WRONG

Copperindian

This coin is mislabeled & should not be stickered. It does not fit the definition of “STRONG”. The diamond shaped chip above the date is not fully formed. The flag to the right of the second 8 in the date is barely discernible. Fortunately, bidders did not bite on this one as this dog only went for $17k. It’s reassuring there isn’t always blind devotion to the bean. All of us are human & make mistakes; CAC included.

mr1931S

a coin for the visually impaired

johnny9434

Sounds to me this should be taken up with pcgs, fwiw

PeakRarities

I have little to no knowledge about this series, but upon a quick coin facts search, this coin looks similar (with respect to strike) to the last two ms64 cac examples that sold at HA and Legend. It is not as strong as the SB example before that, and that coin brought a price commensurate.

If it were not designated as strong, are you suggesting it should be designated as "weak"? I'm looking at those coinfacts examples, and those are abysmally struck, much worse than the present coin.

braddick

The coin looks somewhat terrible in the large photos and looks pretty decent in the slab photos.
A "weak" is worth 3K, give or take and the "strong" work 30k? Is that right?

TomB

It has the die characteristics associated with the Strong die pair, but was noted in the HA auction that it is a later die state that had been lapped so as to remove some of the die features. The price, however, is not that much out of line with other examples since these tend to auction at the low $20k range.

Copperindian

@DeplorableDan: the best way to answer is by showing two Strong examples here. The diamond shaped chip above the date should be fully formed. It’s not on the cited example. Worse is the flag to the upper right of the second “8” - it’s almost nonexistent. Here’s what Rick Snow calls #2 & #3 in his Strong census:

2

3

Btw, PCGS has set these parameters for the “Strong” classification.

Copperindian

@braddick: yes!

Copperindian

@johnny9434: you may be onto something. Here’s what I don’t know & that’s when they set the parameters for the Strong classification. It could be the cited example was labeled Strong before that.

Copperindian

It would be fair, I think, to classify the cited coin as a mid die state; therefore meaning significant discount. The $17k bid bears that out. Here’s one, though, that should be “weak”.

Copperindian

@TomB: I pretty much agree & even called it a mid die state just above. Still, it doesn’t fit the Strong parameters. Deferring to Rick again, he states there’s only 4 of those.

RobertScotLover

So many (relatively speaking of course) of these around already (note nobody and I mean nobody is keeping actual count of their numbers) and so many have not been attributed ( because they are so difficult to attribute with the naked eye and/or by the common collector)) making their large premiums questionable imo

johnny9434

It's good to get opinions to 🙂

braddick

This reminds me of the weak V.D.B. 1909-S cents where the VDB is barely visible.
I'd think a weak VDB should be worth a lot less than a strong one.

In my opinion, the OP's example above- shouldn't even be worth the 17K it sold for regardless of the slab and CAC.
(In the OP's case, the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes regardless of what "others" are seeing.)

Copperindian

@braddick: yes again. It also has below average eye appeal, imo.

PeakRarities

@rnkmyer1

Yes, thats what i was getting at that there should be an in between classification for a coin like this. I see that its far from the example youve just shown, but not nearly as bad as the ms63 which i agree should be weak.

Copperindian

@RobertScotLover: you make some good points. This is a tough date for the uninitiated. And, only the 4 Strong EDS examples in Rick’s census deserve the $30k or so. The others are $20k or even less for various reasons. Are there others? There has to be; they just haven’t been discovered or attributed yet per your comments. I do think bidders for this issue might have a tendency to at least have some familiarity, though.

RobertScotLover

@rnkmyer1 said:
@RobertScotLover: you make some good points. This is a tough date for the uninitiated. And, only the 4 Strong EDS examples in Rick’s census deserve the $30k or so. The others are $20k or even less for various reasons. Are there others? There has to be; they just haven’t been discovered or attributed yet per your comments. I do think bidders for this issue might have a tendency to at least have some familiarity, though.

Not looking to get into an argument, but I don't understand the significance of " 4 strong eds examples in Rick's census" mean. He doesn't keep track of all examples known, he keeps track of some, what he happens to be aware of and/or have been involved with. Which is more or less meaningless when it comes to any serious reliance on population wise

Copperindian

Direct from Rick Snow: …..”I have seen or handled all the high end examples & believe this one is one of the top examples in the MS65 grade. I rate it as #3 in the PCGS condition census (this is the one I bought). The only two better are the Gardner coin (MS66) & the Blay coin (now former), which is the plate coin in the attribution guide. There are 10 total in the PCGS pop, but only 4 grade MS65. My census only includes early die state examples.” He goes on to actually cite specific coins as either mid die state, flawed by planchet lamination, etc. He further notes PCGS set the Strong parameters a few years ago, adding that many of the top sets do not have EDS examples.
Lots of info from the guy who wrote the book. Not much to argue about; facts win over speculation every time.

1madman

Curiously, does cac require the variety on the label to be correct in order to sticker it, or do they just look at the coin and decide based solely on the label grade?

Copperindian

@1madman: good question - I don’t know the answer to that. The potential issue involving the cited coin in the thread is when it received the Strong designation. PCGS set the parameters a few years ago. If it was before that it would have some bearing, I would think, on CAC’s decision.

oih82w8

@1madman said:
Curiously, does cac require the variety on the label to be correct in order to sticker it, or do they just look at the coin and decide based solely on the label grade?

From what I understand, CAC does not take the variety into consideration unless it is;

"Will accept the following Doubled Dies: 1955, 1969-S, 1970-S, 1971-S, 1972, 1983, 1984 and 1995."

https://www.cacgrading.com/coins-accepted/stickering

airplanenut

@oih82w8 said:

@1madman said:
Curiously, does cac require the variety on the label to be correct in order to sticker it, or do they just look at the coin and decide based solely on the label grade?

From what I understand, CAC does not take the variety into consideration unless it is;

"Will accept the following Doubled Dies: 1955, 1969-S, 1970-S, 1971-S, 1972, 1983, 1984 and 1995."

https://www.cacgrading.com/coins-accepted/stickering

I’m guessing that’s stated because all but the 1955 are Memorials, which they otherwise don’t sticker. Not sure why they wouldn’t just leave the 1955 off and specify the exception is for Memorials.

jmlanzaf

@airplanenut said:

@oih82w8 said:

@1madman said:
Curiously, does cac require the variety on the label to be correct in order to sticker it, or do they just look at the coin and decide based solely on the label grade?

From what I understand, CAC does not take the variety into consideration unless it is;

"Will accept the following Doubled Dies: 1955, 1969-S, 1970-S, 1971-S, 1972, 1983, 1984 and 1995."

https://www.cacgrading.com/coins-accepted/stickering

I’m guessing that’s stated because all but the 1955 are Memorials, which they otherwise don’t sticker. Not sure why they wouldn’t just leave the 1955 off and specify the exception is for Memorials.

Because they also don't consider DD wheat varieties other than the 55 DDO.

airplanenut

@jmlanzaf said:

@airplanenut said:

@oih82w8 said:

@1madman said:
Curiously, does cac require the variety on the label to be correct in order to sticker it, or do they just look at the coin and decide based solely on the label grade?

From what I understand, CAC does not take the variety into consideration unless it is;

"Will accept the following Doubled Dies: 1955, 1969-S, 1970-S, 1971-S, 1972, 1983, 1984 and 1995."

https://www.cacgrading.com/coins-accepted/stickering

I’m guessing that’s stated because all but the 1955 are Memorials, which they otherwise don’t sticker. Not sure why they wouldn’t just leave the 1955 off and specify the exception is for Memorials.

Because they also don't consider DD wheat varieties other than the 55 DDO.

Is that to say they’d accept a 1936 for stickering, but not a 1936 DDO? I can understand why they’d accept certain coins in series they normally wouldn’t, but it seems silly to me that a coin that is a type they accept wouldn’t be taken because it’s a variety. All the more so in light of other series (think bust halves) where tons of examples can be considered varieties, albeit perhaps less significant.

TomB

For grading of Lincoln cents CAC states-

"Lincoln Cents, Fivaz-Stanton (FS) from Cherrypickers' Guide 6th Edition Volume 1"

While for stickering CAC states all business strike and 1909-1942 proof Wheat cents along with-

"the following Doubled Dies: 1955, 1969-S, 1970-S, 1971-S, 1972, 1983, 1984 and 1995"

BStrauss3

Several mis-understandings of what CAC is saying with the sticker.

They're about the grade, not the variety. For the original coin, they are simply saying it's a solid MS64. Not whether or not they agree with the variety attribution. Issues with the attribution are questions for our hosts.

For the DDOs, it's probably a simple case of avoiding 100s of questions. They don't sticker memorial cents EXCEPT the DDOs they list. They don't sticker DDOs. If they didn't call out the 1955 Wheat DDO, how many times do you think the question would be asked?

1madman

@BStrauss3 said:
Several mis-understandings of what CAC is saying with the sticker.

They're about the grade, not the variety. For the original coin, they are simply saying it's a solid MS64. Not whether or not they agree with the variety attribution. Issues with the attribution are questions for our hosts.

For the DDOs, it's probably a simple case of avoiding 100s of questions. They don't sticker memorial cents EXCEPT the DDOs they list. They don't sticker DDOs. If they didn't call out the 1955 Wheat DDO, how many times do you think the question would be asked?

Thanks for clarifying this for me. Next question is if the owner now wants to submit this pcgs cac coin to cacg for crossover, does the pcgs variety automatically get transferred to the cacg slab? Sounds like this could get messy if cacg automatically crossed this coin but designated it as weak on the label.

I’m just thinking this would be an instance where a green stickered coin would not automatically cross to a cacg slab.

jmlanzaf

@airplanenut said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@airplanenut said:

@oih82w8 said:

@1madman said:
Curiously, does cac require the variety on the label to be correct in order to sticker it, or do they just look at the coin and decide based solely on the label grade?

From what I understand, CAC does not take the variety into consideration unless it is;

"Will accept the following Doubled Dies: 1955, 1969-S, 1970-S, 1971-S, 1972, 1983, 1984 and 1995."

https://www.cacgrading.com/coins-accepted/stickering

I’m guessing that’s stated because all but the 1955 are Memorials, which they otherwise don’t sticker. Not sure why they wouldn’t just leave the 1955 off and specify the exception is for Memorials.

Because they also don't consider DD wheat varieties other than the 55 DDO.

Is that to say they’d accept a 1936 for stickering, but not a 1936 DDO? I can understand why they’d accept certain coins in series they normally wouldn’t, but it seems silly to me that a coin that is a type they accept wouldn’t be taken because it’s a variety. All the more so in light of other series (think bust halves) where tons of examples can be considered varieties, albeit perhaps less significant.

They take it but they don't verify variety.

jmlanzaf

@1madman said:

@BStrauss3 said:
Several mis-understandings of what CAC is saying with the sticker.

They're about the grade, not the variety. For the original coin, they are simply saying it's a solid MS64. Not whether or not they agree with the variety attribution. Issues with the attribution are questions for our hosts.

For the DDOs, it's probably a simple case of avoiding 100s of questions. They don't sticker memorial cents EXCEPT the DDOs they list. They don't sticker DDOs. If they didn't call out the 1955 Wheat DDO, how many times do you think the question would be asked?

Thanks for clarifying this for me. Next question is if the owner now wants to submit this pcgs cac coin to cacg for crossover, does the pcgs variety automatically get transferred to the cacg slab? Sounds like this could get messy if cacg automatically crossed this coin but designated it as weak on the label.

I’m just thinking this would be an instance where a green stickered coin would not automatically cross to a cacg slab.

CACG is not CAC. The stickers don't verify varieties except as noted. CACG is a full service TPG.

jmlanzaf

@rnkmyer1 said:
This coin is mislabeled & should not be stickered. It does not fit the definition of “STRONG”. The diamond shaped chip above the date is not fully formed. The flag to the right of the second 8 in the date is barely discernible. Fortunately, bidders did not bite on this one as this dog only went for $17k. It’s reassuring there isn’t always blind devotion to the bean. All of us are human & make mistakes; CAC included.

I find it odd that you say CAC made a mistake when they ARE NOT MAKING ANY STATEMENT about the variety, but you don't accuse PCGS of making a mistake when they ARE STATING the variety. [Assuming that it is an actual mistake. ]

Copperindian

Well, it might not be an actual PCGS “mistake” is the reason. There’s a point in time when they more clearly defined their parameters for “Strong”. I don’t have a fix on when they did so in relation to when this piece was graded.

1madman

@jmlanzaf said:

@1madman said:

@BStrauss3 said:
Several mis-understandings of what CAC is saying with the sticker.

They're about the grade, not the variety. For the original coin, they are simply saying it's a solid MS64. Not whether or not they agree with the variety attribution. Issues with the attribution are questions for our hosts.

For the DDOs, it's probably a simple case of avoiding 100s of questions. They don't sticker memorial cents EXCEPT the DDOs they list. They don't sticker DDOs. If they didn't call out the 1955 Wheat DDO, how many times do you think the question would be asked?

Thanks for clarifying this for me. Next question is if the owner now wants to submit this pcgs cac coin to cacg for crossover, does the pcgs variety automatically get transferred to the cacg slab? Sounds like this could get messy if cacg automatically crossed this coin but designated it as weak on the label.

I’m just thinking this would be an instance where a green stickered coin would not automatically cross to a cacg slab.

CACG is not CAC. The stickers don't verify varieties except as noted. CACG is a full service TPG.

Guess I had the epiphany that it could be possible that if CACG received a pcgs green cac sticker crossover coin, basically it would go right to the encapsulation phase. No need for it to make it to the grading room because supposedly it’s guaranteed to cross over into a cacg holder. I don’t know how much trust cacg has in pcgs/ngc holders, but if it’s already got a cac sticker their team has seen it once.

winesteven

Here’s my MS64. The slab photo is not that good. Snow PDS Grade = 14 (5,5,4). Here’s Rick’s comments:

“Labeled "Strong" by PCGS indicating that this is an Early Die State with a full 7 visible. This is an outstanding example with a great strike. The eagle's tail is as full as you'll ever see. The fields are slightly prooflike indicating that this is one of the first examples off the die. Very few examples can claim to be much better than this piece.”

Steve

Rick’s “Generic” explanatory photo: