@logger7 said:
It doesn't look original, as such they are not going to endorse a numerical grade.
Apparently, the coin didn't look original to CACG, which had the benefit of seeing it in hand. However, based on the pictures provided, the coin looked original to many of us.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
In checking CAC website they have put down the coin as being equivalent to a XF40. Not too far off from your worse case XF45. The original picture from CAC made the coin look really nice. Looking at the reverse side picture on the CAC website, the amount of pink might be the reason for the grade???
Cleaning (over dipped) and PVC appear to be the most common faults at CAC and CACG. Both require "special" lighting to see.
In checking CAC website they have put down the coin as being equivalent to a XF40. Not too far off from your worse case XF45. The original picture from CAC made the coin look really nice. Looking at the reverse side picture on the CAC website, the amount of pink might be the reason for the grade???
CAC values the coin at $2750.00. so it's not so bad.
In checking CAC website they have put down the coin as being equivalent to a XF40. Not too far off from your worse case XF45. The original picture from CAC made the coin look really nice. Looking at the reverse side picture on the CAC website, the amount of pink might be the reason for the grade???
Cleaning (over dipped) and PVC appear to be the most common faults at CAC and CACG. Both require "special" lighting to see.
I like CAC but does that mean they net grade the coin as XF40 or that it would grade XF40 if not for the cleaning?
Perplexed in Parsippany.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
In checking CAC website they have put down the coin as being equivalent to a XF40. Not too far off from your worse case XF45. The original picture from CAC made the coin look really nice. Looking at the reverse side picture on the CAC website, the amount of pink might be the reason for the grade???
Cleaning (over dipped) and PVC appear to be the most common faults at CAC and CACG. Both require "special" lighting to see.
In checking CAC website they have put down the coin as being equivalent to a XF40. Not too far off from your worse case XF45. The original picture from CAC made the coin look really nice. Looking at the reverse side picture on the CAC website, the amount of pink might be the reason for the grade???
Cleaning (over dipped) and PVC appear to be the most common faults at CAC and CACG. Both require "special" lighting to see.
I like CAC but does that mean they net grade the coin as XF40 or that it would grade XF40 if not for the cleaning?
Perplexed in Parsippany.
The grade on the slab is AU details which the CAC website feels is equivalent to a XF40.
Isn't that just with respect to registry set points purposes?
You are correct. Would it be unreasonable to believe that XF40 grade would carry over to putting a guide book value on a coin that is graded AU details. The market may or may not put a discount/premium on that guide book value.
In checking CAC website they have put down the coin as being equivalent to a XF40. Not too far off from your worse case XF45. The original picture from CAC made the coin look really nice. Looking at the reverse side picture on the CAC website, the amount of pink might be the reason for the grade???
Cleaning (over dipped) and PVC appear to be the most common faults at CAC and CACG. Both require "special" lighting to see.
I like CAC but does that mean they net grade the coin as XF40 or that it would grade XF40 if not for the cleaning?
Perplexed in Parsippany.
The grade on the slab is AU details which the CAC website feels is equivalent to a XF40.
Isn't that just with respect to registry set points purposes?
You are correct. Would it be unreasonable to believe that XF40 grade would carry over to putting a guide book value on a coin that is graded AU details. The market may or may not put a discount/premium on that guide book value.
In this case, I don't think it would be unreasonable.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
No Motto gold was market graded for decades. CAC now wants to shut the barn door after all the prize horses left. Unless the surfaces were negatively impaired by a cleaning, it should straight grade. To move the goal posts now is nothing short of disingenuous. And this is exactly why I stopped collecting No Motto gold close to 20 years ago.
I advocated for an original surfaces designation over 20 years ago. And my suggestion for this designation is well documented on this forum for those that choose to investigate my claim and effort to preserve original coinage. I was told by David Hall on this forum over 20 years ago that the market did not want this. Seems the so-called market does not know what it wants. But there is a significant place for unmolested coins even if that is a minority view. There should some acknowledgment for special coins. Sadly that ship has sailed and those that collect are stuck with the revisionist downside of what could have been corrected earlier.
I feel vindicated mainly because this entire grading Thermidorian Reaction that is represented with this coin and it’s assigned grade could have largely been avoided. This is a problem that was foreseeable and could have been addressed.
The grade outcome here simply fails to pass the straight face test given what the market has traditionally accepted combined with the voice of what was expressed here on this forum as a viable alternative to prevent the slaughter of original coins. Best wishes in navigating through the grading waters that seem to be deeper than we envisioned.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I always forget that one can "open image in a new tab" and then look at much higher resolution.
Now that I have done that, I can see some possible cleaning under the color. No hairlines, but the surfaces are a little shiny (as if a light polishing was done). Especially on the central raised devices. The fields are also impacted quite a bit and rough from many small contact marks.
And now I wonder where the color came from. Iodine ?
Would need to see this one in hand, my guess is the image makes the coin appear better than it is. I too can see some possible cleaning under the color.
"There should some acknowledgment for special coins. Sadly that ship has sailed and those that collect are stuck with the revisionist downside of what could have been corrected earlier."
I agree, it could have been corrected. However, it's never too late to begin using strict grading standards that are accurate, consistent, and prioritize natural surfaces.
Thanks all for the comments. I understand why CAC labeled it cleaned but when compared to all the numerically graded slabbed old gold out there it seems like there's a new sheriff in town.
Comments
I was thinking the same range. Would not like the details slap either.
Wow….that stinks.
Was it previously straight graded in another holder?
Not that I know of. I bought it raw.
That's a shame! But it doesn't surprise me
It doesn't look original, as such they are not going to endorse a numerical grade.
Apparently, the coin didn't look original to CACG, which had the benefit of seeing it in hand. However, based on the pictures provided, the coin looked original to many of us.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'll bet that coin doesn't stay in that holder for long.
Time will tell if CACG's business model will work. Their stickering service worked better than I would have imagined.
What a shame.....crack it out and send it to NGC.....you will get a 45 at minimum.
Thanks for your postings.
In checking CAC website they have put down the coin as being equivalent to a XF40. Not too far off from your worse case XF45. The original picture from CAC made the coin look really nice. Looking at the reverse side picture on the CAC website, the amount of pink might be the reason for the grade???
Cleaning (over dipped) and PVC appear to be the most common faults at CAC and CACG. Both require "special" lighting to see.
CAC values the coin at $2750.00. so it's not so bad.
I like CAC but does that mean they net grade the coin as XF40 or that it would grade XF40 if not for the cleaning?
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
NGC AU53
The grade on the slab is AU details which the CAC website feels is equivalent to a XF40.
Isn't that just with respect to registry set points purposes?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You are correct. Would it be unreasonable to believe that XF40 grade would carry over to putting a guide book value on a coin that is graded AU details. The market may or may not put a discount/premium on that guide book value.
In this case, I don't think it would be unreasonable.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I feel so validated right now. 😉
At least it clocked in at the AU level for you.
Having fun while switching things up and focusing on a next level PCGS slabbed 1950+ type set, while still looking for great examples for the 7070.
No Motto gold was market graded for decades. CAC now wants to shut the barn door after all the prize horses left. Unless the surfaces were negatively impaired by a cleaning, it should straight grade. To move the goal posts now is nothing short of disingenuous. And this is exactly why I stopped collecting No Motto gold close to 20 years ago.
I advocated for an original surfaces designation over 20 years ago. And my suggestion for this designation is well documented on this forum for those that choose to investigate my claim and effort to preserve original coinage. I was told by David Hall on this forum over 20 years ago that the market did not want this. Seems the so-called market does not know what it wants. But there is a significant place for unmolested coins even if that is a minority view. There should some acknowledgment for special coins. Sadly that ship has sailed and those that collect are stuck with the revisionist downside of what could have been corrected earlier.
I feel vindicated mainly because this entire grading Thermidorian Reaction that is represented with this coin and it’s assigned grade could have largely been avoided. This is a problem that was foreseeable and could have been addressed.
The grade outcome here simply fails to pass the straight face test given what the market has traditionally accepted combined with the voice of what was expressed here on this forum as a viable alternative to prevent the slaughter of original coins. Best wishes in navigating through the grading waters that seem to be deeper than we envisioned.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
What do you mean by this?
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
OGH is a type of PCGS holder that dates back around 32-36 years
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Time to send to PCGS/NGC
Latin American Collection
I know that, but I don't recall OGH-era grading to be extremely harsh with Details designations. That is why I asked.
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
I agree and think it wasn’t a good analogy.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
from the original pics I was thinking 53 too
I was thinking straight grade AU-50 or 53.
CAC seems to be ridiculous!
I’m not sure if it’s tooling or just unfortunate surface damage, but take a look to the left of the lady’s eye, and above the arrows.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
This result is why I prefer PCGS/CAC.
PCGS occasionally returns an unexpected details grade, but no where near as often as CACG.
I always forget that one can "open image in a new tab" and then look at much higher resolution.
Now that I have done that, I can see some possible cleaning under the color. No hairlines, but the surfaces are a little shiny (as if a light polishing was done). Especially on the central raised devices. The fields are also impacted quite a bit and rough from many small contact marks.
And now I wonder where the color came from. Iodine ?
Would need to see this one in hand, my guess is the image makes the coin appear better than it is. I too can see some possible cleaning under the color.
"There should some acknowledgment for special coins. Sadly that ship has sailed and those that collect are stuck with the revisionist downside of what could have been corrected earlier."
I agree, it could have been corrected. However, it's never too late to begin using strict grading standards that are accurate, consistent, and prioritize natural surfaces.
Thanks all for the comments. I understand why CAC labeled it cleaned but when compared to all the numerically graded slabbed old gold out there it seems like there's a new sheriff in town.
I am sure they will like that image but I will heed the warning as to what happens when….not gonna get my money that way.