These coins failed CAC—why?
P0CKETCHANGE
Posts: 2,560 ✭✭✭✭✭
While five of nine coins in my submission passed, these four failed. As promised in that thread, I thought it'd be informative to myself and others to have a discussion about why these didn't make the cut.
I have my own thoughts on them, but I'll hold them back for now so I don't sway the discussion in a particular way. I know judging from single photos isn't perfect—I'm happy to answer any questions about in-hand appearance, etc.
Please don't feel the need the sugarcoat any of the comments—you won't hurt my feelings and I am looking to learn here so the more candor, the better for me and everyone else here on the forum. Without further ado:
AU58
MS66+
MS65
MS63
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
2
Comments
From what I can see, little eye appeal. Lifeless. Yuck.
These are my guesses:
1. Artificial Toning
2. Artificial Toning or Environmental Damage
3. PVC
4. PVC
My guesses:
Bust Half Dime - low end 58, at best and/or QT
Washington Quarter - areas of terminal toning on each side
Peace Dollar - looks worse in hand than in images
Saint - MS62 and I don't understand why that would be tried, anyway.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
In the past if pvc is found they tell you.
Also if submitted in person and you were lucky he would tell you.
The quarter looks too dark over a large part of the obverse to the point of the toning being a negative. The Peace dollar is great looking, but I'm wondering if one of the marks on the neck was seen as a scratch. Half dime, I couldn't tell you. I like it as a 58. The Saint probably because it's a Saint and CAC seems to hate stickering common Saints. If it had the CMQ sticker on it, maybe it was to make a point about CMQ. As with the half dime, I like this one.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
That is not always true. Many times coins are returned with no comments.
TV's are almost worthless to grade from as the shots are taken to hide any problems or flaws. Having said that here are my guesses.
Half dime - not enough luster for a 58, CAC may see it as more of a 55 or even a 53.
Quarter - poor strike for the grade, the terminal tone may have been a factor.
Peace - maybe something that TV is hiding, would need better photos to say on this one.
Saint - doesn't look like a top end of the grade coin from the photo, CAC is tough on gold.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Yes, many, if not most times, coins are returned without comments.
However, two frequent exceptions are 1) when comments are requested in advance and 2) when CAC detects PVC on the coins.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I am no CAC expert but I can guess:
Half Dime- Dark Toning
Quarter_- Dark Toning
Peace Dollar- looks nice for the grade to me
Saint- Lacks luster
As most all stated.
Half Dime QT
Quarter destructive toning
Peace dollar I like it, but maybe the rim nick on the obv and rev affected it and perhaps the photos produce what inhand does not.
Gold. Not a fan and not a gold collector so I'll pass judgement to more knowledgeable folks.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Half Dime- Nice overall coin and accurately graded, but nothing special otherwise that makes it premium for the grade.
Thus, no sticker.
Washington- looks more like a 65 IMO and the really darkish toning area doesn't enhance the coin. Thus, no sticker.
Peace Dollar- If it looks like the Trueview, I've no idea why it didn't at least green bean. Nicest piece here.
Saint-first off, one point overgrade imo...secondly, a date that normally has good luster but looks lifeless in the images. Thus, no sticker.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
You are righteous, PCHAN—Thank you for creating this thread. Mateys, thank you for the succinct text in your replies, without exception.
I regret that you did not get what you desired, but we appreciate the folk who own their decisions, and use the poor results to instruct.
The only person who can accurately answer this question is JA. I have seen ugly toned coins CAC, and blazing luster coins not. I do think that the answers given above are good ones... but, unless you are JA - it's all just a subjective guess.
I am a newer collector (started April 2020), and I primarily focus on U.S. Half Cents and Type Coins. Early copper is my favorite.
I can only speak about half dimes with any level of knowledge, I don't have much history with the other types of coins. That coin has various "market acceptable" areas of damage on the obverse especially. Note the scratches in both the left and right obverse fields. They appear more than gentle to me. Perhaps the toning on the obverse was slightly enhanced to blanket the scratches. The obverse toning is darker than that of the reverse, which makes it stand out a bit more and likely causes someone to take a closer look at why it looks that way.
Edited, with an apology, as I misread the above post.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I said I DO think the answers are good ones. I am just saying that only John can really answer this question.
I am a newer collector (started April 2020), and I primarily focus on U.S. Half Cents and Type Coins. Early copper is my favorite.
I'm so sorry!
I'll go edit my post.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
No worries. I have no better theories to give than what has been provided. Just didn't want you (or anyone) to think I am being combative, while simultaneously providing zero value.
I am a newer collector (started April 2020), and I primarily focus on U.S. Half Cents and Type Coins. Early copper is my favorite.
This.
Possibly some PVC in the reverse field and letters.
Bust Half Dime - Old re-toned cleaning (whether QT or not)
Washington Quarter - terminal toning
Peace Dollar - Overdipped
Saint - Too many hits/not strong for the grade
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
I’d wager they failed because JA didn’t like them in some way.
Coin Photographer.
The half dime probably failed because of the chatter in the right field of the obverse. Almost looks like graffiti. I do not believe it failed because of the toning.
I like that Peace Dollar!
The look of that peace dollar is the poster child of dipped/cleaned/messed with.
1834 half dime - an old cleaning with secondary toning.
1945 quarter - unattractive toning.
1934 dollar - marks on the neck and subdued luster.
1908 saint - CAC is tough on gold.
That is exactly what I thought. The marks look like they were intentionally covered up.
I am surprised the quarter got higher than 65 at PCGS - if the images are accurate, I do not like that toning.
The 08’ NM Saint is actually a nice strike from your pics. Not mushy or flat which is common for that year. It does have several hits though. How’s the luster?
MY GOLD TYPE SET https://pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/complete-type-sets/gold-type-set-12-piece-circulation-strikes-1839-1933/publishedset/321940
Wow, missed that at first, you guys are good. I think it still clean grades but 55 at best.
CAC = subjective stickering by humans, although I’ll acknowledge there’s a lot of expertise in those eyes!
@POCKETCHANGE: which one of the four surprised you?
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
I owned the half dime at one point in time. Don't recall where I picked it up, but think it was one of those scenario's where in a 58 coin surfaced somewhere for sale (upgrade opportunity), mediocre pictures along with some wish full thinking, led to a little dissapointment at the mailbox.... I felt the coin had way too many marks in the obverse fields and the toning looked a little off. I had it reslabbed/imaged and sent off the auction house.
Then immediately apologized to the AU50 coin in my set-
CAC ran out of stickers?
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
Personally I like the half dime but agree with others that it could be old cleaning that has retoned.
The quarter has terminal toning.
Would need to see the peace in hand. The TV look good.
On the saint, cac is tough on pre-33 and they probably think its average and not solid for a 63.
Collector
75 Positive BST transactions buying and selling with 45 members and counting!
instagram.com/klnumismatics
I'm convinced that CAC has a random algo that not only does the coin have to be graded right, there's a randomized red light/green light with a 50% pass rate that you must also win to get a sticker
I think one needs to give credit to the Saint for having a CMQ. My guess is CMQ missed "surface issues."
I don't think that's right at all.
I think submitters cannot accurately predict what JA will or will not like on any given day.
Coin Photographer.
I’m a bit late to the party, but I see it this way:
Lots of great commentary so far. Keep it coming.
Many have mentioned “terminal”, “dark” or “destructive” toning on the quarter. That raises an interesting question. How does that reasoning stand with the fact that this 1932-D earned CAC approval on the same submission?
To my eyes, both in-hand and by the TrueViews, the toning is similar in quality, color, darkness, and location.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
The obverse device is much cleaner on the '32. The '45 has a lot of splatter look on it. I'm guessing the "spritz" over the device was detractive enough to not pass in their opinion.
https://www.the4thcoin.com
https://www.ebay.com/str/thefourthcoin
If I had to make stickering decisions based on the pics, I might sticker all of them. With the coins in hand, probably not.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The fact that the 32 D is graded as 58+ and the 45 is a 66+, to me, makes them apples and oranges.
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/46128806
New website: Groovycoins.com Capped Bust Half Dime registry set: Bikergeek CBHD LM Set
.> @Bikergeek said:
No disagreement there, but if “terminal toning” is the reason CAC failed the 66+ as several have guessed, should CAC not have failed the 58+ for that as well? Or is it acceptable on some grades but not others (and if so, what’s the cutoff)? And does PCGS ignore it, given they couldn’t have missed it and still placed the coin in a 66+ holder?
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
@P0CKETCHANGE I didn't and still don't think "terminal toning" is the sole factor. The spotty appearance of Washington's face ("spritz" as @spyglassdesign called it) on the 1945 coin bugs me, to be honest. But I'll complicate things a bit more. Sometimes the TPGs seem to be a bit more lenient with key / scarce dates. So, given what looks like a VERY pristine AU coin, in a key date/mm, with no major distractions and with all words on the obverse at least legible (the motto, and Liberty - which are obscured more by the toning on the '45) - I think the 32 D is a fine coin.
New website: Groovycoins.com Capped Bust Half Dime registry set: Bikergeek CBHD LM Set
Submitters who have a history of very high sticker rates would disagree with you. Oh, and so would those with a history of very low sticker rates.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
That occurred to me, but they did sticker my 1904 $20 Lib that also went in with the CMQ sticker.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
I don’t think CAC hates stickering common date Saints or that they feel any need to make a point about CMQ.
Edited to add: The speed of the Saint video is too fast and I don’t know what the reverse looks like. But the left obverse field appears to be very rough.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Pretty crunchy below the leftmost hair. I think if that scuff were half the size, I'd still call it 63, making this coin worse than a different, yet hypothetical 63.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
The WQ was the only one of the four that surprised me. I have dozens of toned WQs in 66/67, many with CAC, so I feel like I have a decent handle on the series. There’s nothing technical I can see that holds it back, no scrapes or scratches hiding under the toning, it has good luster in-hand, and PCGS felt it was in the upper end of the grade.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Simple answer,,,,,,, JA didn't like them.