Home U.S. Coin Forum

NEWP 1943 Washington Quarter. CAC RESULTS IN. Will It Pass CAC? Any Thoughts On The Coin?

2

Comments

  • ElcontadorElcontador Posts: 7,522 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @Elcontador said:

    @winesteven said:
    I’ve been a CAC Collector submitter since the very beginning, over 15 years ago. As @lermish correctly states, a LOT of my 20th century silver, and some of my 19th century silver, has been dipped. However, the dipping apparently was done gently enough where the coin still merits CAC stickers on EVERY one that I own!

    Here’s just one example:

    Steve

    Hi Steve,
    They must like your coins more than mine, because the few lightly dipped coins I sent in didn't sticker because they were dipped.

    CAC doesn’t decline to sticker dipped coins unless they’ve been over-dipped. If yours were just lightly dipped, they failed to sticker for other reasons.

    Hi Mark, a problem is when you are dealing with a matter of opinion are the liners. With coins, what is gently dipped, and what crosses the line? While we can all agree on what is a gently dipped coin done correctly and what is not, there are others where honest people can agree to disagree.

    It's similar to "just made it" FH Standing Liberty Quarters, or in sports like soccer, where do you draw the line between a foul and a yellow card? It depends on the official and the particular set of circumstances.

    "Vou invadir o Nordeste,
    "Seu cabra da peste,
    "Sou Mangueira......."
  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 879 ✭✭✭✭

    @oreville said:
    I happen to think that this 1943 quarter looks to be a MS-65+ and is very nicely struck on the obverse and lustrous but it is does not look like a MS-66 because there is too much chatter on the obverse field particulary on the left side.

    Thanks for your feedback and all the opinions from expert board members. Seems most forum members say no to the sticker. I am more aware now of the chatter in the left obverse field. But seeing the coin in hand, to my eye the marks seem very light and minimally detracting. Also the luster is super intense. So my more amateur opinion is it looks like it has a very good chance to sticker. Regardless it will be a great learning experience.

  • MsMorrisineMsMorrisine Posts: 32,991 ✭✭✭✭✭

    let us know about the results

    Current maintainer of Stone's Master List of Favorite Websites // My BST transactions
  • orevilleoreville Posts: 11,950 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @DeplorableDan said:

    @Walkerfan said:

    @DeplorableDan said:

    @P0CKETCHANGE said:
    Agree with @TomB —if OP had stated their goal was to increase the value and sell the coin, by all means berate his foolish decision, but there are plenty of reasons to send in a coin other than ROI. I sent in the inexpensive WQ that @lermish mentioned mostly for education and entertainment value (for myself and the forum)—80% of folks said it’d fail so there was more than $22 in education value there alone. Plus it rode along with some other coins I needed evaluated, so the incremental shipping costs were nil. And if it failed, it would have been $0 thanks to my Collector membership.

    I agree, and to clarify my earlier position, I wasn't trying to come off as "elitist" or be a stick in the mud. It's just that I don't recall OP ever stating in previous threads that his goal was to complete an all-CAC type set, and as far as I can remember, the vast majority of his purchases have been sight unseen non-cac eBay gambles, which seems counterintuitive to that goal. Generally, I would advise that someone with that goal buy as many coins as possible that are already stickered, and historically It seemed, to me at least, that OP was more interested in finding the best deal, than the best coins.

    Just for the record, I don't "collect" CAC stickers for prestige. I'm pretty confident in my grading skills, but I like to buy CAC coins because they're easier to sell when the time comes, and because it's a respected opinion that the coin hasn't been monkeyed with, which is crucial with gold. Also, I buy alot from pictures only so a sticker is a tool that i use to protect myself on the front end. @Walkerfan, I understand that you would like the pride and satisfaction of getting the sticker on your own, but I would still advise that you try to view as many coins as possible, in hand, to get an idea of what John likes and what he doesn't. What bothers John doesnt always bother me, my most expensive coin bears no sticker. However, I think you'd have a lot to gain if you started to view a ton of coins at a local show or an LCS if possible, and that might give you a better success rate than buying coins sight unseen from outfits like "Great Southern Coins" (known rascals) on ebay.

    I believe that you meant to tag '@Walkerlover'. ;)

    oopsies, thank you 😅.

    We are studying a 1943 washingtin quarter not a 1943 walker?

    A Collectors Universe poster since 1997!
  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 879 ✭✭✭✭

    @MsMorrisine said:
    let us know about the results

    Absolutely will post when finished grading at CAC.

  • NewEnglandRaritiesNewEnglandRarities Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭✭

    @Walkerlover said:

    @MsMorrisine said:
    let us know about the results

    Absolutely will post when finished grading at CAC.

    Just for curiosity, what is wrong with a coin like this for example? It seems like it would fit what you are trying to do, and took me a very short time to find. I just want to understand the mentality, as I’ll admit I was tougher on your posts when you were doing the whole, return if the group doesn’t like thing. But in this case, I would like to try to help and understand the thinking, because that allows us to understand your prospective, and then try to help specifically.

    https://www.ebay.com/itm/196352308095?chn=ps&mkevt=1&mkcid=28&srsltid=AfmBOopfjzgxyW4zrvJ17nGyS232SU5jd_UMFGZ7G5l0s0bWDKtRmSD6p0s

    New England Rarities...Dealer In Colonial Coinage and Americana
  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 879 ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 26, 2024 3:43PM

    @NewEnglandRarities said:

    @Walkerlover said:

    @MsMorrisine said:
    let us know about the results

    Absolutely will post when finished grading at CAC.

    Just for curiosity, what is wrong with a coin like this for example? It seems like it would fit what you are trying to do, and took me a very short time to find. I just want to understand the mentality, as I’ll admit I was tougher on your posts when you were doing the whole, return if the group doesn’t like thing. But in this case, I would like to try to help and understand the thinking, because that allows us to understand your prospective, and then try to help specifically.

    https://www.ebay.com/itm/196352308095?chn=ps&mkevt=1&mkcid=28&srsltid=AfmBOopfjzgxyW4zrvJ17nGyS232SU5jd_UMFGZ7G5l0s0bWDKtRmSD6p0s

    That may have been a newer listing I missed but the coin looks nice and it has the sticker already, just seller photos slightly blurry. Still I prefer my coin as it has that super intense luster that I love ❤️ and the older holder is a plus for me and it cost much less $63. For me Luster and undipped original fresh look is most important.

    I intend to send it in with a Franklin I just purchased today that looks really good.

    Of course if my coin fails than I am the loser but I have confidence from learning from this coin forum and seeing so many photos online that this coin will sticker and a few failures from past CAC submissions

  • orevilleoreville Posts: 11,950 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This 1943 quarter is attractive enough as a keeper even if rejected by CAC. I have about a dozen such coins out of close to 1400 approved PCGS slabbed coins.

    A Collectors Universe poster since 1997!
  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 879 ✭✭✭✭

    Unfortunately the quarter did not pass CAC. I guess the chatter in the left field was a little too strong for the 66 grade.

    My problem now is whether to keep the coin or sell it as I really want a CAC coin. So either I will buy the next coin with a sticker or skip the Washington quarter as the design is bland and one of my least favorites.
    Good news is the Franklin passed which is more important to me

  • calgolddivercalgolddiver Posts: 1,446 ✭✭✭✭✭

    not at all surprised ... buy a CAC next time. PLENTY available ...

    Top 25 Type Set 1792 to present

    Top 10 Cal Fractional Type Set

    successful BST with Ankurj, BigAl, Bullsitter, CommemKing, DCW(7), Elmerfusterpuck, Joelewis, Mach1ne, Minuteman810430, Modcrewman, Nankraut, Nederveit2, Philographer(5), Realgator, Silverpop, SurfinxHI, TomB and Yorkshireman(3)

  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 879 ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 10, 2024 5:43PM

    @calgolddiver said:
    not at all surprised ... buy a CAC next time. PLENTY available ...

    I am mildly surprised as I thought the super luster and strong obverse strike would make up for the contact marks reflecting in the left obverse field, which didn’t look too distracting in hand. But I do understand what there reasoning is.

    However it seems to me that CAC overvalues contact marks relative to luster and eye appeal as their grading model which is their prerogative. I still don’t understand why coins lacking strong luster and eye appeal should grade grade similar to coins with strong eye appeal and a superior luster by CAC

  • hummingbird_coinshummingbird_coins Posts: 1,090 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I am surprised that the Franklin passed, because I didn't expect either of them to pass at all. I guess there is more wiggle room on lower-valued coins.

    Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
    Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled

  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 879 ✭✭✭✭

    @hummingbird_coins said:
    I am surprised that the Franklin passed, because I didn't expect either of them to pass at all. I guess there is more wiggle room on lower-valued coins.

    Why the Franklin I never doubted it and I put my reputation on the line stating I would never buy a coin without a sticker? I understand the quarter grade though.
    As a matter of fact on a regrade I think it would get 66 at PCGS as a C coin. I am a gambler. You pay for my express regrade at PCGS and if no 66 I will eat the cost

  • IkesTIkesT Posts: 3,095 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Walkerlover said:

    @hummingbird_coins said:
    I am surprised that the Franklin passed, because I didn't expect either of them to pass at all. I guess there is more wiggle room on lower-valued coins.

    Why the Franklin I never doubted it and I put my reputation on the line stating I would never buy a coin without a sticker? I understand the quarter grade though.
    As a matter of fact on a regrade I think it would get 66 at PCGS as a C coin. I am a gambler. You pay for my express regrade at PCGS and if no 66 I will eat the cost

    What reputation are you talking about?

    Also, you yourself already said that you have no more coins to buy to complete your set. :D

  • airplanenutairplanenut Posts: 22,142 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Walkerlover said:

    @hummingbird_coins said:
    I am surprised that the Franklin passed, because I didn't expect either of them to pass at all. I guess there is more wiggle room on lower-valued coins.

    Why the Franklin I never doubted it and I put my reputation on the line stating I would never buy a coin without a sticker? I understand the quarter grade though.
    As a matter of fact on a regrade I think it would get 66 at PCGS as a C coin. I am a gambler. You pay for my express regrade at PCGS and if no 66 I will eat the cost

    So… heads you win, tails I lose?

    JK Coin Photography - eBay Consignments | High Quality Photos | LOW Prices | 20% of Consignment Proceeds Go to Pancreatic Cancer Research
  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 879 ✭✭✭✭

    @airplanenut said:

    @Walkerlover said:

    @hummingbird_coins said:
    I am surprised that the Franklin passed, because I didn't expect either of them to pass at all. I guess there is more wiggle room on lower-valued coins.

    Why the Franklin I never doubted it and I put my reputation on the line stating I would never buy a coin without a sticker? I understand the quarter grade though.
    As a matter of fact on a regrade I think it would get 66 at PCGS as a C coin. I am a gambler. You pay for my express regrade at PCGS and if no 66 I will eat the cost

    So… heads you win, tails I lose?

    Yes I enjoy a good wager.

  • IkesTIkesT Posts: 3,095 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Walkerlover said:

    @airplanenut said:

    @Walkerlover said:

    @hummingbird_coins said:
    I am surprised that the Franklin passed, because I didn't expect either of them to pass at all. I guess there is more wiggle room on lower-valued coins.

    Why the Franklin I never doubted it and I put my reputation on the line stating I would never buy a coin without a sticker? I understand the quarter grade though.
    As a matter of fact on a regrade I think it would get 66 at PCGS as a C coin. I am a gambler. You pay for my express regrade at PCGS and if no 66 I will eat the cost

    So… heads you win, tails I lose?

    Yes I enjoy a good wager.

    Except when you were returning your eBay purchases right and left... :D

  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 879 ✭✭✭✭

    @IkesT said:

    @Walkerlover said:

    @airplanenut said:

    @Walkerlover said:

    @hummingbird_coins said:
    I am surprised that the Franklin passed, because I didn't expect either of them to pass at all. I guess there is more wiggle room on lower-valued coins.

    Why the Franklin I never doubted it and I put my reputation on the line stating I would never buy a coin without a sticker? I understand the quarter grade though.
    As a matter of fact on a regrade I think it would get 66 at PCGS as a C coin. I am a gambler. You pay for my express regrade at PCGS and if no 66 I will eat the cost

    So… heads you win, tails I lose?

    Yes I enjoy a good wager.

    Except when you were returning your eBay purchases right and left... :D

    What I am almost 100%. certain is this coin will grade minimum 65+ at PCGS on reconsideration

  • MsMorrisineMsMorrisine Posts: 32,991 ✭✭✭✭✭

    just because your frankie got a green bean doesn't mean it will upgrade

    i'm not a cac submitter, but i think if you get it upgraded on a reconsideration you lose the sticker and must resubmit to cac

    Current maintainer of Stone's Master List of Favorite Websites // My BST transactions
  • MsMorrisineMsMorrisine Posts: 32,991 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Walkerlover said:

    As a matter of fact on a regrade I think it would get 66 at PCGS as a C coin

    you collect cac stickers. as a rule of thumb, c coins don't sticker

    Current maintainer of Stone's Master List of Favorite Websites // My BST transactions
  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 879 ✭✭✭✭

    @MsMorrisine said:

    @Walkerlover said:

    As a matter of fact on a regrade I think it would get 66 at PCGS as a C coin

    you collect cac stickers. as a rule of thumb, c coins don't sticker

    Yes I will leave it alone as it’s in a slightly older holder anyway.

  • cheezhedcheezhed Posts: 5,805 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Both coins are attractive. Congrats on the Franklin CAC.

    Many happy BST transactions
  • oldabeintxoldabeintx Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭✭✭

    After a good deal of thought I came up with something positive to say about how this collector collects and makes decisions: I’m a big fan of lustrous coins too!!

  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 879 ✭✭✭✭

    @hummingbird_coins said:
    I am surprised that the Franklin passed, because I didn't expect either of them to pass at all. I guess there is more wiggle room on lower-valued coins.

    Question is how does a coin like this pass CAC with such a dark ugly look. Reinforcing my opinion that luster and eye appeal don’t rate as much as contact marks and original surfaces.



  • TomBTomB Posts: 21,179 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Walkerlover said:

    @hummingbird_coins said:
    I am surprised that the Franklin passed, because I didn't expect either of them to pass at all. I guess there is more wiggle room on lower-valued coins.

    Question is how does a coin like this pass CAC with such a dark ugly look. Reinforcing my opinion that luster and eye appeal don’t rate as much as contact marks and original surfaces.



    In general, both PCGS and CAC (likely CACG, too) regard luster and eye appeal far more greatly than marks (within reason). I am not certain what you mean by "original surfaces" in the case of this coin since the image is poor and the coin is almost absolutely certainly from an original 1956 US Mint Set. This is how many of the silver issues toned from the 1956 sets.

    The images of the coin in question aren't great, but I would guess it is pretty darn clean as far as marks are concerned and that the luster is not impeded in-hand. The eye appeal is rather low in the images, but I'd bet in-hand it wouldn't be so poor. Regardless, it isn't going to win many beauty pageants.

    Thomas Bush Numismatics & Numismatic Photography

    In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson

    image
  • hummingbird_coinshummingbird_coins Posts: 1,090 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Sure, "original" coins can be blast-white, and 20th century ones often are, but not all blast-white coins are original. Many coins have been dipped to simulate luster. CAC probably knows how to tell the difference, and I am sure that is one of their factors in determining whether a coin merits the sticker or not.

    Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
    Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,417 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @hummingbird_coins said:
    Sure, "original" coins can be blast-white, and 20th century ones often are, but not all blast-white coins are original. Many coins have been dipped to simulate luster. CAC probably knows how to tell the difference, and I am sure that is one of their factors in determining whether a coin merits the sticker or not.

    Dipping coins doesn’t “simulate” luster, though it can (better) expose luster that’s already present.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 879 ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 11, 2024 7:04PM

    @TomB said:

    @Walkerlover said:

    @hummingbird_coins said:
    I am surprised that the Franklin passed, because I didn't expect either of them to pass at all. I guess there is more wiggle room on lower-valued coins.

    Question is how does a coin like this pass CAC with such a dark ugly look. Reinforcing my opinion that luster and eye appeal don’t rate as much as contact marks and original surfaces.



    In general, both PCGS and CAC (likely CACG, too) regard luster and eye appeal far more greatly than marks (within reason). I am not certain what you mean by "original surfaces" in the case of this coin since the image is poor and the coin is almost absolutely certainly from an original 1956 US Mint Set. This is how many of the silver issues toned from the 1956 sets.

    The images of the coin in question aren't great, but I would guess it is pretty darn clean as far as marks are concerned and that the luster is not impeded in-hand. The eye appeal is rather low in the images, but I'd bet in-hand it wouldn't be so poor. Regardless, it isn't going to win many beauty pageants.

    I don’t think many collectors would disagree that coin is a dog, 🐕 something you might see in a parking lot.

    The reason CMQ was established I believe was to incorporate a modicum of eye appeal into the equation of stickering a coin, but they seem to lack consistency like CAC in their grading and failed to gain traction among collectors. But the concept was good, to blend strict grading with attractive eye appeal to achieve a sticker. In that scenario my coin would pass as it has great luster but slightly too much contact marks

  • oldabeintxoldabeintx Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Parking lot? Many collectors appreciate original toning, which isn’t always colorful. My guess is that the 56 is stunning in hand.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,417 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @oldabeintx said:
    Parking lot? Many collectors appreciate original toning, which isn’t always colorful. My guess is that the 56 is stunning in hand.

    Stunning or not, I think it's absurd to say "I don’t think many collectors would disagree that coin is a dog, 🐕 something you might see in a parking lot." as @Walkerlover did.
    Apparently, not only does ownership add a point, but also, lack of ownership subtracts a lot. And for the record, by a " a lot" I didn't mean a "parking lot." :)

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • tcollectstcollects Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I don't understand the effort for plastic and stickers on an extremely common <$100 coin

  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 879 ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 12, 2024 12:11PM

    @oldabeintx said:
    Parking lot? Many collectors appreciate original toning, which isn’t always colorful. My guess is that the 56 is stunning in hand.

    Stunning? Are you joking. If this was posted as a guess the grade I don’t think anyone would come close to 66. And nobody would state this coin is attractive, they would say it’s an ugly dark mottled toned coin and a hard pass for me.

    There is NO CORRELATION between eye appeal and a CAC sticker. And all we have is the photo to judge. In fact the coin could look worse in hand as most EBay coins are photographed to look better as a selling point.

  • HigashiyamaHigashiyama Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Walkerlover said: “There is NO CORRELATION between eye appeal and a CAC sticker”

    Are you saying that eye appeal is not a factor in distinguishing between, for example, a B and a C coin?

    Higashiyama
  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 879 ✭✭✭✭

    @Higashiyama said:
    @Walkerlover said: “There is NO CORRELATION between eye appeal and a CAC sticker”

    Are you saying that eye appeal is not a factor in distinguishing between, for example, a B and a C coin?

    Yes it’s only a small factor. There are many unattractive coins in CAC holders as well as many amazing ones

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,417 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 12, 2024 12:18PM

    @Walkerlover said:

    @Higashiyama said:
    @Walkerlover said: “There is NO CORRELATION between eye appeal and a CAC sticker”

    Are you saying that eye appeal is not a factor in distinguishing between, for example, a B and a C coin?

    Yes it’s only a small factor. There are many unattractive coins in CAC holders as well as many amazing ones

    In my opinion, it’s not “only a small factor”. For all you know, many of those coins you find unattractive might have graded higher, if not for the lack of better eye appeal. And seeing how you’re so enamored with luster and apparently not a fan of darker coins, it’s quite possible that other collectors like many of the coins that you dislike. Your perceptions, alone, don’t speak for the graders or the market.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 879 ✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @Walkerlover said:

    @Higashiyama said:
    @Walkerlover said: “There is NO CORRELATION between eye appeal and a CAC sticker”

    Are you saying that eye appeal is not a factor in distinguishing between, for example, a B and a C coin?

    Yes it’s only a small factor. There are many unattractive coins in CAC holders as well as many amazing ones

    In my opinion, it’s not “only a small factor”. For all you know, many of those coins you find unattractive might have graded higher, if not for the lack of better eye appeal. And seeing how you’re so enamored with luster and apparently not a fan of darker coins, it’s quite possible that other collectors like many of the coins that you dislike. Your perceptions, alone, don’t speak for the graders or the market.

    I agree but don’t you admit that coin is truly an ugly coin? And as you say we can only judge by the photos I submit for opinions. Same should be said for this coin, can only be judged by the photos provided by the seller. I doubt he will ever sell it unless it’s heavily discounted. It’s surely a hard or soft pass for almost every forum member

  • johnhenry9009johnhenry9009 Posts: 167 ✭✭✭

    I personally love the toning on the Washington.

  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 879 ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 12, 2024 2:47PM

    @johnhenry9009 said:
    I personally love the toning on the Washington.

    Will you buy it though!
    Here’s one I like better personally

  • Manifest_DestinyManifest_Destiny Posts: 6,896 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Walkerlover said:

    @johnhenry9009 said:
    I personally love the toning on the Washington.

    Will you buy it though!


  • johnhenry9009johnhenry9009 Posts: 167 ✭✭✭

    @Walkerlover said:

    @johnhenry9009 said:
    I personally love the toning on the Washington.

    Will you buy it though!
    Here’s one I like better personally

    Sadly can't, I spent all my coin allowance for the year :'(
    and IMO I don't like the brown toning on the 55 Washington.

  • privatecoinprivatecoin Posts: 3,369 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @hummingbird_coins said:
    Sure, "original" coins can be blast-white, and 20th century ones often are, but not all blast-white coins are original. Many coins have been dipped to simulate luster. CAC probably knows how to tell the difference, and I am sure that is one of their factors in determining whether a coin merits the sticker or not.

    Artificially white... :s

    Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc

  • Manifest_DestinyManifest_Destiny Posts: 6,896 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @oldabeintx said:

    Stunning? Are you joking. If this was posted as a guess the grade I don’t think anyone would come close to 66. And nobody would state this coin is attractive, they would say it’s an ugly dark mottled toned coin and a hard pass for me.

    There is NO CORRELATION between eye appeal and a CAC sticker. And all we have is the photo to judge. In fact the coin could look worse in hand as most EBay coins are photographed to look better as a selling point.

    You speak with authority on what collectors and CAC will like and accept, and yet you come to this forum asking for our advice and opinions on very common 20th century coins. Think about it.

    Dunning–Kruger effect

  • SethChandlerSethChandler Posts: 1,705 ✭✭✭✭

    Yall have to see a lot of coins in hand and sort’em. Work in a big coin shop for a while. You get to experience a lot of coins in a very short period of time. You start to see things that others don’t.

    Then, it becomes much easier to rank coins.

    Collecting since 1976.
  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 879 ✭✭✭✭

    @Manifest_Destiny said:

    @oldabeintx said:

    Stunning? Are you joking. If this was posted as a guess the grade I don’t think anyone would come close to 66. And nobody would state this coin is attractive, they would say it’s an ugly dark mottled toned coin and a hard pass for me.

    There is NO CORRELATION between eye appeal and a CAC sticker. And all we have is the photo to judge. In fact the coin could look worse in hand as most EBay coins are photographed to look better as a selling point.

    You speak with authority on what collectors and CAC will like and accept, and yet you come to this forum asking for our advice and opinions on very common 20th century coins. Think about it.

    Dunning–Kruger effect

    I just expressed an opinion on a coin that is very legitimate and you are downgrading it. Guaranteed if this coin was posted by a member here it would be a soft or hard pass by 95% of collectors. If you don’t agree post it as a new discussion to see what collectors who haven’t seen this post say about this particular coin. See if I am right or wrong before knocking my opinions.
    This is a challenge to you!!

    As for CAC this is an observation that isn’t just my opinion but acknowledged by other collectors who have stated on this forum that CAC green stickers some really ugly coins due to their bias towards contact marks and technical grading over eye appeal and luster.

  • coinshopcoinshop Posts: 93 ✭✭

    Yeah I think cheek hits may bring it to a 65 or 65+ in my books. It is very lustrous, has a dipped look for sure, and GSC... but whatever, it's still a nice coin!!

    I just put it together from scratch. California Coins
    Vintage site: JayCoinShop.com (Both same stuff just different flavors?) #numismaticmetals
    Make some stupid offers now. https://collectorscorner.com/dealer/default.aspx?dealerId=1045&pt=1

  • Cougar1978Cougar1978 Posts: 8,177 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 13, 2024 10:36PM

    Can’t believe the op coin failed CAC when the 56 horribly tarnished qtr did. Disgusting.

    No fan that badly tarnished stuff. It will only get worse over time.

    For proper RCI investment get material that is PQ, brilliant, with super cartwheel luster.

    Coins & Currency
  • airplanenutairplanenut Posts: 22,142 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Walkerlover said:

    @MFeld said:

    @Walkerlover said:

    @Higashiyama said:
    @Walkerlover said: “There is NO CORRELATION between eye appeal and a CAC sticker”

    Are you saying that eye appeal is not a factor in distinguishing between, for example, a B and a C coin?

    Yes it’s only a small factor. There are many unattractive coins in CAC holders as well as many amazing ones

    In my opinion, it’s not “only a small factor”. For all you know, many of those coins you find unattractive might have graded higher, if not for the lack of better eye appeal. And seeing how you’re so enamored with luster and apparently not a fan of darker coins, it’s quite possible that other collectors like many of the coins that you dislike. Your perceptions, alone, don’t speak for the graders or the market.

    I agree but don’t you admit that coin is truly an ugly coin? And as you say we can only judge by the photos I submit for opinions. Same should be said for this coin, can only be judged by the photos provided by the seller. I doubt he will ever sell it unless it’s heavily discounted. It’s surely a hard or soft pass for almost every forum member

    Big difference in what we're looking for. If you show us white coins with notable marks, the pictures can be junk but still helpful in formulating an opinion. The dark Washington is one that I can imagine looks better in person, though the exact color and eye appeal I wouldn't guess from the photo. I wouldn't buy the coin from the picture provided, but I wouldn't flat-out say it's a bad coin, rather, it's a bad image. The photos you tend to provide are too flattering; if there are flaws still visible, likely there are more we don't see. That dark Washington is about as unappealing an image as you can get. So bad images all around, but not for the same reason.

    JK Coin Photography - eBay Consignments | High Quality Photos | LOW Prices | 20% of Consignment Proceeds Go to Pancreatic Cancer Research

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file