Must say that coin isn't very attractive from the pics! Most of the gold beaned coins I've seen are not only under graded but usually have strong eye appeal.
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@Catbert said:
Must say that coin isn't very attractive from the pics! Most of the gold beaned coins I've seen are not only under graded but usually have strong eye appeal.
Interesting! I find that most gold beans I come across are, at best, average in eye appeal. I've seen one or two exceptions, but they don't pop up often.
Quite often I see coins with CAC stickers that don’t appeal to me in the slightest, I guess they’re technically high end for the grade, but it doesn’t always mean they’ll be pretty.
@Catbert said:
Must say that coin isn't very attractive from the pics! Most of the gold beaned coins I've seen are not only under graded but usually have strong eye appeal.
Interesting! I find that most gold beans I come across are, at best, average in eye appeal. I've seen one or two exceptions, but they don't pop up often.
I guess I’m excluding the common buffs and mercurys often seen in old holders with a gold bean. I’m referring to classic coinage from my experience.
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@Catbert said:
Must say that coin isn't very attractive from the pics! Most of the gold beaned coins I've seen are not only under graded but usually have strong eye appeal.
My observations have been similar to yours. And the typical prices realized for gold-stickered examples don’t jive with unappealing looking coins. Yes, the stickers, themselves, are partly responsible for that, but the coins usually deserve a lot of credit, as well.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@asheland said:
Quite often I see coins with CAC stickers that don’t appeal to me in the slightest, I guess they’re technically high end for the grade, but it doesn’t always mean they’ll be pretty.
The coin might actually be fairly attractive, in my opinion, and I can pretty much guarantee it looked like that prior to either PCGS or CAC seeing it. It looks like it's nice.
What do you do with a technically excellent coin that would otherwise grade MS67 when it has poor eye appeal?
Sometimes they end up in MS65 holders, and sometimes they get green or gold stickers. Sometimes in-hand, they're actually quite beautiful, and sometimes it's just that different people have different tastes. Photography can make coins look tremendously good, or really not all that great. It's easy to find examples of both.
@BryceM said:
What do you do with a technically excellent coin that would otherwise grade MS67 when it has poor eye appeal?
If this coin is a 67, pcgs did the right thing by dropping it down to a 65. They had to give it some kind of a number. The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved.
Perhaps there is an opportunity with this coin by purchasing it, conserving it, then get it in a 67 holder (and stickering again at 67).
@BryceM said:
What do you do with a technically excellent coin that would otherwise grade MS67 when it has poor eye appeal?
If this coin is a 67, pcgs did the right thing by dropping it down to a 65. They had to give it some kind of a number. The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved.
Perhaps there is an opportunity with this coin by purchasing it, conserving it, then get it in a 67 holder (and stickering again at 67).
How did you come up with that supposed rule of thumb? Their stated policy is to sticker coins that are solid for the grade or better. So as long as they don’t see a coin as a details-grade example, why would you say “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade”? Regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks of it, as a straight-grade coin, at a certain grade level, their policy is to sticker it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@BryceM said:
What do you do with a technically excellent coin that would otherwise grade MS67 when it has poor eye appeal?
If this coin is a 67, pcgs did the right thing by dropping it down to a 65. They had to give it some kind of a number. The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved.
Perhaps there is an opportunity with this coin by purchasing it, conserving it, then get it in a 67 holder (and stickering again at 67).
How did you come up with that supposed rule of thumb? Their stated policy is to sticker coins that are solid for the grade or better. So as long as they don’t see a coin as a details-grade example, why would you say “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade”? Regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks of it, as a straight-grade coin, at a certain grade level, their policy is to sticker it.
Clearly we haven't discussed CAC enough on this forum. 🤣
@lcoopie said:
Can’t a coin that has been exposed to “something” turn in its holder and not been noticed at grading?
It can, although newer holders are more resistant than older holders because they are sealed better. However, that coin does not appear, to me, to have turned. It's a pretty normal look, actually, for an album coin.
@BryceM said:
What do you do with a technically excellent coin that would otherwise grade MS67 when it has poor eye appeal?
If this coin is a 67, pcgs did the right thing by dropping it down to a 65. They had to give it some kind of a number. The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved.
Perhaps there is an opportunity with this coin by purchasing it, conserving it, then get it in a 67 holder (and stickering again at 67).
How did you come up with that supposed rule of thumb? Their stated policy is to sticker coins that are solid for the grade or better. So as long as they don’t see a coin as a details-grade example, why would you say “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade”? Regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks of it, as a straight-grade coin, at a certain grade level, their policy is to sticker it.
The clever thing that cac stickering does is to take the cop-out path on any coins they don’t want to deal with. Cacg took this path away from that division of the business, and forces a grade/details decision. That’s why so many details grades, or dropping from a NGC63 to a cacg58. Look at the decisions that JA has made regarding toning in the past. Basically if he doesn’t like it, no sticker. Very easy. This coin must be phenomenal underneath the poop streaks, because he threw it a bone when he should have copped-out as usual.
@BryceM said:
What do you do with a technically excellent coin that would otherwise grade MS67 when it has poor eye appeal?
If this coin is a 67, pcgs did the right thing by dropping it down to a 65. They had to give it some kind of a number. The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved.
Perhaps there is an opportunity with this coin by purchasing it, conserving it, then get it in a 67 holder (and stickering again at 67).
How did you come up with that supposed rule of thumb? Their stated policy is to sticker coins that are solid for the grade or better. So as long as they don’t see a coin as a details-grade example, why would you say “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade”? Regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks of it, as a straight-grade coin, at a certain grade level, their policy is to sticker it.
The clever thing that cac stickering does is to take the cop-out path on any coins they don’t want to deal with. Cacg took this path away from that division of the business, and forces a grade/details decision. That’s why so many details grades, or dropping from a NGC63 to a cacg58. Look at the decisions that JA has made regarding toning in the past. Basically if he doesn’t like it, no sticker. Very easy. This coin must be phenomenal underneath the poop streaks, because he threw it a bone when he should have copped-out as usual.
So it sounds like, according to you, CAC either takes “the cop-out path on any coins they don’t want to deal with” or they “cave”, as you feel they did on this coin.
I’m glad to see you have such an open mind about them and can tell exactly what they’re thinking.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@CaptHenway said:
I suspect that this is original vintage album toning from a first generation Whitman blue trifold album, where there were streaks of glue on the backing paper inside the holes. (As part of the manufacturing process they put glue on the backing sheet and then applied the three cut out cardboard sheets onto that. Because this exposed the coins to the glue, they changed the manufacturing process to apply glue to the backs of the three cardboard sheets, which left the holes clear.) Of course that would mean that the coin was put in the holder face down. I have seen some old time Whitman albums where some coins were face up and others were face down, though that was usually to show the mint mark.
The toning is not great, but I respect it. I do not consider the coin unattractive, just different.
TD
In layman’s terms, environmental damage?
No.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@BryceM said:
What do you do with a technically excellent coin that would otherwise grade MS67 when it has poor eye appeal?
If this coin is a 67, pcgs did the right thing by dropping it down to a 65. They had to give it some kind of a number. The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved.
Perhaps there is an opportunity with this coin by purchasing it, conserving it, then get it in a 67 holder (and stickering again at 67).
How did you come up with that supposed rule of thumb? Their stated policy is to sticker coins that are solid for the grade or better. So as long as they don’t see a coin as a details-grade example, why would you say “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade”? Regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks of it, as a straight-grade coin, at a certain grade level, their policy is to sticker it.
The clever thing that cac stickering does is to take the cop-out path on any coins they don’t want to deal with. Cacg took this path away from that division of the business, and forces a grade/details decision. That’s why so many details grades, or dropping from a NGC63 to a cacg58. Look at the decisions that JA has made regarding toning in the past. Basically if he doesn’t like it, no sticker. Very easy. This coin must be phenomenal underneath the poop streaks, because he threw it a bone when he should have copped-out as usual.
But that coin stickered. There was no "cop out". So this whole screed is simply hate-mongering CAC.
@BryceM said:
What do you do with a technically excellent coin that would otherwise grade MS67 when it has poor eye appeal?
If this coin is a 67, pcgs did the right thing by dropping it down to a 65. They had to give it some kind of a number. The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved.
Perhaps there is an opportunity with this coin by purchasing it, conserving it, then get it in a 67 holder (and stickering again at 67).
How did you come up with that supposed rule of thumb? Their stated policy is to sticker coins that are solid for the grade or better. So as long as they don’t see a coin as a details-grade example, why would you say “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade”? Regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks of it, as a straight-grade coin, at a certain grade level, their policy is to sticker it.
The clever thing that cac stickering does is to take the cop-out path on any coins they don’t want to deal with. Cacg took this path away from that division of the business, and forces a grade/details decision. That’s why so many details grades, or dropping from a NGC63 to a cacg58. Look at the decisions that JA has made regarding toning in the past. Basically if he doesn’t like it, no sticker. Very easy. This coin must be phenomenal underneath the poop streaks, because he threw it a bone when he should have copped-out as usual.
But that coin stickered. There was no "cop out". So this whole screen is simply hate-mongering CAC.
No hate towards cac, just describing their business method / workflow process. It’s very simple and somewhat genius. I truly am beginning to think this coin is closer to the cat’s meow than the cat’s behind. If it was priced on this planet it may be worth a shot to tinker with.
@BryceM said:
What do you do with a technically excellent coin that would otherwise grade MS67 when it has poor eye appeal?
If this coin is a 67, pcgs did the right thing by dropping it down to a 65. They had to give it some kind of a number. The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved.
Perhaps there is an opportunity with this coin by purchasing it, conserving it, then get it in a 67 holder (and stickering again at 67).
How did you come up with that supposed rule of thumb? Their stated policy is to sticker coins that are solid for the grade or better. So as long as they don’t see a coin as a details-grade example, why would you say “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade”? Regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks of it, as a straight-grade coin, at a certain grade level, their policy is to sticker it.
The clever thing that cac stickering does is to take the cop-out path on any coins they don’t want to deal with. Cacg took this path away from that division of the business, and forces a grade/details decision. That’s why so many details grades, or dropping from a NGC63 to a cacg58. Look at the decisions that JA has made regarding toning in the past. Basically if he doesn’t like it, no sticker. Very easy. This coin must be phenomenal underneath the poop streaks, because he threw it a bone when he should have copped-out as usual.
But that coin stickered. There was no "cop out". So this whole screen is simply hate-mongering CAC.
No hate towards cac, just describing their business method / workflow process. It’s very simple and somewhat genius. I truly am beginning to think this coin is closer to the cat’s meow than the cat’s behind. If it was priced on this planet it may be worth a shot to tinker with.
And yet, you previously stated “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved”. Maybe you are more open-minded than I’d thought.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@BryceM said:
What do you do with a technically excellent coin that would otherwise grade MS67 when it has poor eye appeal?
If this coin is a 67, pcgs did the right thing by dropping it down to a 65. They had to give it some kind of a number. The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved.
Perhaps there is an opportunity with this coin by purchasing it, conserving it, then get it in a 67 holder (and stickering again at 67).
How did you come up with that supposed rule of thumb? Their stated policy is to sticker coins that are solid for the grade or better. So as long as they don’t see a coin as a details-grade example, why would you say “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade”? Regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks of it, as a straight-grade coin, at a certain grade level, their policy is to sticker it.
The clever thing that cac stickering does is to take the cop-out path on any coins they don’t want to deal with. Cacg took this path away from that division of the business, and forces a grade/details decision. That’s why so many details grades, or dropping from a NGC63 to a cacg58. Look at the decisions that JA has made regarding toning in the past. Basically if he doesn’t like it, no sticker. Very easy. This coin must be phenomenal underneath the poop streaks, because he threw it a bone when he should have copped-out as usual.
But that coin stickered. There was no "cop out". So this whole screen is simply hate-mongering CAC.
No hate towards cac, just describing their business method / workflow process. It’s very simple and somewhat genius. I truly am beginning to think this coin is closer to the cat’s meow than the cat’s behind. If it was priced on this planet it may be worth a shot to tinker with.
And yet, you previously stated “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved”. Maybe you are more open-minded than I’d thought.😉
In some way, this coin forced cac to show their hand. They had to basically say, this thing is an ugly dog but pcgs net downgraded it accordingly, and we agree with that downgrade. This is what I’d call a bait coin on a cac submission, and might be enough to irritate them on other coins in that submission.
@BryceM said:
What do you do with a technically excellent coin that would otherwise grade MS67 when it has poor eye appeal?
If this coin is a 67, pcgs did the right thing by dropping it down to a 65. They had to give it some kind of a number. The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved.
Perhaps there is an opportunity with this coin by purchasing it, conserving it, then get it in a 67 holder (and stickering again at 67).
How did you come up with that supposed rule of thumb? Their stated policy is to sticker coins that are solid for the grade or better. So as long as they don’t see a coin as a details-grade example, why would you say “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade”? Regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks of it, as a straight-grade coin, at a certain grade level, their policy is to sticker it.
The clever thing that cac stickering does is to take the cop-out path on any coins they don’t want to deal with. Cacg took this path away from that division of the business, and forces a grade/details decision. That’s why so many details grades, or dropping from a NGC63 to a cacg58. Look at the decisions that JA has made regarding toning in the past. Basically if he doesn’t like it, no sticker. Very easy. This coin must be phenomenal underneath the poop streaks, because he threw it a bone when he should have copped-out as usual.
But that coin stickered. There was no "cop out". So this whole screen is simply hate-mongering CAC.
No hate towards cac, just describing their business method / workflow process. It’s very simple and somewhat genius. I truly am beginning to think this coin is closer to the cat’s meow than the cat’s behind. If it was priced on this planet it may be worth a shot to tinker with.
And yet, you previously stated “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved”. Maybe you are more open-minded than I’d thought.😉
I find it absurd that someone would take the position that this piece shouldn’t sticker at any grade. It may be ugly, but it hasn’t been altered and is not what I’d call a problem coin per se even if not the easiest to sell.
@BryceM said:
What do you do with a technically excellent coin that would otherwise grade MS67 when it has poor eye appeal?
If this coin is a 67, pcgs did the right thing by dropping it down to a 65. They had to give it some kind of a number. The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved.
Perhaps there is an opportunity with this coin by purchasing it, conserving it, then get it in a 67 holder (and stickering again at 67).
How did you come up with that supposed rule of thumb? Their stated policy is to sticker coins that are solid for the grade or better. So as long as they don’t see a coin as a details-grade example, why would you say “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade”? Regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks of it, as a straight-grade coin, at a certain grade level, their policy is to sticker it.
The clever thing that cac stickering does is to take the cop-out path on any coins they don’t want to deal with. Cacg took this path away from that division of the business, and forces a grade/details decision. That’s why so many details grades, or dropping from a NGC63 to a cacg58. Look at the decisions that JA has made regarding toning in the past. Basically if he doesn’t like it, no sticker. Very easy. This coin must be phenomenal underneath the poop streaks, because he threw it a bone when he should have copped-out as usual.
But that coin stickered. There was no "cop out". So this whole screen is simply hate-mongering CAC.
No hate towards cac, just describing their business method / workflow process. It’s very simple and somewhat genius. I truly am beginning to think this coin is closer to the cat’s meow than the cat’s behind. If it was priced on this planet it may be worth a shot to tinker with.
And yet, you previously stated “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved”. Maybe you are more open-minded than I’d thought.😉
I find it absurd that someone would take the position that this piece shouldn’t sticker at any grade. It may be ugly, but it hasn’t been altered and is not what I’d call a problem coin per se even if not the easiest to sell.
You probably won’t be surprised that you’ll get no argument from me on that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@BryceM said:
What do you do with a technically excellent coin that would otherwise grade MS67 when it has poor eye appeal?
If this coin is a 67, pcgs did the right thing by dropping it down to a 65. They had to give it some kind of a number. The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved.
Perhaps there is an opportunity with this coin by purchasing it, conserving it, then get it in a 67 holder (and stickering again at 67).
How did you come up with that supposed rule of thumb? Their stated policy is to sticker coins that are solid for the grade or better. So as long as they don’t see a coin as a details-grade example, why would you say “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade”? Regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks of it, as a straight-grade coin, at a certain grade level, their policy is to sticker it.
The clever thing that cac stickering does is to take the cop-out path on any coins they don’t want to deal with. Cacg took this path away from that division of the business, and forces a grade/details decision. That’s why so many details grades, or dropping from a NGC63 to a cacg58. Look at the decisions that JA has made regarding toning in the past. Basically if he doesn’t like it, no sticker. Very easy. This coin must be phenomenal underneath the poop streaks, because he threw it a bone when he should have copped-out as usual.
But that coin stickered. There was no "cop out". So this whole screen is simply hate-mongering CAC.
No hate towards cac, just describing their business method / workflow process. It’s very simple and somewhat genius. I truly am beginning to think this coin is closer to the cat’s meow than the cat’s behind. If it was priced on this planet it may be worth a shot to tinker with.
And yet, you previously stated “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved”. Maybe you are more open-minded than I’d thought.😉
In some way, this coin forced cac to show their hand. They had to basically say, this thing is an ugly dog but pcgs net downgraded it accordingly, and we agree with that downgrade. This is what I’d call a bait coin on a cac submission, and might be enough to irritate them on other coins in that submission.
The coin didn’t force their hand in any way. And we don’t even know what it actually looks like in-hand.
All of your speculation about CAC’s thought process is merely that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@BryceM said:
What do you do with a technically excellent coin that would otherwise grade MS67 when it has poor eye appeal?
If this coin is a 67, pcgs did the right thing by dropping it down to a 65. They had to give it some kind of a number. The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved.
Perhaps there is an opportunity with this coin by purchasing it, conserving it, then get it in a 67 holder (and stickering again at 67).
How did you come up with that supposed rule of thumb? Their stated policy is to sticker coins that are solid for the grade or better. So as long as they don’t see a coin as a details-grade example, why would you say “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade”? Regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks of it, as a straight-grade coin, at a certain grade level, their policy is to sticker it.
The clever thing that cac stickering does is to take the cop-out path on any coins they don’t want to deal with. Cacg took this path away from that division of the business, and forces a grade/details decision. That’s why so many details grades, or dropping from a NGC63 to a cacg58. Look at the decisions that JA has made regarding toning in the past. Basically if he doesn’t like it, no sticker. Very easy. This coin must be phenomenal underneath the poop streaks, because he threw it a bone when he should have copped-out as usual.
But that coin stickered. There was no "cop out". So this whole screen is simply hate-mongering CAC.
No hate towards cac, just describing their business method / workflow process. It’s very simple and somewhat genius. I truly am beginning to think this coin is closer to the cat’s meow than the cat’s behind. If it was priced on this planet it may be worth a shot to tinker with.
And yet, you previously stated “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved”. Maybe you are more open-minded than I’d thought.😉
I find it absurd that someone would take the position that this piece shouldn’t sticker at any grade. It may be ugly, but it hasn’t been altered and is not what I’d call a problem coin per se even if not the easiest to sell.
You probably won’t be surprised that you’ll get no argument from me on that.
Here’s the point I’m making in general terms (not only applicable to this coin). Many coins apparently are crossing from straightgrade NGC/pcgs holders into details cacg holders, which means those coins will not (in theory) sticker at cac in any grade. Sometimes I get the feeling people think any straight graded coin has to sticker at some level, which is clearly wrong.
@BryceM said:
What do you do with a technically excellent coin that would otherwise grade MS67 when it has poor eye appeal?
If this coin is a 67, pcgs did the right thing by dropping it down to a 65. They had to give it some kind of a number. The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved.
Perhaps there is an opportunity with this coin by purchasing it, conserving it, then get it in a 67 holder (and stickering again at 67).
How did you come up with that supposed rule of thumb? Their stated policy is to sticker coins that are solid for the grade or better. So as long as they don’t see a coin as a details-grade example, why would you say “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade”? Regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks of it, as a straight-grade coin, at a certain grade level, their policy is to sticker it.
The clever thing that cac stickering does is to take the cop-out path on any coins they don’t want to deal with. Cacg took this path away from that division of the business, and forces a grade/details decision. That’s why so many details grades, or dropping from a NGC63 to a cacg58. Look at the decisions that JA has made regarding toning in the past. Basically if he doesn’t like it, no sticker. Very easy. This coin must be phenomenal underneath the poop streaks, because he threw it a bone when he should have copped-out as usual.
But that coin stickered. There was no "cop out". So this whole screen is simply hate-mongering CAC.
No hate towards cac, just describing their business method / workflow process. It’s very simple and somewhat genius. I truly am beginning to think this coin is closer to the cat’s meow than the cat’s behind. If it was priced on this planet it may be worth a shot to tinker with.
And yet, you previously stated “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved”. Maybe you are more open-minded than I’d thought.😉
I find it absurd that someone would take the position that this piece shouldn’t sticker at any grade. It may be ugly, but it hasn’t been altered and is not what I’d call a problem coin per se even if not the easiest to sell.
You probably won’t be surprised that you’ll get no argument from me on that.
Here’s the point I’m making in general terms (not only applicable to this coin). Many coins apparently are crossing from straightgrade NGC/pcgs holders into details cacg holders, which means those coins will not (in theory) sticker at cac in any grade. Sometimes I get the feeling people think any straight graded coin has to sticker at some level, which is clearly wrong.
Coins that have been altered chemically in a market unacceptable way or where there is movement of metal will not sticker at any grade. This coin is original. Original does not necessarily mean pretty. The Holy grail of numismatics is an original AND eye appealing coin. Ugly toned coins that are otherwise problem free (I.e. no artificial toning, cleaning, or environmental damage, etc.) will sticker at some grade typically.
@BryceM said:
What do you do with a technically excellent coin that would otherwise grade MS67 when it has poor eye appeal?
If this coin is a 67, pcgs did the right thing by dropping it down to a 65. They had to give it some kind of a number. The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved.
Perhaps there is an opportunity with this coin by purchasing it, conserving it, then get it in a 67 holder (and stickering again at 67).
How did you come up with that supposed rule of thumb? Their stated policy is to sticker coins that are solid for the grade or better. So as long as they don’t see a coin as a details-grade example, why would you say “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade”? Regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks of it, as a straight-grade coin, at a certain grade level, their policy is to sticker it.
The clever thing that cac stickering does is to take the cop-out path on any coins they don’t want to deal with. Cacg took this path away from that division of the business, and forces a grade/details decision. That’s why so many details grades, or dropping from a NGC63 to a cacg58. Look at the decisions that JA has made regarding toning in the past. Basically if he doesn’t like it, no sticker. Very easy. This coin must be phenomenal underneath the poop streaks, because he threw it a bone when he should have copped-out as usual.
But that coin stickered. There was no "cop out". So this whole screen is simply hate-mongering CAC.
No hate towards cac, just describing their business method / workflow process. It’s very simple and somewhat genius. I truly am beginning to think this coin is closer to the cat’s meow than the cat’s behind. If it was priced on this planet it may be worth a shot to tinker with.
And yet, you previously stated “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved”. Maybe you are more open-minded than I’d thought.😉
I find it absurd that someone would take the position that this piece shouldn’t sticker at any grade. It may be ugly, but it hasn’t been altered and is not what I’d call a problem coin per se even if not the easiest to sell.
You probably won’t be surprised that you’ll get no argument from me on that.
Here’s the point I’m making in general terms (not only applicable to this coin). Many coins apparently are crossing from straightgrade NGC/pcgs holders into details cacg holders, which means those coins will not (in theory) sticker at cac in any grade. Sometimes I get the feeling people think any straight graded coin has to sticker at some level, which is clearly wrong.
Which has nothing to do with this coin or thread....
It's also about the 3rd interpretation of your own comments.
@BryceM said:
What do you do with a technically excellent coin that would otherwise grade MS67 when it has poor eye appeal?
If this coin is a 67, pcgs did the right thing by dropping it down to a 65. They had to give it some kind of a number. The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved.
Perhaps there is an opportunity with this coin by purchasing it, conserving it, then get it in a 67 holder (and stickering again at 67).
How did you come up with that supposed rule of thumb? Their stated policy is to sticker coins that are solid for the grade or better. So as long as they don’t see a coin as a details-grade example, why would you say “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade”? Regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks of it, as a straight-grade coin, at a certain grade level, their policy is to sticker it.
The clever thing that cac stickering does is to take the cop-out path on any coins they don’t want to deal with. Cacg took this path away from that division of the business, and forces a grade/details decision. That’s why so many details grades, or dropping from a NGC63 to a cacg58. Look at the decisions that JA has made regarding toning in the past. Basically if he doesn’t like it, no sticker. Very easy. This coin must be phenomenal underneath the poop streaks, because he threw it a bone when he should have copped-out as usual.
But that coin stickered. There was no "cop out". So this whole screen is simply hate-mongering CAC.
No hate towards cac, just describing their business method / workflow process. It’s very simple and somewhat genius. I truly am beginning to think this coin is closer to the cat’s meow than the cat’s behind. If it was priced on this planet it may be worth a shot to tinker with.
And yet, you previously stated “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved”. Maybe you are more open-minded than I’d thought.😉
I find it absurd that someone would take the position that this piece shouldn’t sticker at any grade. It may be ugly, but it hasn’t been altered and is not what I’d call a problem coin per se even if not the easiest to sell.
You probably won’t be surprised that you’ll get no argument from me on that.
Here’s the point I’m making in general terms (not only applicable to this coin). Many coins apparently are crossing from straightgrade NGC/pcgs holders into details cacg holders, which means those coins will not (in theory) sticker at cac in any grade. Sometimes I get the feeling people think any straight graded coin has to sticker at some level, which is clearly wrong.
Which has nothing to do with this coin or thread....
It's also about the 3rd interpretation of your own comments.
I think I’m attempting to rationalize for the first time wanting to now look at ugly dreck with a cac sticker to figure out what’s hiding. Like is it a diamond in the rough, or just a pitty green sticker. Many people say some of the ugliest toned coins they’ve ever seen have beans, and others won’t buy a coin unless it has a bean.
You may laugh at my thinking, or you may have similar thoughts, but it is tempting now to look at non-attractive cac coins and determine if a dip would bump them 1-2-3 points.
Way back in dinosaur times (early CAC era) I purchased a Peace dollar. It wasn't so pretty in the available photos, but since it had a CAC sticker, I felt like it must be infinitely prettier in-hand. Opening that package outside the post office revealed a nasty surprise. It was, technically, a nice coin, but had tremendously poor eye appeal. I quickly sold it at a slight loss.
That experience made a quick learner out of me. I discovered that there's a big difference between opinions, and the one that mattered the most to me was my own. The TPGs know way more about grading than I do, but I know way more about what I like than they do. When the two opinions match up, I tried to buy the coin. When they didn't, I looked for something else.
@BryceM said:
I discovered that there's a big difference between opinions, and the one that mattered the most to me was my own. The TPGs know way more about grading than I do, but I know way more about what I like than they do. When the two opinions match up, I tried to buy the coin. When they didn't, I looked for something else.
Agree 100%, which is why I couldn't care less if a coin has a sticker or not.
Agree 100%, which is why I couldn't care less if a coin has a sticker or not.
To paraphrase "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!"
"Who knows what PVC lurks in the hearts of TPGs? CAC knows!"
I'm not sure even they know. Or maybe they know and don't care. This is currently for sale at GC - AU50 CAC
Finding individual examples of grading mistakes is very, very easy. This is true of all eras, all TPG companies, and all graders. Everyone has good days and bad days. Coins sometimes turn in holders and sometimes stuff is just flat missed. It's WAY more art than science, there are no actual standards, and the reproducibility of coin grading isn't all that precise. People think and approach things differently. The variety is what makes life interesting. When it comes to coin grading, those who have a wide world view seem to grasp the nuances and perceived inconsistencies more easily than people who are narrow-minded.
Agree 100%, which is why I couldn't care less if a coin has a sticker or not.
To paraphrase "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!"
"Who knows what PVC lurks in the hearts of TPGs? CAC knows!"
I'm not sure even they know. Or maybe they know and don't care. This is currently for sale at GC - AU50 CAC
Quote from
JACAC
October 17, 2022
On the pvc front: If an already stickered coin is submitted for crossing and it exhibits PVC, we will contact you and will encourage you to allow us to remove the pvc with a solvent. We already have provisions for this in our building plan as serious ventilation is needed. There will , of course, be no added charge for this. JA
Agree 100%, which is why I couldn't care less if a coin has a sticker or not.
To paraphrase "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!"
"Who knows what PVC lurks in the hearts of TPGs? CAC knows!"
I'm not sure even they know. Or maybe they know and don't care. This is currently for sale at GC - AU50 CAC
Quote from
JACAC
October 17, 2022
On the pvc front: If an already stickered coin is submitted for crossing and it exhibits PVC, we will contact you and will encourage you to allow us to remove the pvc with a solvent. We already have provisions for this in our building plan as serious ventilation is needed. There will , of course, be no added charge for this. JA
I thought CAC’s policy was to not sticker coins with PVC.
Agree 100%, which is why I couldn't care less if a coin has a sticker or not.
To paraphrase "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!"
"Who knows what PVC lurks in the hearts of TPGs? CAC knows!"
I'm not sure even they know. Or maybe they know and don't care. This is currently for sale at GC - AU50 CAC
That's not PVC
Agree. That's corrosion of the copper alloy. If it's removed, there will be a pit there. It may be stable in which case it may be acceptable to many collectors.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Agree 100%, which is why I couldn't care less if a coin has a sticker or not.
To paraphrase "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!"
"Who knows what PVC lurks in the hearts of TPGs? CAC knows!"
I'm not sure even they know. Or maybe they know and don't care. This is currently for sale at GC - AU50 CAC
Quote from
JACAC
October 17, 2022
On the pvc front: If an already stickered coin is submitted for crossing and it exhibits PVC, we will contact you and will encourage you to allow us to remove the pvc with a solvent. We already have provisions for this in our building plan as serious ventilation is needed. There will , of course, be no added charge for this. JA
I thought CAC’s policy was to not sticker coins with PVC.
Agree 100%, which is why I couldn't care less if a coin has a sticker or not.
To paraphrase "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!"
"Who knows what PVC lurks in the hearts of TPGs? CAC knows!"
I'm not sure even they know. Or maybe they know and don't care. This is currently for sale at GC - AU50 CAC
Quote from
JACAC
October 17, 2022
On the pvc front: If an already stickered coin is submitted for crossing and it exhibits PVC, we will contact you and will encourage you to allow us to remove the pvc with a solvent. We already have provisions for this in our building plan as serious ventilation is needed. There will , of course, be no added charge for this. JA
I thought CAC’s policy was to not sticker coins with PVC.
It is. However if PCGS/NGC miss the PVC residue, CAC won't be able to "sniff it" in the holder and it won't be visible until it turns. Contrary to popular urban legend, PVC residue is not always green and not always visible.
Throw it back in the roll lol. It’s definitely not something I would want. Just put it on the bay starting at 99c and see what she rips for. BS walks, money talks. Which one are you? What’s entertaining (or revolting) on these threads how they go round and round with their various spiels.
@Cougar1978 said:
Throw it back in the roll lol. It’s definitely not something I would want. Just put it on the bay starting at 99c and see what she rips for. BS walks, money talks. Which one are you? What’s entertaining (or revolting) on these threads how they go round and round with their various spiels.
Speaking of BS and being revolted and various spiels....it just never stops with you does it?
@Cougar1978 said:
Throw it back in the roll lol. It’s definitely not something I would want. Just put it on the bay starting at 99c and see what she rips for. BS walks, money talks. Which one are you? What’s entertaining (or revolting) on these threads how they go round and round with their various spiels.
You might have a better chance of providing helpful or relevant feedback/suggestions if you'd take the time to read the posts to which you reply.
The OP didn't give any indication that he owns the coin, so it's highly doubtful he could throw it back in the roll or list it for sale on eBay.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Cougar1978 said:
Throw it back in the roll lol. It’s definitely not something I would want. Just put it on the bay starting at 99c and see what she rips for. BS walks, money talks. Which one are you? What’s entertaining (or revolting) on these threads how they go round and round with their various spiels.
Such a doofus comment.
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Comments
Not a coin that I would want.
No to the question. CAC hit the mark. Ask JA. Even though you only buy CAC, it appears you do not agree.
Looks like PCGS got another one right.
Is this a case in point?
For the record, I just submitted this coin to CMQ where it received a green sticker (more to come on that).
Tim
Must say that coin isn't very attractive from the pics! Most of the gold beaned coins I've seen are not only under graded but usually have strong eye appeal.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Thousands of coins out there with the cacs bean that are just plain ugly. Not sure why you are puzzled. RGDS!
Interesting! I find that most gold beans I come across are, at best, average in eye appeal. I've seen one or two exceptions, but they don't pop up often.
Coin Photographer.
Quite often I see coins with CAC stickers that don’t appeal to me in the slightest, I guess they’re technically high end for the grade, but it doesn’t always mean they’ll be pretty.
My YouTube Channel
I guess I’m excluding the common buffs and mercurys often seen in old holders with a gold bean. I’m referring to classic coinage from my experience.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
My observations have been similar to yours. And the typical prices realized for gold-stickered examples don’t jive with unappealing looking coins. Yes, the stickers, themselves, are partly responsible for that, but the coins usually deserve a lot of credit, as well.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That has been my experience as well.
Coin Photographer.
I did not see that coming!
The coin might actually be fairly attractive, in my opinion, and I can pretty much guarantee it looked like that prior to either PCGS or CAC seeing it. It looks like it's nice.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
What do you do with a technically excellent coin that would otherwise grade MS67 when it has poor eye appeal?
Sometimes they end up in MS65 holders, and sometimes they get green or gold stickers. Sometimes in-hand, they're actually quite beautiful, and sometimes it's just that different people have different tastes. Photography can make coins look tremendously good, or really not all that great. It's easy to find examples of both.
If this coin is a 67, pcgs did the right thing by dropping it down to a 65. They had to give it some kind of a number. The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved.
Perhaps there is an opportunity with this coin by purchasing it, conserving it, then get it in a 67 holder (and stickering again at 67).
I purchased a nice circulated bust quarter from Bob Paul's rare coin. No problems and a fair price.
How did you come up with that supposed rule of thumb? Their stated policy is to sticker coins that are solid for the grade or better. So as long as they don’t see a coin as a details-grade example, why would you say “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade”? Regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks of it, as a straight-grade coin, at a certain grade level, their policy is to sticker it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Clearly we haven't discussed CAC enough on this forum. 🤣
Can’t a coin that has been exposed to “something” turn in its holder and not been noticed at grading?
It can, although newer holders are more resistant than older holders because they are sealed better. However, that coin does not appear, to me, to have turned. It's a pretty normal look, actually, for an album coin.
This thread needs a new title: "so you said you like toners"
Personally, I think rumors of its ugliness are vastly overstated. That is exactly the kind of coin CAC would bean. It looks very original.
The clever thing that cac stickering does is to take the cop-out path on any coins they don’t want to deal with. Cacg took this path away from that division of the business, and forces a grade/details decision. That’s why so many details grades, or dropping from a NGC63 to a cacg58. Look at the decisions that JA has made regarding toning in the past. Basically if he doesn’t like it, no sticker. Very easy. This coin must be phenomenal underneath the poop streaks, because he threw it a bone when he should have copped-out as usual.
So it sounds like, according to you, CAC either takes “the cop-out path on any coins they don’t want to deal with” or they “cave”, as you feel they did on this coin.
I’m glad to see you have such an open mind about them and can tell exactly what they’re thinking.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
No.
But that coin stickered. There was no "cop out". So this whole screed is simply hate-mongering CAC.
No hate towards cac, just describing their business method / workflow process. It’s very simple and somewhat genius. I truly am beginning to think this coin is closer to the cat’s meow than the cat’s behind. If it was priced on this planet it may be worth a shot to tinker with.
And yet, you previously stated “The problem was that cac stickered it at any grade. It seems like cac’s rule of thumb was to steer clear of even considering stickering a coin like this, no matter what, but they caved”. Maybe you are more open-minded than I’d thought.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
In some way, this coin forced cac to show their hand. They had to basically say, this thing is an ugly dog but pcgs net downgraded it accordingly, and we agree with that downgrade. This is what I’d call a bait coin on a cac submission, and might be enough to irritate them on other coins in that submission.
I find it absurd that someone would take the position that this piece shouldn’t sticker at any grade. It may be ugly, but it hasn’t been altered and is not what I’d call a problem coin per se even if not the easiest to sell.
You probably won’t be surprised that you’ll get no argument from me on that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The coin didn’t force their hand in any way. And we don’t even know what it actually looks like in-hand.
All of your speculation about CAC’s thought process is merely that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
FWIW, I like the coin on its own merits.
Here’s the point I’m making in general terms (not only applicable to this coin). Many coins apparently are crossing from straightgrade NGC/pcgs holders into details cacg holders, which means those coins will not (in theory) sticker at cac in any grade. Sometimes I get the feeling people think any straight graded coin has to sticker at some level, which is clearly wrong.
Coins that have been altered chemically in a market unacceptable way or where there is movement of metal will not sticker at any grade. This coin is original. Original does not necessarily mean pretty. The Holy grail of numismatics is an original AND eye appealing coin. Ugly toned coins that are otherwise problem free (I.e. no artificial toning, cleaning, or environmental damage, etc.) will sticker at some grade typically.
Which has nothing to do with this coin or thread....
It's also about the 3rd interpretation of your own comments.
I think I’m attempting to rationalize for the first time wanting to now look at ugly dreck with a cac sticker to figure out what’s hiding. Like is it a diamond in the rough, or just a pitty green sticker. Many people say some of the ugliest toned coins they’ve ever seen have beans, and others won’t buy a coin unless it has a bean.
You may laugh at my thinking, or you may have similar thoughts, but it is tempting now to look at non-attractive cac coins and determine if a dip would bump them 1-2-3 points.
Way back in dinosaur times (early CAC era) I purchased a Peace dollar. It wasn't so pretty in the available photos, but since it had a CAC sticker, I felt like it must be infinitely prettier in-hand. Opening that package outside the post office revealed a nasty surprise. It was, technically, a nice coin, but had tremendously poor eye appeal. I quickly sold it at a slight loss.
That experience made a quick learner out of me. I discovered that there's a big difference between opinions, and the one that mattered the most to me was my own. The TPGs know way more about grading than I do, but I know way more about what I like than they do. When the two opinions match up, I tried to buy the coin. When they didn't, I looked for something else.
Agree 100%, which is why I couldn't care less if a coin has a sticker or not.
To paraphrase "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!"
"Who knows what PVC lurks in the hearts of TPGs? CAC knows!"
I'm not sure even they know. Or maybe they know and don't care. This is currently for sale at GC - AU50 CAC
Finding individual examples of grading mistakes is very, very easy. This is true of all eras, all TPG companies, and all graders. Everyone has good days and bad days. Coins sometimes turn in holders and sometimes stuff is just flat missed. It's WAY more art than science, there are no actual standards, and the reproducibility of coin grading isn't all that precise. People think and approach things differently. The variety is what makes life interesting. When it comes to coin grading, those who have a wide world view seem to grasp the nuances and perceived inconsistencies more easily than people who are narrow-minded.
Quote from
JACAC
October 17, 2022
On the pvc front: If an already stickered coin is submitted for crossing and it exhibits PVC, we will contact you and will encourage you to allow us to remove the pvc with a solvent. We already have provisions for this in our building plan as serious ventilation is needed. There will , of course, be no added charge for this. JA
That's not PVC
I thought CAC’s policy was to not sticker coins with PVC.
Agree. That's corrosion of the copper alloy. If it's removed, there will be a pit there. It may be stable in which case it may be acceptable to many collectors.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
That is correct. As BryceM said
Coins sometimes turn in holders
It is. However if PCGS/NGC miss the PVC residue, CAC won't be able to "sniff it" in the holder and it won't be visible until it turns. Contrary to popular urban legend, PVC residue is not always green and not always visible.
Throw it back in the roll lol. It’s definitely not something I would want. Just put it on the bay starting at 99c and see what she rips for. BS walks, money talks. Which one are you? What’s entertaining (or revolting) on these threads how they go round and round with their various spiels.
Speaking of BS and being revolted and various spiels....it just never stops with you does it?
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
You might have a better chance of providing helpful or relevant feedback/suggestions if you'd take the time to read the posts to which you reply.
The OP didn't give any indication that he owns the coin, so it's highly doubtful he could throw it back in the roll or list it for sale on eBay.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Such a doofus comment.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"