@messydesk said:
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.
That occurred to me, but they did sticker my 1904 $20 Lib that also went in with the CMQ sticker.
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.
I agree, looks like there's a lot of small nicks. > @MFeld said:
@ProofCollection said:
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
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.😉
I'm half-joking, but it's a valid observation that no one, even the most experienced dealers and collectors here seem to be able to predict with any high degree of accuracy (80-90%) whether coins will CAC or not. How is it possible that no one else in the industry has "the eye" to reliably identify "A" and "B" coins?
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?
There is nothing wrong with the toning on your '45 WQ, in my opinion. I suppose it's slightly unattractive, but more importantly, it obscures some marks on the face, and there is a noticeable mark in the right field. 66+ might just be a maxed out grade for that coin. I wonder if it would crossover at CACG at 65 or 66.
‘’From what I can see, little eye appeal. Lifeless. Yuck.’’
Pocket change: you read the commentary on the 1945 quarter. “Lifeless”, “yuck” etc.
Can you please sell me the coin so I can crack it out, put it (back?) into a Library of Coins album and watch people “droll” over it (remember no mint sets in 1945) as part of a raw toned set it will then be part of. 😉
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
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?
I would guess the bar for eye appeal is higher on the 66+ than on the 58+, so the toning is more "acceptable" on a 58+. BTW, with a pop of 6, you can probably get a nice premium for the 58+ coin from an "Everyman" Washington quarter set builder.
@MFeld said:
I don’t think CAC hates stickering common date Saints or that they feel any need to make a point about CMQ.
I would tend to agree. From what I have read and been told, Saints were probably the Poster Boy for market grading and the excesses resulting from the various coin bubbles/spurts where twice in 15 years you saw Saints sell at HUGE premiums to spot gold.
I don't think there's any reason to guess on why. JA has been pretty open about the tough sticker rate for gold in general and Saints in particular.
@messydesk said:
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.
That occurred to me, but they did sticker my 1904 $20 Lib that also went in with the CMQ sticker.
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.
I agree, looks like there's a lot of small nicks. > @MFeld said:
@ProofCollection said:
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
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.😉
I'm half-joking, but it's a valid observation that no one, even the most experienced dealers and collectors here seem to be able to predict with any high degree of accuracy (80-90%) whether coins will CAC or not. How is it possible that no one else in the industry has "the eye" to reliably identify "A" and "B" coins?
Most coins are easy to predict. It’s only maybe the 10-20% that could conceivably go either way that are more difficult,
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
“Obviously dipped” doesn’t usually preclude coins from stickering at CAC. Now if a coin is over-dipped, that’s a different matter. And I can’t tell from the images whether the Peace dollar is such a coin.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@messydesk said:
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.
That occurred to me, but they did sticker my 1904 $20 Lib that also went in with the CMQ sticker.
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.
I agree, looks like there's a lot of small nicks. > @MFeld said:
@ProofCollection said:
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
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.😉
I'm half-joking, but it's a valid observation that no one, even the most experienced dealers and collectors here seem to be able to predict with any high degree of accuracy (80-90%) whether coins will CAC or not. How is it possible that no one else in the industry has "the eye" to reliably identify "A" and "B" coins?
Most coins are easy to predict. It’s only maybe the 10-20% that could conceivably go either way that are more difficult,
So you really think there are dealers sending in submissions and regularly getting 80-90% sticker rates? I watch plenty of YT videos by experienced dealers revealing their submissions and they never even come close.
@messydesk said:
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.
That occurred to me, but they did sticker my 1904 $20 Lib that also went in with the CMQ sticker.
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.
I agree, looks like there's a lot of small nicks. > @MFeld said:
@ProofCollection said:
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
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.😉
I'm half-joking, but it's a valid observation that no one, even the most experienced dealers and collectors here seem to be able to predict with any high degree of accuracy (80-90%) whether coins will CAC or not. How is it possible that no one else in the industry has "the eye" to reliably identify "A" and "B" coins?
Most coins are easy to predict. It’s only maybe the 10-20% that could conceivably go either way that are more difficult,
So you really think there are dealers sending in submissions and regularly getting 80-90% sticker rates? I watch plenty of YT videos by experienced dealers revealing their submissions and they never even come close.
Talk about an insufficient sample size! The number of sharp dealers who post YouTube videos with their grading results is a tiny fraction of the number who don’t.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The luster on the Peace dollar is totally fine, but I agree the TV gives it a somewhat flat look.
The reason I suspect it failed is that there are two minor pinscratches on the coin, one at the truncation of the neck and one below then “E” in “E Pluribus” on the reverse. They aren’t evident in the TV, and are tough to notice in-hand…I had to break out the 10x loupe to confirm they were indeed scratches, not just random hits.
I think the consensus nailed the half dime. The (secondary) toning obscures quite a bit of roughness in the right obverse field. Both the lack of originality and the scratchiness would be justification for CAC to fail the coin.
On the Saint, I think the luster is quite solid (as shown in the video), but it may have failed because there are a couple of bigger disturbances. Mainly the obverse under the hair, and a long hit that cuts across the rays on the reverse. I’m not certain that’s why, as the $20 Lib that stickered also has plenty of big hits and surface abrasions. It could also be that there is some high point discoloration on the Saint—doesn’t look like wear, but I know CAC can be very sensitive to that. Perhaps it’s a combination of both reasons that together brought the coin below their standards.
Back to the quarter. I fully understand the opinions of the toning being ugly, dark, distracting, etc. But in my experience, this is rarely reason for CAC to pass on coins, especially in this series.
Even superb gems often have what folks might consider ugly, such as the below. My best guess is that CAC felt strongly about this being dipped w/secondary toning, and/or there is some issue that I’m missing completely, such as a PVC haze that I don’t know how to identify. I may include this one in a future submission and request a reason to get some closure.
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
Back to the quarter. I fully understand the opinions of the toning being ugly, dark, distracting, etc. But in my experience, this is rarely reason for CAC to pass on coins, especially in this series.
Even superb gems often have what folks might consider ugly, such as the below. My best guess is that CAC felt strongly about this being dipped w/secondary toning, and/or there is some issue that I’m missing completely, such as a PVC haze that I don’t know how to identify. I may include this one in a future submission and request a reason to get some closure.
In the video (as opposed to in the images) the toning on the quarter doesn’t look the least bit terminal. So that guess of mine is withdrawn.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The splotches in the left obverse field may have made if fail CAC from an eye appeal standpoint, as well as color I consider neutral and would not get a grade bump. I think if that coin were resubmitted, it might get a 65.
This except from Gerry Fortin’s blog today is interesting, given the comments about selecting coins for submission:
Results for the latest CAC submission have also arrived. We went 3/11 concerning the submission. The two lots that I believe were slam-dunks did not sticker while one of the three that I had originally rejected for inclusion did sticker. This is a great case study for responding to the often asked question concerning the CAC approval potential of a non-CAC coin on the GFRC price list. I'm to the point of losing confidence in my personal judgment based on recent submissions.
One possible reason could be that stickering less coins may drive submitters away from CAC stickering. It's pretty clear they want more coins coming into CACG and less into CACS.
As others have stated, the reasoning why a coin fails is often only known to one person. JA is under no obligation to say why a coin fails. In a perfect world we would like to assume that he was, is, and will continue to be consistent in his decisions to sticker or reject a coin. However we shouldn't be blind to the possibility that there may be other factors involved which extend beyond the coin itself.
This is just my personal experience with Seated Half Dimes and CAC, but their priority order seems to be 1. quality of surface 2. originality of coin 3. strike/general appearance of coin. All of those factors are then compared relative to the grade provided by the TPG to determine if the coin gets a sticker or not.
All of my CAC coins have had great surfaces, even down in the EF/AU range, even ones that appeared if they had been dipped in the past.
@messydesk said:
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.
That occurred to me, but they did sticker my 1904 $20 Lib that also went in with the CMQ sticker.
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.
I agree, looks like there's a lot of small nicks. > @MFeld said:
@ProofCollection said:
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
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.😉
I'm half-joking, but it's a valid observation that no one, even the most experienced dealers and collectors here seem to be able to predict with any high degree of accuracy (80-90%) whether coins will CAC or not. How is it possible that no one else in the industry has "the eye" to reliably identify "A" and "B" coins?
Most coins are easy to predict. It’s only maybe the 10-20% that could conceivably go either way that are more difficult,
So you really think there are dealers sending in submissions and regularly getting 80-90% sticker rates? I watch plenty of YT videos by experienced dealers revealing their submissions and they never even come close.
Well...
A really sharp dealer will rarely hit 80-90%, because a sharp dealer is not going to limit his submissions to coins that he expects to work. Instead, he'll send in anything that he thinks has (more or less) any chance to work. Why? Because that's where the money is! On the other hand, if the game was different - for example, if there was a $10,000 bet on hitting 80% or more, and if the submitter got to select the coins being submitted - there's a good chance the submitter would send in nothing but virtually sure things, and 80-90% would not be a remarkable result.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@messydesk said:
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.
That occurred to me, but they did sticker my 1904 $20 Lib that also went in with the CMQ sticker.
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.
I agree, looks like there's a lot of small nicks. > @MFeld said:
@ProofCollection said:
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
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.😉
I'm half-joking, but it's a valid observation that no one, even the most experienced dealers and collectors here seem to be able to predict with any high degree of accuracy (80-90%) whether coins will CAC or not. How is it possible that no one else in the industry has "the eye" to reliably identify "A" and "B" coins?
Most coins are easy to predict. It’s only maybe the 10-20% that could conceivably go either way that are more difficult,
So you really think there are dealers sending in submissions and regularly getting 80-90% sticker rates? I watch plenty of YT videos by experienced dealers revealing their submissions and they never even come close.
Well...
A really sharp dealer will rarely hit 80-90%, because a sharp dealer is not going to limit his submissions to coins that he expects to work. Instead, he'll send in anything that he thinks has (more or less) any chance to work. Why? Because that's where the money is! On the other hand, if the game was different - for example, if there was a $10,000 bet on hitting 80% or more, and if the submitter got to select the coins being submitted - there's a good chance the submitter would send in nothing but virtually sure things, and 80-90% would not be a remarkable result.
@NeophyteNumismatist said:
unless you are JA - it's all just a subjective guess.
And even if you are, quite possibly. I know that there's a term limit in effect but the situation sort of reminds me of way back when Frank Rich was the drama critic at the NYT. He had the power to make or break a show, and even he admitted that was an excessive amount of discretion to be invested in one man.
On the 1908 No motto Saint, the value does not get affected by whether it CAC stickered or not. The gold bullion value has probably reached nearly 100% of the numismatic value?
If I remember correctly, starting in 1934 the mint updated the hub and die for the Peace Dollar, and from what I've seen virtually all 1934-1935 Peace Dollars have an amazing strike and they're really easy to come by in MS65 and 66.
The difference in strike quality between pre-1934 Peace Dollars and post-1934 is night and day.
IMO you really have to have a luster bomb if you're gonna send in the '34's or '35s or have really nice toning.
"I'm half-joking, but it's a valid observation that no one, even the most experienced dealers and collectors here seem to be able to predict with any high degree of accuracy (80-90%) whether coins will CAC or not. How is it possible that no one else in the industry has "the eye" to reliably identify "A" and "B" coins?"
I'm not joking when I say that your comment is inaccurate. You did not specify whether you are referring to the coin images in this thread or all coins submitted to CAC. If you're referring to coin images posted here it's not realistic to expect accurate grading from images.
My answer to your question is it's simply false that no one else in the industry has "the eye" to reliably identify "A" and "B" coins.
@HoldTheMayo said:
If I remember correctly, starting in 1934 the mint updated the hub and die for the Peace Dollar, and from what I've seen virtually all 1934-1935 Peace Dollars have an amazing strike and they're really easy to come by in MS65 and 66.
The difference in strike quality between pre-1934 Peace Dollars and post-1934 is night and day.
IMO you really have to have a luster bomb if you're gonna send in the '34's or '35s or have really nice toning.
@HoldTheMayo said:
If I remember correctly, starting in 1934 the mint updated the hub and die for the Peace Dollar, and from what I've seen virtually all 1934-1935 Peace Dollars have an amazing strike and they're really easy to come by in MS65 and 66.
The difference in strike quality between pre-1934 Peace Dollars and post-1934 is night and day.
IMO you really have to have a luster bomb if you're gonna send in the '34's or '35s or have really nice toning.
This is my ‘35. Is it CAC-worthy?
I really like it, but to be honest I don't think it would CAC. Here is a 1935 MS64+ CAC I found on ebay.
There are definitely more nicks in the fields and neck but the luster is night and day here.
The one caveat is I do know JA does like toning, I use to own a 1935 MS65 CAC with nice satin toning. I wish I still had pics
@shish said:
"I'm half-joking, but it's a valid observation that no one, even the most experienced dealers and collectors here seem to be able to predict with any high degree of accuracy (80-90%) whether coins will CAC or not. How is it possible that no one else in the industry has "the eye" to reliably identify "A" and "B" coins?"
I'm not joking when I say that your comment is inaccurate. You did not specify whether you are referring to the coin images in this thread or all coins submitted to CAC. If you're referring to coin images posted here it's not realistic to expect accurate grading from images.
My answer to your question is it's simply false that no one else in the industry has "the eye" to reliably identify "A" and "B" coins.
There may be others, but I'll bet that, if tasked with sorting a group of coins into A, B and C coins, they will not agree 100% with JA or each other on the letter grade assignments.
@Cougar1978 said:
They failed - simply low end. None of them were PQ.
Take responsibility - Learn how to grade and look at coins. The first 2 were downright awful. Went bad in holder? What did you expect?
The more you post, the more I want to see some of your coins. You must have a serious array of top pop ultra rarities the way you talk.
I have been in the business since 1990 and know how to grade and look at coins. Take your flight and funny talk to another airport lol. So you don’t know to tell low end?
@Cougar1978 said:
They failed - simply low end. None of them were PQ.
Take responsibility - Learn how to grade and look at coins. The first 2 were downright awful. Went bad in holder? What did you expect?
The more you post, the more I want to see some of your coins. You must have a serious array of top pop ultra rarities the way you talk.
I have been in the business since 1990 and know how to grade and look at coins. Take your flight and funny talk to another airport lol. Enjoy your flying (leap).
Ah, too bad. I enjoyed your comment more before the edit.
@Cougar1978 said:
They failed - simply low end. None of them were PQ.
Our hosts believe the Washington is PQ for the grade, as it was awarded a “plus”.
Went bad in holder?
Unlikely, given the TrueViews were taken at the time of grading.
What did you expect?
I stated in an earlier comment that the only failure I was surprised by was the WQ. The other five coins in this submission passed, which I shared in a separate thread.
O my gosh what is the ugly black stuff on that 1935 $ no 3828 and it got a sticker rofl. Or did it then get da stickeroo and went bad in the holder / sound of sirens - cull division…..liquidation team.
1834 50c. Warning black stuff and scratches right obv field. Low end!! Blow it out on the Bay……start at 99c >
Wow what a crummy looking 1908 Saint - take a look at the left obv field. Just start it in auc at melt. Hope u didn’t pay much for it.
I'm considering sending a few coins in so I'm curious to see the one that make it... and the ones that don't and why.
1- 1834 HD: I thought the color looked ok but the scratches in the obverse field behind Ms. Liberty's head might be to blame...
2- 1945 Washie: Splotchy toning
3- 1934 Peace Dollar... wow... looks solid MS65 to me, maybe better, but if there's some break in luster that I'm not seeing from the image, then I'm at a loss for a good reason why it wouldn't bean.
4- 1908 $20 Saint NM: Better date... but I'm well out of my element at to why it wouldn't bean...
Thanks for posting!
Collecting: Dansco 7070; Middle Date Large Cents (VF-AU); Box of 20;
@Cougar1978 said:
O my gosh what is the ugly black stuff on that 1935 $ no 3828 and it got a sticker rofl. Or did it then get da stickeroo and went bad in the holder / sound of sirens - cull division…..liquidation team.
What percentage of coins do you think go “bad” in the holder? This one was stickered recently.
Wow what a crummy looking 1908 Saint - take a look at the left obv field. Just start it in auc at melt. Hope u didn’t pay much for it.
David Hall and Greg Roberts looked at this coin in-hand and agreed it was solid for the grade. They are far more experienced graders than I am, and dare I say, you as well.
What I paid isn’t relevant to this thread, but if you must know, it was a few % over spot when gold was a few hundred bucks lower.
@BigAl said:
I think they wiffed on the peace, crack and send
That’s actually exactly what I did, and this was the 2nd time it failed. See my earlier comment for why I believe it did.
Coins can go bad in the holder / storage at any time. Everybody knows - Reaction to the atmosphere, heat, humidity. See coin preservation handbook. Take responsibility and educate yourself on the reality of metals reacting to the atmosphere. RCI is risky - churn your portfolio / quick turnover.
What pct lol? Do you care? Maybe you should try go figure the Cosmological Constant.
@Cougar1978 said:
O my gosh what is the ugly black stuff on that 1935 $ no 3828 and it got a sticker rofl. Or did it then get da stickeroo and went bad in the holder / sound of sirens - cull division…..liquidation team.
What percentage of coins do you think go “bad” in the holder? This one was stickered recently.
Wow what a crummy looking 1908 Saint - take a look at the left obv field. Just start it in auc at melt. Hope u didn’t pay much for it.
David Hall and Greg Roberts looked at this coin in-hand and agreed it was solid for the grade. They are far more experienced graders than I am, and dare I say, you as well.
What I paid isn’t relevant to this thread, but if you must know, it was a few % over spot when gold was a few hundred bucks lower.
@BigAl said:
I think they wiffed on the peace, crack and send
That’s actually exactly what I did, and this was the 2nd time it failed. See my earlier comment for why I believe it did.
Hopefully, you know better than to give any weight to the grading assessments of @Cougar1978. He's shown that he's not exactly a first-class grader.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said:
Hopefully, you know better than to give any weight to the grading assessments of @Cougar1978. He's shown that he's not exactly a first-class grader.
As best I can tell, he's a troll (keyboard warrior) trying to get a rise out of people.
-Brandon -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins] -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Comments
I gotta say, from the pics that Peace dollar looks like a strong 65. It must be like @MarkFeld said. Maybe in hand the luster isn’t strong enough.
I agree, looks like there's a lot of small nicks. > @MFeld said:
I'm half-joking, but it's a valid observation that no one, even the most experienced dealers and collectors here seem to be able to predict with any high degree of accuracy (80-90%) whether coins will CAC or not. How is it possible that no one else in the industry has "the eye" to reliably identify "A" and "B" coins?
I am surprised that you are surprised
There is nothing wrong with the toning on your '45 WQ, in my opinion. I suppose it's slightly unattractive, but more importantly, it obscures some marks on the face, and there is a noticeable mark in the right field. 66+ might just be a maxed out grade for that coin. I wonder if it would crossover at CACG at 65 or 66.
the peace is too white
I'm thinking "obviously dipped"
‘’From what I can see, little eye appeal. Lifeless. Yuck.’’
Pocket change: you read the commentary on the 1945 quarter. “Lifeless”, “yuck” etc.
Can you please sell me the coin so I can crack it out, put it (back?) into a Library of Coins album and watch people “droll” over it (remember no mint sets in 1945) as part of a raw toned set it will then be part of. 😉
Wondercoin.
I would guess the bar for eye appeal is higher on the 66+ than on the 58+, so the toning is more "acceptable" on a 58+. BTW, with a pop of 6, you can probably get a nice premium for the 58+ coin from an "Everyman" Washington quarter set builder.
I would tend to agree. From what I have read and been told, Saints were probably the Poster Boy for market grading and the excesses resulting from the various coin bubbles/spurts where twice in 15 years you saw Saints sell at HUGE premiums to spot gold.
I don't think there's any reason to guess on why. JA has been pretty open about the tough sticker rate for gold in general and Saints in particular.
Most coins are easy to predict. It’s only maybe the 10-20% that could conceivably go either way that are more difficult,
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
“Obviously dipped” doesn’t usually preclude coins from stickering at CAC. Now if a coin is over-dipped, that’s a different matter. And I can’t tell from the images whether the Peace dollar is such a coin.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
So you really think there are dealers sending in submissions and regularly getting 80-90% sticker rates? I watch plenty of YT videos by experienced dealers revealing their submissions and they never even come close.
Talk about an insufficient sample size! The number of sharp dealers who post YouTube videos with their grading results is a tiny fraction of the number who don’t.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The luster on the Peace dollar is totally fine, but I agree the TV gives it a somewhat flat look.
The reason I suspect it failed is that there are two minor pinscratches on the coin, one at the truncation of the neck and one below then “E” in “E Pluribus” on the reverse. They aren’t evident in the TV, and are tough to notice in-hand…I had to break out the 10x loupe to confirm they were indeed scratches, not just random hits.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
I think the consensus nailed the half dime. The (secondary) toning obscures quite a bit of roughness in the right obverse field. Both the lack of originality and the scratchiness would be justification for CAC to fail the coin.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
On the Saint, I think the luster is quite solid (as shown in the video), but it may have failed because there are a couple of bigger disturbances. Mainly the obverse under the hair, and a long hit that cuts across the rays on the reverse. I’m not certain that’s why, as the $20 Lib that stickered also has plenty of big hits and surface abrasions. It could also be that there is some high point discoloration on the Saint—doesn’t look like wear, but I know CAC can be very sensitive to that. Perhaps it’s a combination of both reasons that together brought the coin below their standards.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Back to the quarter. I fully understand the opinions of the toning being ugly, dark, distracting, etc. But in my experience, this is rarely reason for CAC to pass on coins, especially in this series.
Even superb gems often have what folks might consider ugly, such as the below. My best guess is that CAC felt strongly about this being dipped w/secondary toning, and/or there is some issue that I’m missing completely, such as a PVC haze that I don’t know how to identify. I may include this one in a future submission and request a reason to get some closure.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
In the video (as opposed to in the images) the toning on the quarter doesn’t look the least bit terminal. So that guess of mine is withdrawn.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The splotches in the left obverse field may have made if fail CAC from an eye appeal standpoint, as well as color I consider neutral and would not get a grade bump. I think if that coin were resubmitted, it might get a 65.
This except from Gerry Fortin’s blog today is interesting, given the comments about selecting coins for submission:
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
I'd wager that is the only reason.
One possible reason could be that stickering less coins may drive submitters away from CAC stickering. It's pretty clear they want more coins coming into CACG and less into CACS.
As others have stated, the reasoning why a coin fails is often only known to one person. JA is under no obligation to say why a coin fails. In a perfect world we would like to assume that he was, is, and will continue to be consistent in his decisions to sticker or reject a coin. However we shouldn't be blind to the possibility that there may be other factors involved which extend beyond the coin itself.
This is just my personal experience with Seated Half Dimes and CAC, but their priority order seems to be 1. quality of surface 2. originality of coin 3. strike/general appearance of coin. All of those factors are then compared relative to the grade provided by the TPG to determine if the coin gets a sticker or not.
All of my CAC coins have had great surfaces, even down in the EF/AU range, even ones that appeared if they had been dipped in the past.
Well...
A really sharp dealer will rarely hit 80-90%, because a sharp dealer is not going to limit his submissions to coins that he expects to work. Instead, he'll send in anything that he thinks has (more or less) any chance to work. Why? Because that's where the money is! On the other hand, if the game was different - for example, if there was a $10,000 bet on hitting 80% or more, and if the submitter got to select the coins being submitted - there's a good chance the submitter would send in nothing but virtually sure things, and 80-90% would not be a remarkable result.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Yes exactly, thank you for making my point.
And even if you are, quite possibly. I know that there's a term limit in effect but the situation sort of reminds me of way back when Frank Rich was the drama critic at the NYT. He had the power to make or break a show, and even he admitted that was an excessive amount of discretion to be invested in one man.
Do I see PVC in the upper left side of the otherwise pleasing looking peace dollar? Cannot tell if the luster has been diminished by the dipping.
On the 1908 No motto Saint, the value does not get affected by whether it CAC stickered or not. The gold bullion value has probably reached nearly 100% of the numismatic value?
I don't see anything wrong with the Saint at MS63.
I also think JA focuses too much on luster and not enough on state of preservation.
Quite frankly, I think a lot of his stickered coins look like they spent time in a Walmart parking lot.
My Saint Set
If I remember correctly, starting in 1934 the mint updated the hub and die for the Peace Dollar, and from what I've seen virtually all 1934-1935 Peace Dollars have an amazing strike and they're really easy to come by in MS65 and 66.
The difference in strike quality between pre-1934 Peace Dollars and post-1934 is night and day.
IMO you really have to have a luster bomb if you're gonna send in the '34's or '35s or have really nice toning.
"I'm half-joking, but it's a valid observation that no one, even the most experienced dealers and collectors here seem to be able to predict with any high degree of accuracy (80-90%) whether coins will CAC or not. How is it possible that no one else in the industry has "the eye" to reliably identify "A" and "B" coins?"
I'm not joking when I say that your comment is inaccurate. You did not specify whether you are referring to the coin images in this thread or all coins submitted to CAC. If you're referring to coin images posted here it's not realistic to expect accurate grading from images.
My answer to your question is it's simply false that no one else in the industry has "the eye" to reliably identify "A" and "B" coins.
This is my ‘35. Is it CAC-worthy?
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
I really like it, but to be honest I don't think it would CAC. Here is a 1935 MS64+ CAC I found on ebay.
There are definitely more nicks in the fields and neck but the luster is night and day here.
The one caveat is I do know JA does like toning, I use to own a 1935 MS65 CAC with nice satin toning. I wish I still had pics
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
There may be others, but I'll bet that, if tasked with sorting a group of coins into A, B and C coins, they will not agree 100% with JA or each other on the letter grade assignments.
Good for you.
They failed - simply low end. None of them were PQ. Your surprised none of them stickered?
Take responsibility - Learn how to grade and look at coins. The first 2 were downright awful. Went bad in holder? What did you expect?
The more you post, the more I want to see some of your coins. You must have a serious array of top pop ultra rarities the way you talk.
Coin Photographer.
I have been in the business since 1990 and know how to grade and look at coins. Take your flight and funny talk to another airport lol. So you don’t know to tell low end?
Ah, too bad. I enjoyed your comment more before the edit.
Coin Photographer.
Our hosts believe the Washington is PQ for the grade, as it was awarded a “plus”.
Unlikely, given the TrueViews were taken at the time of grading.
I stated in an earlier comment that the only failure I was surprised by was the WQ. The other five coins in this submission passed, which I shared in a separate thread.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
58% submitted do not get a sticker, why?
Well that’s better than zero. A friend submitted about a dozen toners - none stickered.
O my gosh what is the ugly black stuff on that 1935 $ no 3828 and it got a sticker rofl. Or did it then get da stickeroo and went bad in the holder / sound of sirens - cull division…..liquidation team.
1834 50c. Warning black stuff and scratches right obv field. Low end!! Blow it out on the Bay……start at 99c >
Wow what a crummy looking 1908 Saint - take a look at the left obv field. Just start it in auc at melt. Hope u didn’t pay much for it.
Half dime -color looks off and dark in an environmentally damaged way
Quarter - terminal toning/environmental damage
Peace Dollar - not sure
Saint - a lot of flatness on the chest and leg; not a solid 63
I'm considering sending a few coins in so I'm curious to see the one that make it... and the ones that don't and why.
1- 1834 HD: I thought the color looked ok but the scratches in the obverse field behind Ms. Liberty's head might be to blame...
2- 1945 Washie: Splotchy toning
3- 1934 Peace Dollar... wow... looks solid MS65 to me, maybe better, but if there's some break in luster that I'm not seeing from the image, then I'm at a loss for a good reason why it wouldn't bean.
4- 1908 $20 Saint NM: Better date... but I'm well out of my element at to why it wouldn't bean...
Thanks for posting!
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
I think they wiffed on the peace, crack and send
What percentage of coins do you think go “bad” in the holder? This one was stickered recently.
David Hall and Greg Roberts looked at this coin in-hand and agreed it was solid for the grade. They are far more experienced graders than I am, and dare I say, you as well.
What I paid isn’t relevant to this thread, but if you must know, it was a few % over spot when gold was a few hundred bucks lower.
That’s actually exactly what I did, and this was the 2nd time it failed. See my earlier comment for why I believe it did.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Lol - Denial is the friend of the ignorant.
Coins can go bad in the holder / storage at any time. Everybody knows - Reaction to the atmosphere, heat, humidity. See coin preservation handbook. Take responsibility and educate yourself on the reality of metals reacting to the atmosphere. RCI is risky - churn your portfolio / quick turnover.
What pct lol? Do you care? Maybe you should try go figure the Cosmological Constant.
Hopefully, you know better than to give any weight to the grading assessments of @Cougar1978. He's shown that he's not exactly a first-class grader.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
As best I can tell, he's a troll (keyboard warrior) trying to get a rise out of people.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins]
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-