@ProofCollection said:
Now that the question is different, there's a new answer. So likewise I have also sent most of my Morgan collection to CAC and received feedback and learned tons and now I feel I have a good CAC eye. A few coins have been denied CAC for some very minor reason such as small abrasions in non-prime locations. So if the choice is a CAC stickered coin for $1200 or a CAC-denied coin with a minor abrasion but otherwise solid for $1000, I would have no problem buying the non-CAC coin and saving the money. Just like some will be happy with a $500 discount when buying a new car because it already has a scratch on the bumper. I'd never pay full price for a new car with a scratch, but discount it appropriately and there's no reason not to buy it unless it would really bug you that much. I expect most of us feel this way.
So a coin would be solid for the grade other than for the (minor) abrasion(s) in a non-prime area?
That reminds me of the reporter who interviewed First Lady Mrs. Lincoln at Ford’s Theater. He asked, “So, other than the assassination, how was the play?”
For me, in your example, my choice is to pay the $1,200 for the problem-free coin that is solid for the grade, rather than saving $200 for a coin that is not solid for the grade due to problem(s).
I fully agree there is no right and wrong here, just personal preferences. Collectors SHOULD collect what they want!
Steve
Sorry I should have been clearer, in my example both coins are solid for the grade. Prior post updated.
If the coin did not CAC it’s not solid for the grade unless you pick and choose what’s already been accepted by the markets.
@ProofCollection said:
Now that the question is different, there's a new answer. So likewise I have also sent most of my Morgan collection to CAC and received feedback and learned tons and now I feel I have a good CAC eye. A few coins have been denied CAC for some very minor reason such as small abrasions in non-prime locations. So if the choice is a CAC stickered coin for $1200 or a CAC-denied coin with a minor abrasion but otherwise solid for $1000, I would have no problem buying the non-CAC coin and saving the money. Just like some will be happy with a $500 discount when buying a new car because it already has a scratch on the bumper. I'd never pay full price for a new car with a scratch, but discount it appropriately and there's no reason not to buy it unless it would really bug you that much. I expect most of us feel this way.
So a coin would be solid for the grade other than for the (minor) abrasion(s) in a non-prime area?
That reminds me of the reporter who interviewed First Lady Mrs. Lincoln at Ford’s Theater. He asked, “So, other than the assassination, how was the play?”
For me, in your example, my choice is to pay the $1,200 for the problem-free coin that is solid for the grade, rather than saving $200 for a coin that is not solid for the grade due to problem(s).
I fully agree there is no right and wrong here, just personal preferences. Collectors SHOULD collect what they want!
Steve
Sorry I should have been clearer, in my example both coins are solid for the grade. Prior post updated.
If the coin did not CAC it’s not solid for the grade unless you pick and choose what’s already been accepted by the markets.
Not true at all. For example, an abrasion doesn't make a coin "not solid for the grade." Neither does removable PVC. For example, this Peace was denied CAC for an abrasion on the reverse. Why can't it be solid for its grade and have an abrasion?
@ProofCollection said:
Now that the question is different, there's a new answer. So likewise I have also sent most of my Morgan collection to CAC and received feedback and learned tons and now I feel I have a good CAC eye. A few coins have been denied CAC for some very minor reason such as small abrasions in non-prime locations. So if the choice is a CAC stickered coin for $1200 or a CAC-denied coin with a minor abrasion but otherwise solid for $1000, I would have no problem buying the non-CAC coin and saving the money. Just like some will be happy with a $500 discount when buying a new car because it already has a scratch on the bumper. I'd never pay full price for a new car with a scratch, but discount it appropriately and there's no reason not to buy it unless it would really bug you that much. I expect most of us feel this way.
So a coin would be solid for the grade other than for the (minor) abrasion(s) in a non-prime area?
That reminds me of the reporter who interviewed First Lady Mrs. Lincoln at Ford’s Theater. He asked, “So, other than the assassination, how was the play?”
For me, in your example, my choice is to pay the $1,200 for the problem-free coin that is solid for the grade, rather than saving $200 for a coin that is not solid for the grade due to problem(s).
I fully agree there is no right and wrong here, just personal preferences. Collectors SHOULD collect what they want!
Steve
Sorry I should have been clearer, in my example both coins are solid for the grade. Prior post updated.
I believe I understand your point, but my reply is the same. Due to the small/minor abrasion(s), even though they are in a non-prime location, they actually keep it from being solid for THAT grade, and that’s the reason it failed CAC in your example! In their opinion, due to the abrasions, it’s not solid for that grade!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@hfjacinto said:
I was planning on getting a CAC coin but I liked the Mustang more, so I got a Mustang and skipped the coins. I think I'm ahead.
I’ll be a smart arse and contrarian. Your very cool car is a declining asset while lots of coins in that price range will go up in price or maintain their value. Of course I would buy a car any day of the week instead of a coin if I needed or wanted a new one.
@ProofCollection said:
Now that the question is different, there's a new answer. So likewise I have also sent most of my Morgan collection to CAC and received feedback and learned tons and now I feel I have a good CAC eye. A few coins have been denied CAC for some very minor reason such as small abrasions in non-prime locations. So if the choice is a CAC stickered coin for $1200 or a CAC-denied coin with a minor abrasion but otherwise solid for $1000, I would have no problem buying the non-CAC coin and saving the money. Just like some will be happy with a $500 discount when buying a new car because it already has a scratch on the bumper. I'd never pay full price for a new car with a scratch, but discount it appropriately and there's no reason not to buy it unless it would really bug you that much. I expect most of us feel this way.
So a coin would be solid for the grade other than for the (minor) abrasion(s) in a non-prime area?
That reminds me of the reporter who interviewed First Lady Mrs. Lincoln at Ford’s Theater. He asked, “So, other than the assassination, how was the play?”
For me, in your example, my choice is to pay the $1,200 for the problem-free coin that is solid for the grade, rather than saving $200 for a coin that is not solid for the grade due to problem(s).
I fully agree there is no right and wrong here, just personal preferences. Collectors SHOULD collect what they want!
Steve
Sorry I should have been clearer, in my example both coins are solid for the grade. Prior post updated.
I believe I understand your point, but my reply is the same. Due to the small/minor abrasion(s), even though they are in a non-prime location, they actually keep it from being solid for THAT grade, and that’s the reason it failed CAC in your example! In their opinion, due to the abrasions, it’s not solid for that grade!
Steve
Sorry I wasn't clear. The stated CAC rejection reason from JA is not the grade, it's the abrasion. Just like if a coin has PVC, he rejects it for the PVC, not the he would sticker it one grade lower.
@hfjacinto said:
I was planning on getting a CAC coin but I liked the Mustang more, so I got a Mustang and skipped the coins. I think I'm ahead.
I’ll be a smart arse and contrarian. Your very cool car is a declining asset while lots of coins in that price range will go up in price or maintain their value. Of course I would buy a car any day of the week instead of a coin if I needed or wanted a new one.
True, but one needs a car anyway, so it may as well be one like that Blue Mustang that gives so much driving pleasure!!!!
I don't think this is "an extra" car.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@ProofCollection said:
Now that the question is different, there's a new answer. So likewise I have also sent most of my Morgan collection to CAC and received feedback and learned tons and now I feel I have a good CAC eye. A few coins have been denied CAC for some very minor reason such as small abrasions in non-prime locations. So if the choice is a CAC stickered coin for $1200 or a CAC-denied coin with a minor abrasion but otherwise solid for $1000, I would have no problem buying the non-CAC coin and saving the money. Just like some will be happy with a $500 discount when buying a new car because it already has a scratch on the bumper. I'd never pay full price for a new car with a scratch, but discount it appropriately and there's no reason not to buy it unless it would really bug you that much. I expect most of us feel this way.
So a coin would be solid for the grade other than for the (minor) abrasion(s) in a non-prime area?
That reminds me of the reporter who interviewed First Lady Mrs. Lincoln at Ford’s Theater. He asked, “So, other than the assassination, how was the play?”
For me, in your example, my choice is to pay the $1,200 for the problem-free coin that is solid for the grade, rather than saving $200 for a coin that is not solid for the grade due to problem(s).
I fully agree there is no right and wrong here, just personal preferences. Collectors SHOULD collect what they want!
Steve
Sorry I should have been clearer, in my example both coins are solid for the grade. Prior post updated.
I believe I understand your point, but my reply is the same. Due to the small/minor abrasion(s), even though they are in a non-prime location, they actually keep it from being solid for THAT grade, and that’s the reason it failed CAC in your example! In their opinion, due to the abrasions, it’s not solid for that grade!
Steve
Sorry I wasn't clear. The state CAC rejection reason from JA is not the grade, it's the abrasion. Just like if a coin has PVC, he rejects it for the PVC, not the he would sticker it one grade lower.
Exactly! Due to the abrasion(s), it's not solid for that grade (or as you indicate, not even a lower grade). So apparently, if you crossed it to CAC, it would be "Detailed", which in my opinion, is even worse.
That's why as I stated earlier with your example, I would pay the $1,200 for a problem free stickered coin, and NOT pay $1,000 for a coin with that same technical grade but is "Detailed" in the opinion of CAC!!!!!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@hfjacinto said:
I was planning on getting a CAC coin but I liked the Mustang more, so I got a Mustang and skipped the coins. I think I'm ahead.
I’ll be a smart arse and contrarian. Your very cool car is a declining asset while lots of coins in that price range will go up in price or maintain their value. Of course I would buy a car any day of the week instead of a coin if I needed or wanted a new one.
Well, a car is not an asset. I do not expect to recoup any value from my car, and coins are a hobby. Like vacations and going out, I consider the outlay money spent on a hobby. To me an investment pays me back, like stocks and bonds and I have enough of those. Some of us like cars and not CAC coins. I can enjoy my convertible much more than a coin that's incased in plastic.
So I created my own raw-coin stickering business!!!
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
And this is why I don't need CAC to review my coins.
>
Not all of us need CAC to grade a coin and many of us know what to buy.
I have so many examples of coins I picked up raw/slabbed that I made money on, not one had a CAC.
Congratulations, but also, a rising tide lifts all boats. Additionally, several of the coins your noted are not eligible for CAC review.
So to make sure I understand this, you are saying that even coins without a CAC can rise in value?
Yes. Look at the coin market over the last few years. I commend your results, but the rising market can also be a factor. Plus several of the examples you showed are not types that CAC reviews so they are irrelevant to the CAC issue being discussed. Again, bravo on your skills!
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Yes. Look at the coin market over the last few years. I commend your results, but the rising market can also be a factor. Plus several of the examples you showed are not types that CAC reviews so they are irrelevant to the CAC issue being discussed. Again, bravo on your skills!
The majority of what I buy and sell is Raw so I wouldn't be able to use CAC them anyway. I think there are several examples of why one doesn't need to buy CAC coins. But if I competed in the registry set and purchased most of my coins sight unseen, I can see the appeal of CAC. But I'm different in that I generally buy locally and pick each coin myself.
Nope, just a collector on a budget. Most of my collection is raw and I generally buy locally. My most expensive coin is a $20 gold. If its between 2 coins, I alway get the one that has the most eye appeal/lowest cost.
@jacrispies said: "Why would you buy a coin that did not CAC?"
Because CAC does not sticker raw coins...
So I created my own raw-coin stickering business!!!
They stay better if you use a nail.
Works great, thanks guys.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
@ProofCollection said:
Now that the question is different, there's a new answer. So likewise I have also sent most of my Morgan collection to CAC and received feedback and learned tons and now I feel I have a good CAC eye. A few coins have been denied CAC for some very minor reason such as small abrasions in non-prime locations. So if the choice is a CAC stickered coin for $1200 or a CAC-denied coin with a minor abrasion but otherwise solid for $1000, I would have no problem buying the non-CAC coin and saving the money. Just like some will be happy with a $500 discount when buying a new car because it already has a scratch on the bumper. I'd never pay full price for a new car with a scratch, but discount it appropriately and there's no reason not to buy it unless it would really bug you that much. I expect most of us feel this way.
So a coin would be solid for the grade other than for the (minor) abrasion(s) in a non-prime area?
That reminds me of the reporter who interviewed First Lady Mrs. Lincoln at Ford’s Theater. He asked, “So, other than the assassination, how was the play?”
For me, in your example, my choice is to pay the $1,200 for the problem-free coin that is solid for the grade, rather than saving $200 for a coin that is not solid for the grade due to problem(s).
I fully agree there is no right and wrong here, just personal preferences. Collectors SHOULD collect what they want!
Steve
Sorry I should have been clearer, in my example both coins are solid for the grade. Prior post updated.
I believe I understand your point, but my reply is the same. Due to the small/minor abrasion(s), even though they are in a non-prime location, they actually keep it from being solid for THAT grade, and that’s the reason it failed CAC in your example! In their opinion, due to the abrasions, it’s not solid for that grade!
Steve
Sorry I wasn't clear. The state CAC rejection reason from JA is not the grade, it's the abrasion. Just like if a coin has PVC, he rejects it for the PVC, not the he would sticker it one grade lower.
Exactly! Due to the abrasion(s), it's not solid for that grade (or as you indicate, not even a lower grade). So apparently, if you crossed it to CAC, it would be "Detailed", which in my opinion, is even worse.
That's why as I stated earlier with your example, I would pay the $1,200 for a problem free stickered coin, and NOT pay $1,000 for a coin with that same technical grade but is "Detailed" in the opinion of CAC!!!!!
Back to the original subject of this post. I would absolutely buy a coin that did not CAC!
I believe most collectors buy what they want or don't have regardless if it CAC'd or not. In my case, most mint errors can't receive a bean anyway so, if I were to buy one I liked that happed to have a bean, it wouldn't be the deciding factor for the purchase.
@ProofCollection said:
Now that the question is different, there's a new answer. So likewise I have also sent most of my Morgan collection to CAC and received feedback and learned tons and now I feel I have a good CAC eye. A few coins have been denied CAC for some very minor reason such as small abrasions in non-prime locations. So if the choice is a CAC stickered coin for $1200 or a CAC-denied coin with a minor abrasion but otherwise solid for $1000, I would have no problem buying the non-CAC coin and saving the money. Just like some will be happy with a $500 discount when buying a new car because it already has a scratch on the bumper. I'd never pay full price for a new car with a scratch, but discount it appropriately and there's no reason not to buy it unless it would really bug you that much. I expect most of us feel this way.
So a coin would be solid for the grade other than for the (minor) abrasion(s) in a non-prime area?
That reminds me of the reporter who interviewed First Lady Mrs. Lincoln at Ford’s Theater. He asked, “So, other than the assassination, how was the play?”
For me, in your example, my choice is to pay the $1,200 for the problem-free coin that is solid for the grade, rather than saving $200 for a coin that is not solid for the grade due to problem(s).
I fully agree there is no right and wrong here, just personal preferences. Collectors SHOULD collect what they want!
Steve
Sorry I should have been clearer, in my example both coins are solid for the grade. Prior post updated.
I believe I understand your point, but my reply is the same. Due to the small/minor abrasion(s), even though they are in a non-prime location, they actually keep it from being solid for THAT grade, and that’s the reason it failed CAC in your example! In their opinion, due to the abrasions, it’s not solid for that grade!
Steve
Sorry I wasn't clear. The state CAC rejection reason from JA is not the grade, it's the abrasion. Just like if a coin has PVC, he rejects it for the PVC, not the he would sticker it one grade lower.
Exactly! Due to the abrasion(s), it's not solid for that grade (or as you indicate, not even a lower grade). So apparently, if you crossed it to CAC, it would be "Detailed", which in my opinion, is even worse.
That's why as I stated earlier with your example, I would pay the $1,200 for a problem free stickered coin, and NOT pay $1,000 for a coin with that same technical grade but is "Detailed" in the opinion of CAC!!!!!
Steve
But it's not a details coin.
But you said that JA said that due to the abrasions, he would not have stickered it even at a lower grade! In English, that means if you crossed it to CACG, he would have detailed it due to the abrasions (since he won’t sticker it at the current grade on the label, AND the key, you said he said he would not sticker it at a lower grade). That’s a CACG Detailed coin!
If you disagree, would it cross at the current grade on the label? Since it won’t sticker at the current grade on the label, it won’t cross at that grade. More importantly, would it cross at a lower grade? Since you said JA would not even sticker it at a lower grade due to the abrasions, it therefore won’t cross at a lower grade! Hence, if you submitted it to cross with no restrictions, the only possibility is then for it to be Detailed at CACG due to the abrasions. THAT’S why I wouldn’t even think about paying $1,000 for that coin in your example, since from what you say, it would be Detailed at CACG!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@ProofCollection said:
Now that the question is different, there's a new answer. So likewise I have also sent most of my Morgan collection to CAC and received feedback and learned tons and now I feel I have a good CAC eye. A few coins have been denied CAC for some very minor reason such as small abrasions in non-prime locations. So if the choice is a CAC stickered coin for $1200 or a CAC-denied coin with a minor abrasion but otherwise solid for $1000, I would have no problem buying the non-CAC coin and saving the money. Just like some will be happy with a $500 discount when buying a new car because it already has a scratch on the bumper. I'd never pay full price for a new car with a scratch, but discount it appropriately and there's no reason not to buy it unless it would really bug you that much. I expect most of us feel this way.
So a coin would be solid for the grade other than for the (minor) abrasion(s) in a non-prime area?
That reminds me of the reporter who interviewed First Lady Mrs. Lincoln at Ford’s Theater. He asked, “So, other than the assassination, how was the play?”
For me, in your example, my choice is to pay the $1,200 for the problem-free coin that is solid for the grade, rather than saving $200 for a coin that is not solid for the grade due to problem(s).
I fully agree there is no right and wrong here, just personal preferences. Collectors SHOULD collect what they want!
Steve
Sorry I should have been clearer, in my example both coins are solid for the grade. Prior post updated.
I believe I understand your point, but my reply is the same. Due to the small/minor abrasion(s), even though they are in a non-prime location, they actually keep it from being solid for THAT grade, and that’s the reason it failed CAC in your example! In their opinion, due to the abrasions, it’s not solid for that grade!
Steve
Sorry I wasn't clear. The state CAC rejection reason from JA is not the grade, it's the abrasion. Just like if a coin has PVC, he rejects it for the PVC, not the he would sticker it one grade lower.
Exactly! Due to the abrasion(s), it's not solid for that grade (or as you indicate, not even a lower grade). So apparently, if you crossed it to CAC, it would be "Detailed", which in my opinion, is even worse.
That's why as I stated earlier with your example, I would pay the $1,200 for a problem free stickered coin, and NOT pay $1,000 for a coin with that same technical grade but is "Detailed" in the opinion of CAC!!!!!
Steve
But it's not a details coin.
You’ve done some nice experiments before. Any interest in a pre and post photo and attempt to cross to CACG? I
@Saam said:
Back to the original subject of this post. I would absolutely buy a coin that did not CAC!
I believe most collectors buy what they want or don't have regardless if it CAC'd or not. In my case, most mint errors can't receive a bean anyway so, if I were to buy one I liked that happed to have a bean, it wouldn't be the deciding factor for the purchase.
Ok so if you know it did not CAC do you still expect to pay the market price for the grade it received?
I have purchased coins that were not CAC'd and that I knew had failed previously at CAC. I generally avoid this but sometimes a coin is simply over-graded but still very nice. If the price is right for the coin, I will have it downgraded and then CAC'd. A bit of a gamble but sometimes very much worth it.
USAF (Ret) 1974 - 1994 - The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Remembering RickO, a brother in arms.
@ProofCollection said:
Now that the question is different, there's a new answer. So likewise I have also sent most of my Morgan collection to CAC and received feedback and learned tons and now I feel I have a good CAC eye. A few coins have been denied CAC for some very minor reason such as small abrasions in non-prime locations. So if the choice is a CAC stickered coin for $1200 or a CAC-denied coin with a minor abrasion but otherwise solid for $1000, I would have no problem buying the non-CAC coin and saving the money. Just like some will be happy with a $500 discount when buying a new car because it already has a scratch on the bumper. I'd never pay full price for a new car with a scratch, but discount it appropriately and there's no reason not to buy it unless it would really bug you that much. I expect most of us feel this way.
So a coin would be solid for the grade other than for the (minor) abrasion(s) in a non-prime area?
That reminds me of the reporter who interviewed First Lady Mrs. Lincoln at Ford’s Theater. He asked, “So, other than the assassination, how was the play?”
For me, in your example, my choice is to pay the $1,200 for the problem-free coin that is solid for the grade, rather than saving $200 for a coin that is not solid for the grade due to problem(s).
I fully agree there is no right and wrong here, just personal preferences. Collectors SHOULD collect what they want!
Steve
Sorry I should have been clearer, in my example both coins are solid for the grade. Prior post updated.
I believe I understand your point, but my reply is the same. Due to the small/minor abrasion(s), even though they are in a non-prime location, they actually keep it from being solid for THAT grade, and that’s the reason it failed CAC in your example! In their opinion, due to the abrasions, it’s not solid for that grade!
Steve
Sorry I wasn't clear. The state CAC rejection reason from JA is not the grade, it's the abrasion. Just like if a coin has PVC, he rejects it for the PVC, not the he would sticker it one grade lower.
Exactly! Due to the abrasion(s), it's not solid for that grade (or as you indicate, not even a lower grade). So apparently, if you crossed it to CAC, it would be "Detailed", which in my opinion, is even worse.
That's why as I stated earlier with your example, I would pay the $1,200 for a problem free stickered coin, and NOT pay $1,000 for a coin with that same technical grade but is "Detailed" in the opinion of CAC!!!!!
Steve
But it's not a details coin.
But you said that JA said that due to the abrasions, he would not have stickered it even at a lower grade! In English, that means if you crossed it to CACG, he would have detailed it due to the abrasions (since he won’t sticker it at the current grade on the label, AND the key, you said he said he would not sticker it at a lower grade). That’s a CACG Detailed coin!
If you disagree, would it cross at the current grade on the label? Since it won’t sticker at the current grade on the label, it won’t cross at that grade. More importantly, would it cross at a lower grade? Since you said JA would not even sticker it at a lower grade due to the abrasions, it therefore won’t cross at a lower grade! Hence, if you submitted it to cross with no restrictions, the only possibility is then for it to be Detailed at CACG due to the abrasions. THAT’S why I wouldn’t even think about paying $1,000 for that coin in your example, since from what you say, it would be Detailed at CACG!
Steve
PCGS does not consider it details nor would I argue, does the market. A majority of collectors would not give it a second thought unless the abrasion was explicitly identified and pointed out to them and anyone proficient in grading would assess it at the grade on the holder (within a regular distribution of variance) which makes the coin solid for the grade even with a small abrasion.
@ProofCollection said:
Now that the question is different, there's a new answer. So likewise I have also sent most of my Morgan collection to CAC and received feedback and learned tons and now I feel I have a good CAC eye. A few coins have been denied CAC for some very minor reason such as small abrasions in non-prime locations. So if the choice is a CAC stickered coin for $1200 or a CAC-denied coin with a minor abrasion but otherwise solid for $1000, I would have no problem buying the non-CAC coin and saving the money. Just like some will be happy with a $500 discount when buying a new car because it already has a scratch on the bumper. I'd never pay full price for a new car with a scratch, but discount it appropriately and there's no reason not to buy it unless it would really bug you that much. I expect most of us feel this way.
So a coin would be solid for the grade other than for the (minor) abrasion(s) in a non-prime area?
That reminds me of the reporter who interviewed First Lady Mrs. Lincoln at Ford’s Theater. He asked, “So, other than the assassination, how was the play?”
For me, in your example, my choice is to pay the $1,200 for the problem-free coin that is solid for the grade, rather than saving $200 for a coin that is not solid for the grade due to problem(s).
I fully agree there is no right and wrong here, just personal preferences. Collectors SHOULD collect what they want!
Steve
Sorry I should have been clearer, in my example both coins are solid for the grade. Prior post updated.
If the coin did not CAC it’s not solid for the grade unless you pick and choose what’s already been accepted by the markets.
Not true at all. For example, an abrasion doesn't make a coin "not solid for the grade." Neither does removable PVC. For example, this Peace was denied CAC for an abrasion on the reverse. Why can't it be solid for its grade and have an abrasion?
But you said that JA said that due to the abrasions, he would not have stickered it even at a lower grade! In English, that means if you crossed it to CACG, he would have detailed it due to the abrasions (since he won’t sticker it at the current grade on the label, AND the key, you said he said he would not sticker it at a lower grade). That’s a CACG Detailed coin!
If you disagree, would it cross at the current grade on the label? Since it won’t sticker at the current grade on the label, it won’t cross at that grade. More importantly, would it cross at a lower grade? Since you said JA would not even sticker it at a lower grade due to the abrasions, it therefore won’t cross at a lower grade! Hence, if you submitted it to cross with no restrictions, the only possibility is then for it to be Detailed at CACG due to the abrasions. THAT’S why I wouldn’t even think about paying $1,000 for that coin in your example, since from what you say, it would be Detailed at CACG!
Steve
PCGS does not consider it details nor would I argue, does the market. A majority of collectors would not give it a second thought unless the abrasion was explicitly identified and pointed out to them and anyone proficient in grading would assess it at the grade on the holder (within a regular distribution of variance) which makes the coin solid for the grade even with a small abrasion.
That’s perfectly ok that you, PCGS and SOME of the market don’t consider that coin “Detailed”, despite that as you describe the situation, that CAC does consider it a detailed coin since CACG will not straight grade it due to the abrasions. Based on that, I would consider it a Detailed coin, and I would argue I’m not the only one that thinks that way!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@ProofCollection said:
Now that the question is different, there's a new answer. So likewise I have also sent most of my Morgan collection to CAC and received feedback and learned tons and now I feel I have a good CAC eye. A few coins have been denied CAC for some very minor reason such as small abrasions in non-prime locations. So if the choice is a CAC stickered coin for $1200 or a CAC-denied coin with a minor abrasion but otherwise solid for $1000, I would have no problem buying the non-CAC coin and saving the money. Just like some will be happy with a $500 discount when buying a new car because it already has a scratch on the bumper. I'd never pay full price for a new car with a scratch, but discount it appropriately and there's no reason not to buy it unless it would really bug you that much. I expect most of us feel this way.
So a coin would be solid for the grade other than for the (minor) abrasion(s) in a non-prime area?
That reminds me of the reporter who interviewed First Lady Mrs. Lincoln at Ford’s Theater. He asked, “So, other than the assassination, how was the play?”
For me, in your example, my choice is to pay the $1,200 for the problem-free coin that is solid for the grade, rather than saving $200 for a coin that is not solid for the grade due to problem(s).
I fully agree there is no right and wrong here, just personal preferences. Collectors SHOULD collect what they want!
Steve
Sorry I should have been clearer, in my example both coins are solid for the grade. Prior post updated.
If the coin did not CAC it’s not solid for the grade unless you pick and choose what’s already been accepted by the markets.
Not true at all. For example, an abrasion doesn't make a coin "not solid for the grade." Neither does removable PVC. For example, this Peace was denied CAC for an abrasion on the reverse. Why can't it be solid for its grade and have an abrasion?
But you said that JA said that due to the abrasions, he would not have stickered it even at a lower grade! In English, that means if you crossed it to CACG, he would have detailed it due to the abrasions (since he won’t sticker it at the current grade on the label, AND the key, you said he said he would not sticker it at a lower grade). That’s a CACG Detailed coin!
If you disagree, would it cross at the current grade on the label? Since it won’t sticker at the current grade on the label, it won’t cross at that grade. More importantly, would it cross at a lower grade? Since you said JA would not even sticker it at a lower grade due to the abrasions, it therefore won’t cross at a lower grade! Hence, if you submitted it to cross with no restrictions, the only possibility is then for it to be Detailed at CACG due to the abrasions. THAT’S why I wouldn’t even think about paying $1,000 for that coin in your example, since from what you say, it would be Detailed at CACG!
Steve
PCGS does not consider it details nor would I argue, does the market. A majority of collectors would not give it a second thought unless the abrasion was explicitly identified and pointed out to them and anyone proficient in grading would assess it at the grade on the holder (within a regular distribution of variance) which makes the coin solid for the grade even with a small abrasion.
That’s perfectly ok that you, PCGS and SOME of the market don’t consider that coin “Detailed”, despite that as you describe the situation, that CAC does consider it a detailed coin since CACG will not straight grade it due to the abrasions. Based on that, I would consider it a Detailed coin, and I would argue I’m not the only one that thinks that way!
Steve
And that's your prerogative. You put JA on a pedestal and to you any coin that doesn't have a sticker is trash. But my guess is that if you didn't know what CAC/JA thinks of a coin you wouldn't have a problem with it.
Yeah I would buy a coin that has not cac'd. I know how to grade, I trust my grading skills, and I trust my eye for quality. Just because it didn't pass at CAC doesn't mean anything to me if I think it's a nice coin.
Obviously there are some "dogs" in straight graded holders but those are easy to spot.
Collector of Capped Bust Halves, SLQ's, Commems, and random cool stuff! @davidv_numismatics on Instagram
Heck that's easy--I don't care about acquiring top pop coins; I buy coins that seem to me to be offered at a fair price, and I'm willing to pay that price. Sometimes, that coin has a CAC sticker. But most of my certified coins do not have a CAC sticker.
@Davidk7 said:
Yeah I would buy a coin that has not cac'd. I know how to grade, I trust my grading skills, and I trust my eye for quality. Just because it didn't pass at CAC doesn't mean anything to me if I think it's a nice coin.
Obviously there are some "dogs" in straight graded holders but those are easy to spot.
There are also some dogs in CAC stickered holders as well.
@ProofCollection said:
Now that the question is different, there's a new answer. So likewise I have also sent most of my Morgan collection to CAC and received feedback and learned tons and now I feel I have a good CAC eye. A few coins have been denied CAC for some very minor reason such as small abrasions in non-prime locations. So if the choice is a CAC stickered coin for $1200 or a CAC-denied coin with a minor abrasion but otherwise solid for $1000, I would have no problem buying the non-CAC coin and saving the money. Just like some will be happy with a $500 discount when buying a new car because it already has a scratch on the bumper. I'd never pay full price for a new car with a scratch, but discount it appropriately and there's no reason not to buy it unless it would really bug you that much. I expect most of us feel this way.
So a coin would be solid for the grade other than for the (minor) abrasion(s) in a non-prime area?
That reminds me of the reporter who interviewed First Lady Mrs. Lincoln at Ford’s Theater. He asked, “So, other than the assassination, how was the play?”
For me, in your example, my choice is to pay the $1,200 for the problem-free coin that is solid for the grade, rather than saving $200 for a coin that is not solid for the grade due to problem(s).
I fully agree there is no right and wrong here, just personal preferences. Collectors SHOULD collect what they want!
Steve
Sorry I should have been clearer, in my example both coins are solid for the grade. Prior post updated.
I believe I understand your point, but my reply is the same. Due to the small/minor abrasion(s), even though they are in a non-prime location, they actually keep it from being solid for THAT grade, and that’s the reason it failed CAC in your example! In their opinion, due to the abrasions, it’s not solid for that grade!
Steve
Sorry I wasn't clear. The state CAC rejection reason from JA is not the grade, it's the abrasion. Just like if a coin has PVC, he rejects it for the PVC, not the he would sticker it one grade lower.
Exactly! Due to the abrasion(s), it's not solid for that grade (or as you indicate, not even a lower grade). So apparently, if you crossed it to CAC, it would be "Detailed", which in my opinion, is even worse.
That's why as I stated earlier with your example, I would pay the $1,200 for a problem free stickered coin, and NOT pay $1,000 for a coin with that same technical grade but is "Detailed" in the opinion of CAC!!!!!
Steve
But it's not a details coin.
You’ve done some nice experiments before. Any interest in a pre and post photo and attempt to cross to CACG? I
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
@cameonut2011 said:
For the OP: If I take coin X and it fails CAC the first time but passes upon resubmission, is it dreck, half-dreck, or accurately graded/solid for the grade? If you vote not dreck or half dreck, at what time did the coin itself change?
CAC occasionally changes its opinion. Everyone can and does. It’s human nature.
I have only one coin that I think “might pass” if I send it back, and it’s not a cheap coin. I told a friend last week even if it passed upon reconsideration I wouldn’t feel right about adding it to my set since I would always know it didn’t pass the first time.
Let’s imagine two coins. The first has a 1 in 100 chance of CACing but just happens to squeak by the first time around. The second coin has a 99 in 100 chance of getting a bean, has an unlucky first round but is successful upon resubmission. You would feel right about owning the first coin but not the second, right?
That’s perfectly ok that you, PCGS and SOME of the market don’t consider that coin “Detailed”, despite that as you describe the situation, that CAC does consider it a detailed coin since CACG will not straight grade it due to the abrasions. Based on that, I would consider it a Detailed coin, and I would argue I’m not the only one that thinks that way!
Steve
And that's your prerogative. You put JA on a pedestal and to you any coin that doesn't have a sticker is trash. But my guess is that if you didn't know what CAC/JA thinks of a coin you wouldn't have a problem with it.
Once again, to confirm, clarify, and correct your assertions:
Yes, what I state is indeed my prerogative.
Yes, I choose to put JA on a pedestal, due to his deserved industry-wide recognition of his expertise. Is he perfect, like a machine? Absolutely not! He’s human. But industry professionals have recognized and created his reputation. While many collectors on this forum disagree with that reputation and his expertise, I choose to accept what unbiased numismatic professionals believe.
I absolutely don’t believe that any coin that fails CAC is trash, and I take a very slight offense that you state that as my position! I have often stated in this forum that in my opinion it’s beneficial for collectors to understand why a particular coin failed, and if they’re ok with that reason, then in my opinion it’s perfectly fine for that collector to include that coin in their collection. Did it fail due to being a “C” coin in CAC’s opinion? Did it fail due to having had a surface treatment that CAC deems unacceptable, but is ok at the other TPG’s? Did it fail due to having abrasions that would keep CACG from straight-grading it 😉? A collector that can obtain that knowledge is an informed collector, and their decision then is perfectly fine!
Regarding your last point, yes, my personal grading skills and knowledge of recognition of surface treatments is nowhere near that of JA. As such, if JA says a coin does not merit a CAC sticker, I can accept that! Apparently, you don’t care much at all what JA thinks of a coin, and that is your prerogative!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@Davidk7 said:
Yeah I would buy a coin that has not cac'd. I know how to grade, I trust my grading skills, and I trust my eye for quality. Just because it didn't pass at CAC doesn't mean anything to me if I think it's a nice coin.
Obviously there are some "dogs" in straight graded holders but those are easy to spot.
There are also some dogs in CAC stickered holders as well.
What is the grade on this coin? It doesn’t look like a dog to me and actually resembles many of the coins I see posted on this forum often. I happen to like this look.
@johnny010 said:
What is the grade on this coin? It doesn’t look like a dog to me and actually resembles many of the coins I see posted on this forum often. I happen to like this look.
I was thinking pretty much the same thing. If it were a Carson City in XF45 CAC, I'd probably be looking at it.
@johnny010 said:
What is the grade on this coin? It doesn’t look like a dog to me and actually resembles many of the coins I see posted on this forum often. I happen to like this look.
I was thinking pretty much the same thing. If it were a Carson City in XF45 CAC, I'd probably be looking at it.
The high surfaces on Liberty and the shield show what I call "black crud" and associated etching and corrosion. I try to avoid it.
@Barberian said:
The high surfaces on Liberty and the shield show what I call "black crud" and associated etching and corrosion. I try to avoid it.
Right or wrong, I just consider it dirt/crud from being circulated. I can't explain it, but my preference is around XF45, and I don't really want to own anything AU or MS, even if MS64 were the same price as XF45.
@coinkat said:
Just curious… what are the Peace Dollars dates for the two reverses that were imaged?
I am asking for various reasons which I can explain if the obverse images are shared.
Seems we should not loose sight of the subjective nature of grading.
If you need the images I can probably provide them but I'll have to take them or find them.
The first coin is 1921 (P). The 2nd (correct coin with abrasion is 1923 (P).
Because I like it and it’s cheaper. Much of my stuff currency, world coins, CAC not even in the picture. I do have about a dozen CACG coins (it’s fun winning them via Auc Sniper).
@Barberian said:
The high surfaces on Liberty and the shield show what I call "black crud" and associated etching and corrosion. I try to avoid it.
Right or wrong, I just consider it dirt/crud from being circulated. I can't explain it, but my preference is around XF45, and I don't really want to own anything AU or MS, even if MS64 were the same price as XF45.
@Barberian said:
EF45 is my favorite grade as well.
All of those coins are beautiful to me. At this time, my entire collection is Carson City. I need to be finding a dime, quarter, half dollar, and then seated liberty and trade dollars to complete my CC silver type set.
@Barberian . At least when it comes to the Seated half dollar I completely agree about the EF-45 grade. In the past I focused more on dates than grades. Over the years I have really come to appreciate the EF-45 grade. Below this grade you don't get to fully appreciate the beauty of the original Sully design. You also find coins with some residual, original luster left. finally, I of course like higher grade coins too, but i think the 45 grade offers the most bang for your buck. James
Let me ask a follow up question: Would you buy a coin with a sticker on it that was not solid for the grade or designation and/or had staple scratches just because it stickered?
Comments
If the coin did not CAC it’s not solid for the grade unless you pick and choose what’s already been accepted by the markets.
Not true at all. For example, an abrasion doesn't make a coin "not solid for the grade." Neither does removable PVC. For example, this Peace was denied CAC for an abrasion on the reverse. Why can't it be solid for its grade and have an abrasion?
I believe I understand your point, but my reply is the same. Due to the small/minor abrasion(s), even though they are in a non-prime location, they actually keep it from being solid for THAT grade, and that’s the reason it failed CAC in your example! In their opinion, due to the abrasions, it’s not solid for that grade!
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
I’ll be a smart arse and contrarian. Your very cool car is a declining asset while lots of coins in that price range will go up in price or maintain their value. Of course I would buy a car any day of the week instead of a coin if I needed or wanted a new one.
Sorry I wasn't clear. The stated CAC rejection reason from JA is not the grade, it's the abrasion. Just like if a coin has PVC, he rejects it for the PVC, not the he would sticker it one grade lower.
True, but one needs a car anyway, so it may as well be one like that Blue Mustang that gives so much driving pleasure!!!!
I don't think this is "an extra" car.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Exactly! Due to the abrasion(s), it's not solid for that grade (or as you indicate, not even a lower grade). So apparently, if you crossed it to CAC, it would be "Detailed", which in my opinion, is even worse.
That's why as I stated earlier with your example, I would pay the $1,200 for a problem free stickered coin, and NOT pay $1,000 for a coin with that same technical grade but is "Detailed" in the opinion of CAC!!!!!
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Well, a car is not an asset. I do not expect to recoup any value from my car, and coins are a hobby. Like vacations and going out, I consider the outlay money spent on a hobby. To me an investment pays me back, like stocks and bonds and I have enough of those. Some of us like cars and not CAC coins. I can enjoy my convertible much more than a coin that's incased in plastic.
My current registry sets:
20th Century Type Set
Virtual DANSCO 7070
Slabbed IHC set - Missing the Anacs Slabbed coins
@skier07
And this is why I don't need CAC to review my coins.
I picked up these for $78
Sold them for $175
I picked up 2 of these for $68
Sold one for $1200
Picked up this for $150
Sold it for $270
Picked up this for $1800
Haven't sold it yet, its worth more than $1800.
Not all of us need CAC to grade a coin and many of us know what to buy.
I have so many examples of coins I picked up raw/slabbed that I made money on, not one had a CAC.
My current registry sets:
20th Century Type Set
Virtual DANSCO 7070
Slabbed IHC set - Missing the Anacs Slabbed coins
Let the true experts or gamblers do the work cracking and submitting.
Collect coins that CAC benefit from the liquidity and the market confidence the bean carries.
I buy wonderful quality raw moderns 95% of the time, submit a few for grading, and don't have a care in the world about CAC.
Learned long ago in a class offered by Bill Fivaz to bend my grading standards to fit the master. We went on to win the class competition.
There are so many layers to the onion that only a pro seeing coins every day for years can sharpen their eye to JA's standards.
Everyone else is likely chasing fools gold at 50% bean rates.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
>
Congratulations, but also, a rising tide lifts all boats. Additionally, several of the coins your noted are not eligible for CAC review.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
So to make sure I understand this, you are saying that even coins without a CAC can rise in value?
My current registry sets:
20th Century Type Set
Virtual DANSCO 7070
Slabbed IHC set - Missing the Anacs Slabbed coins
"Why would you buy a coin that did not CAC?"
Because CAC does not sticker raw coins...
So I created my own raw-coin stickering business!!!
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
Because I don’t worry about CAC stickers.
Yes. Look at the coin market over the last few years. I commend your results, but the rising market can also be a factor. Plus several of the examples you showed are not types that CAC reviews so they are irrelevant to the CAC issue being discussed. Again, bravo on your skills!
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
They stay better if you use a nail.
The majority of what I buy and sell is Raw so I wouldn't be able to use CAC them anyway. I think there are several examples of why one doesn't need to buy CAC coins. But if I competed in the registry set and purchased most of my coins sight unseen, I can see the appeal of CAC. But I'm different in that I generally buy locally and pick each coin myself.
My current registry sets:
20th Century Type Set
Virtual DANSCO 7070
Slabbed IHC set - Missing the Anacs Slabbed coins
@hfjacinto
Are you a dealer?
Nope, just a collector on a budget. Most of my collection is raw and I generally buy locally. My most expensive coin is a $20 gold. If its between 2 coins, I alway get the one that has the most eye appeal/lowest cost.
My current registry sets:
20th Century Type Set
Virtual DANSCO 7070
Slabbed IHC set - Missing the Anacs Slabbed coins
Works great, thanks guys.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
But it's not a details coin.
Back to the original subject of this post. I would absolutely buy a coin that did not CAC!
I believe most collectors buy what they want or don't have regardless if it CAC'd or not. In my case, most mint errors can't receive a bean anyway so, if I were to buy one I liked that happed to have a bean, it wouldn't be the deciding factor for the purchase.
But you said that JA said that due to the abrasions, he would not have stickered it even at a lower grade! In English, that means if you crossed it to CACG, he would have detailed it due to the abrasions (since he won’t sticker it at the current grade on the label, AND the key, you said he said he would not sticker it at a lower grade). That’s a CACG Detailed coin!
If you disagree, would it cross at the current grade on the label? Since it won’t sticker at the current grade on the label, it won’t cross at that grade. More importantly, would it cross at a lower grade? Since you said JA would not even sticker it at a lower grade due to the abrasions, it therefore won’t cross at a lower grade! Hence, if you submitted it to cross with no restrictions, the only possibility is then for it to be Detailed at CACG due to the abrasions. THAT’S why I wouldn’t even think about paying $1,000 for that coin in your example, since from what you say, it would be Detailed at CACG!
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
You’ve done some nice experiments before. Any interest in a pre and post photo and attempt to cross to CACG? I
Ok so if you know it did not CAC do you still expect to pay the market price for the grade it received?
I have purchased coins that were not CAC'd and that I knew had failed previously at CAC. I generally avoid this but sometimes a coin is simply over-graded but still very nice. If the price is right for the coin, I will have it downgraded and then CAC'd. A bit of a gamble but sometimes very much worth it.
USAF (Ret) 1974 - 1994 - The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Remembering RickO, a brother in arms.
PCGS does not consider it details nor would I argue, does the market. A majority of collectors would not give it a second thought unless the abrasion was explicitly identified and pointed out to them and anyone proficient in grading would assess it at the grade on the holder (within a regular distribution of variance) which makes the coin solid for the grade even with a small abrasion.
Where's the abrasion?
Coin Photographer.
That’s perfectly ok that you, PCGS and SOME of the market don’t consider that coin “Detailed”, despite that as you describe the situation, that CAC does consider it a detailed coin since CACG will not straight grade it due to the abrasions. Based on that, I would consider it a Detailed coin, and I would argue I’m not the only one that thinks that way!
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
My apologies. I had the wrong image.
And that's your prerogative. You put JA on a pedestal and to you any coin that doesn't have a sticker is trash. But my guess is that if you didn't know what CAC/JA thinks of a coin you wouldn't have a problem with it.
I think it's pretty shocking that we debated a coin not stickering and justifying it when the image was actually incorrect.
Wild times.
Coin Photographer.
Yeah I would buy a coin that has not cac'd. I know how to grade, I trust my grading skills, and I trust my eye for quality. Just because it didn't pass at CAC doesn't mean anything to me if I think it's a nice coin.
Obviously there are some "dogs" in straight graded holders but those are easy to spot.
Collector of Capped Bust Halves, SLQ's, Commems, and random cool stuff! @davidv_numismatics on Instagram
Heck that's easy--I don't care about acquiring top pop coins; I buy coins that seem to me to be offered at a fair price, and I'm willing to pay that price. Sometimes, that coin has a CAC sticker. But most of my certified coins do not have a CAC sticker.
There are also some dogs in CAC stickered holders as well.
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
Let’s imagine two coins. The first has a 1 in 100 chance of CACing but just happens to squeak by the first time around. The second coin has a 99 in 100 chance of getting a bean, has an unlucky first round but is successful upon resubmission. You would feel right about owning the first coin but not the second, right?
Smitten with DBLCs.
Once again, to confirm, clarify, and correct your assertions:
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Just curious… what are the Peace Dollars dates for the two reverses that were imaged?
I am asking for various reasons which I can explain if the obverse images are shared.
Seems we should not loose sight of the subjective nature of grading.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
What is the grade on this coin? It doesn’t look like a dog to me and actually resembles many of the coins I see posted on this forum often. I happen to like this look.
I was thinking pretty much the same thing. If it were a Carson City in XF45 CAC, I'd probably be looking at it.
My Carson City Morgan Registry Set
Yup! When I predicted this thread would have a massive response, I didn’t think it would come close to the near 200 posts it has (so far).
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
The high surfaces on Liberty and the shield show what I call "black crud" and associated etching and corrosion. I try to avoid it.
Right or wrong, I just consider it dirt/crud from being circulated. I can't explain it, but my preference is around XF45, and I don't really want to own anything AU or MS, even if MS64 were the same price as XF45.
My latest purchase:
My Carson City Morgan Registry Set
If you need the images I can probably provide them but I'll have to take them or find them.
The first coin is 1921 (P). The 2nd (correct coin with abrasion is 1923 (P).
Because I like it and it’s cheaper. Much of my stuff currency, world coins, CAC not even in the picture. I do have about a dozen CACG coins (it’s fun winning them via Auc Sniper).
EF45 is my favorite grade as well.
All of those coins are beautiful to me. At this time, my entire collection is Carson City. I need to be finding a dime, quarter, half dollar, and then seated liberty and trade dollars to complete my CC silver type set.
My Carson City Morgan Registry Set
@Barberian . At least when it comes to the Seated half dollar I completely agree about the EF-45 grade. In the past I focused more on dates than grades. Over the years I have really come to appreciate the EF-45 grade. Below this grade you don't get to fully appreciate the beauty of the original Sully design. You also find coins with some residual, original luster left. finally, I of course like higher grade coins too, but i think the 45 grade offers the most bang for your buck. James
Let me ask a follow up question: Would you buy a coin with a sticker on it that was not solid for the grade or designation and/or had staple scratches just because it stickered?