough digits to count the rim dings and jaw line razor burn. IMO.

The marks on the jaw are most likely marks in the planchet that were not struck out. I imagine the steps are fairly non-existent on the reverse. It appears to be later die state, with heavier flow lines in the obverse fields that aren't very flattering in the picture. Heavy flow lines can give fairly dramatic luster, which is hard to ascertain for a static picture.

If in hand the unflattering pictures were accurate portrayals of the coin, I'd have to ask James for an explanation.

Coinscratch

That sounds reasonable to me and again I don't doubt James as he is lightyears beyond my knowledge, that being said. In the same way you can explain away defects he is astute to the particular TPG.

coinbuf

@Coinscratch said:
That sounds reasonable to me and again I don't doubt James as he is lightyears beyond my knowledge, that being said. In the same way you can explain away defects he is astute to the particular TPG.

Perhaps in the future it would be wiser not to make assumptions and bash NGC, at least not until you have the knowledge to make a better determination of the photo or have a chance to see the coin in hand.

Namvet69

I'm glad everyone spoke up. My limited impression of the coin reminds me to think more about grading factors. Thanks. Peace Roy

UncleDano

@keyman64 said:
@UncleDano I hope you watched the video I posted above. As far as your question in the title, I would certainly prefer a 2nd professional opinion I respect when making a purchase. So, in this case, I believe it can add value. That's said, if it is a very inexpensive coin, probably not much if anything. The coin you posted, based on auction history is only a couple hundred dollar coin in an NGC holder where the POP is 34. There are plenty of CAC coins that do not cross to PCGS. Does that make you not like CAC or question their value? Will your QA coin cross to PCGS where the pop is only 3?

Yes, I like the video. It tells me that James IS doing a real quality evaluation on these coins. So there IS definitely a value added service here.

Walkerlover

@messydesk said:

@Namvet69 said:
I don't have enough digits to count the rim dings and jaw line razor burn. IMO.

The marks on the jaw are most likely marks in the planchet that were not struck out. I imagine the steps are fairly non-existent on the reverse. It appears to be later die state, with heavier flow lines in the obverse fields that aren't very flattering in the picture. Heavy flow lines can give fairly dramatic luster, which is hard to ascertain for a static picture.

If in hand the unflattering pictures were accurate portrayals of the coin, I'd have to ask James for an explanation.

Mint made defects including but not limited to planchet marks should lower the grade based on their location and how distracting they are, and what type of defect it is. No way they should get a pass as they are a form of damage even though through the natural minting process.

coinbuf

@Coinscratch said:

@coinbuf said:

@Coinscratch said:
That sounds reasonable to me and again I don't doubt James as he is lightyears beyond my knowledge, that being said. In the same way you can explain away defects he is astute to the particular TPG.

Perhaps in the future it would be wiser not to make assumptions and bash NGC, at least not until you have the knowledge to make a better determination of the photo or have a chance to see the coin in hand.

Perhaps. You should not make assumptions that I was somehow bashing NGC. Especially when everyone on earth including yourself can agree their grading standards are inferior. That is not a bash that is the cold hard market truth.

I am making no assumptions just reading what you wrote, you said "The grade prolly is right for a NGC slab.". Then you said "It should and I'm not expert so maybe somehow the luster is so thick it overrides the 64 label. Because if I sent that to PCGS it would get a 64/5." so you clearly think that PCGS would grade it lower, all that when by your own admission you know far less than the guy who saw the coin in hand and blessed it with a sticker. Now both of those comments by themself might not be considered bashing. But then you also write "their grading standards are inferior" which is in clear violation of rule #2 and is clearly bashing NGC. Plus you have a history in your posts of using that type of dismissive, bashing type language when you refer to NGC graded coins. The only assumption I make is that you write like that to kiss up to people here in an attempt to be accepted.

And you are the one making assumptions when you write "Especially when everyone on earth including yourself can agree their grading standards are inferior". Nobody, especially someone like you that by your own admission is not an expert, has the ability to know what I or anyone else thinks.

Coinscratch

@coinbuf said:

@Coinscratch said:

@coinbuf said:

@Coinscratch said:
That sounds reasonable to me and again I don't doubt James as he is lightyears beyond my knowledge, that being said. In the same way you can explain away defects he is astute to the particular TPG.

Perhaps in the future it would be wiser not to make assumptions and bash NGC, at least not until you have the knowledge to make a better determination of the photo or have a chance to see the coin in hand.

Perhaps. You should not make assumptions that I was somehow bashing NGC. Especially when everyone on earth including yourself can agree their grading standards are inferior. That is not a bash that is the cold hard market truth.

I am making no assumptions just reading what you wrote, you said "The grade prolly is right for a NGC slab.". Then you said "It should and I'm not expert so maybe somehow the luster is so thick it overrides the 64 label. Because if I sent that to PCGS it would get a 64/5." so you clearly think that PCGS would grade it lower, all that when by your own admission you know far less than the guy who saw the coin in hand and blessed it with a sticker. Now both of those comments by themself might not be considered bashing. But then you also write "their grading standards are inferior" which is in clear violation of rule #2 and is clearly bashing NGC. Plus you have a history in your posts of using that type of dismissive, bashing type language when you refer to NGC graded coins. The only assumption I make is that you write like that to kiss up to people here in an attempt to be accepted.

And you are the one making assumptions when you write "Especially when everyone on earth including yourself can agree their grading standards are inferior". Nobody, especially someone like you that by your own admission is not an expert, has the ability to know what I or anyone else thinks.

Get in the Ring: Coinscratch vs. Coinbuf sounds like a good match up

You didn't have to get personal but since you did here's one. Almost all of your posts are spent being critical of other members especially when they have anything to say about your beloved brand. Don't they have a website that you can go and criticize and scrutinize? Your like the NGC police and you probably don't even subscribe to PCGS.
Give it a rest already.

coinbuf

@Coinscratch said:

@coinbuf said:

@Coinscratch said:

@coinbuf said:

@Coinscratch said:
That sounds reasonable to me and again I don't doubt James as he is lightyears beyond my knowledge, that being said. In the same way you can explain away defects he is astute to the particular TPG.

Perhaps in the future it would be wiser not to make assumptions and bash NGC, at least not until you have the knowledge to make a better determination of the photo or have a chance to see the coin in hand.

Perhaps. You should not make assumptions that I was somehow bashing NGC. Especially when everyone on earth including yourself can agree their grading standards are inferior. That is not a bash that is the cold hard market truth.

I am making no assumptions just reading what you wrote, you said "The grade prolly is right for a NGC slab.". Then you said "It should and I'm not expert so maybe somehow the luster is so thick it overrides the 64 label. Because if I sent that to PCGS it would get a 64/5." so you clearly think that PCGS would grade it lower, all that when by your own admission you know far less than the guy who saw the coin in hand and blessed it with a sticker. Now both of those comments by themself might not be considered bashing. But then you also write "their grading standards are inferior" which is in clear violation of rule #2 and is clearly bashing NGC. Plus you have a history in your posts of using that type of dismissive, bashing type language when you refer to NGC graded coins. The only assumption I make is that you write like that to kiss up to people here in an attempt to be accepted.

And you are the one making assumptions when you write "Especially when everyone on earth including yourself can agree their grading standards are inferior". Nobody, especially someone like you that by your own admission is not an expert, has the ability to know what I or anyone else thinks.

Get in the Ring: Coinscratch vs. Coinbuf sounds like a good match up

You didn't have to get personal but since you did here's one. Almost all of your posts are spent being critical of other members especially when they have anything to say about your beloved brand. Don't they have a website that you can go and criticize and scrutinize? Your like the NGC police and you probably don't even subscribe to PCGS.
Give it a rest already.

This reply just shows how little you actually know, I have no preferred brand, if you had even taken the time to read my sig line you would know that. I have coins in my collection from almost every current and many long gone brands of plastic, no brown nose for me.

UncleDano

@Coinscratch said:
The grade prolly is right for a NGC slab.

Has nothing to do with NGC Coinscratch. Here is one on a PCGS, does that mean PCGS is inferior TPG?

PeakRarities

@UncleDano said:

@Coinscratch said:
The grade prolly is right for a NGC slab.

Has nothing to do with NGC Coinscratch. Here is one on a PCGS, does that mean PCGS is inferior TPG?

I don't have a horse in this race, but I don't think that's a great example to illustrate your point. Based on the provided photo, That coin looks considerably nicer than the OP coin.

I own coins from both TPGs. Though I generally think NGC can be a tad "looser" than PCGS at times, it doesn't necessarily mean "inferior", its just subjectivity and interpretation of the standards.

UncleDano

Having the QA sticker would indicate that both coins are superior.
No, you did not say it, but Coinscratch did:
" You should not make assumptions that I was somehow bashing NGC. Especially when everyone on earth including yourself can agree their grading standards are inferior. "

may

I like to think of it like a modern equivalent of CAC.

UncleDano

The 1938 has the same rough planchet marks on the jaw, but the photo is too poor for it to show. Rough planchet marks on the jaw have no bearing on the grading process for Jeffersons.

alefzero

Not sure about adding value exactly. What it is good for is drawing attention and scrutiny to the holdered coin. It is then up to the buyer to evaluate whether they believe it is worth a premium above others in the grade. Presumably, that would be the case if the PQ features are important to the buyer.

Coinscratch

@DeplorableDan said:

@UncleDano said:

@Coinscratch said:
The grade prolly is right for a NGC slab.

Has nothing to do with NGC Coinscratch. Here is one on a PCGS, does that mean PCGS is inferior TPG?

I don't have a horse in this race, but I don't think that's a great example to illustrate your point. Based on the provided photo, That coin looks considerably nicer than the OP coin.

I own coins from both TPGs. Though I generally think NGC can be a tad "looser" than PCGS at times, it doesn't necessarily mean "inferior", its just subjectivity and interpretation of the standards.

Clearly that coin is superior...Or is it just the photo. Until someone can convince me and the world why NGC coins sell (for the most part) for half as much I'll stand my ground. Apparently the elephant is bigger than the room.

Walkerlover

.

Coinscratch

And another thing which goes back to my point that James does know his stuff. He knew that sticker would fly on the OP coin in a NGC slab. Do you really think he would have stickered the OP coin had it resided in a PCGS slab, I think not.

UncleDano

Without actually having the coin in hand and then having the actual training to grade this coin - no one can say whether this coin was properly graded or even if it was crossed over from a PCGS holder

messydesk

@Coinscratch said:
And another thing which goes back to my point that James does know his stuff. He knew that sticker would fly on the OP coin in a NGC slab. Do you really think he would have stickered the OP coin had it resided in a PCGS slab, I think not.

What's in it for him to put a sticker on what you assert is an inferior quality coin just because of the plastic it's in? I can't come up with a way for that to make sense.