Any thoughts on this New Purchase?
jfriedm56
Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭✭✭
This Satin Proof Buffalo spoke to me even though it was a non-Cac. And for the life of me, I can’t understand why it wasn’t. Anyway I’m so ecstatic to have purchased it. Your thoughts on this coin and why it doesn’t have a Cac sticker. Never been sent?
15
Comments
Are those light splotches on the reverse beneath the buffalo’s head and/or under some of the letters in STATES OF? If so, are there other similar areas on either side?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The sticker fixation is ruining the hobby.
Always tough to tell from photos on proofs, but perhaps they didn’t like this disturbance in a prime focal area for a 67. In any case, send it in and request a reason is provided if it doesn’t pass.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
No and no. I don't see anything on the coin itself except for a single extremely small line next to the E PLR. Under Buffalo's head is a smudge on the holder.
It's a nice coin. That doesn't mean it isn't more solid as a 66. I've seen better strikes and there are a couple areas that may have distractions.
I'm guessing CAC didn't like the ticks under the nose and chin.
Nice coin though.
Or the slab fixation is running the hobby and the stickers are trying to save it. Hypothetically, let's say that coin is actually a 66 or a 66+. Is the threat to the hobby that CAC didn't sticker it or that PCGS put it in a 67+ slab?
I do respect the fact that you continue to have a 100% raw collection. That's awesome!!
I thought those were on the holder - especially the one under the nose.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
What makes you think I have a "100% raw" collection?
Too many collectors simply can't grade or refuse to learn how. There is nothing new about this. It was true when I first started in the hobby in the early 1060s and is still true today. This has opened the door to both slabs and stickers.
Some might think that it's better than mine, which is a PCGS Satin Proof-67, CAC. Some of the satin pieces ended up with more brightness than others.
In a way I prefer my piece because the satin surface does not interfer with the appreciation of the design. It's one of the few pieces where I agree with the opinions of St. Gaudens and others who didn't like the brilliant Proofs. Here is an example of the Brilliant version. This is also a PR-67, but it doesn't have a sticker. Previously I owned a 1936 Proof Buffalo, which was a tiny bit better than this one. I sold to a dealer at the top of the market a decade ago because "she made an offer I couldn't refuse."
Wow, you’re easily the oldest forum member!😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thanks all for the comments, but you guys are really brutal. I understand the criticism and I can take it, but maybe next time I’ll just say this is my new purchase. Personal I really LOVE this coin and in the long run that’s all that matters, but thanks. Zack.
I was being sarcastic. Everything you can say about CAC can be said about PCGS or NGC. And, you are correct, being able to grade is a useful tool. Nonetheless, CAC and PCGS have their place for both novices and experts.
Unless you want your collection to plummet in value, it helps to have a tool that enables newbies to be in the market before they become professional graders. There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone buying coins they find pretty even if they are unable to tell the difference between a 64 and a 66. Would you not let people drive a car until they are expert mechanics? Isn't it okay if they drive the car and hire a mechanic when they need one?
Don't be too sure. There's probably someone who still has the freshly minted widow's mite that they got for their bar mitzvah.
No one said it wasn't a nice coin. You asked why it didn't CAC. We offered some possible reasons. It is still the same coin.
Based on your opening post, understandably, replies were focused largely upon why the coin might not have stickered. And I didn’t see a single comment that I’d consider brutal.
My guess is that if someone else owned and posted the same coin, then received the identical feedback, you wouldn’t think it brutal.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I like the coin. Congrats on the pickup.
My guess is that it is a 1-1.5 over graded and that is why it didn't sticker. So what? You love the coin and it is a nice representative of the type. Enjoy it and don't let the label interfere!
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
And like I said I appreciate everyone’s comments and pointing out why they thought it didn’t cac. I will always view this as a 67 and an extremely beautiful coin that it is. Just because it didn’t cac doesn’t mean it’s not a 67+. PCGS believes it is and so do I. I don’t even know if it was ever sent in. And believe me I’ve seen a lot of cac’d coins that looked atrocious, that I would never purchase.
I’d like to see the rest of the proof set it got broke ( cut) out of, please.
How do you know if it has been to CAC? If you like the coin, who cares if it's stickered or not.
I think it is lovely.
They weren't sold as sets in 1936, but as individual coins. Proofs weren't sold as sets until 1950.
That line is a die scratch, and is one of the easiest ways to quickly ID a satin proof.
Collector, occasional seller
@jfriedm56:
Hey Zack - she’s a beauty & you love it! That’s all that matters. A sticker won’t make it better, imo.
Ken
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
@Copperindian, thanks Ken. I do love it and that’s all that matters to me.
Just as the holdering fixation ruined the hobby?
A sticker does not make it better, it tells you it’s better. Big material difference.
Is this true about the line being a die scratch and an identifying marker for satin buffaloes? Would appreciate some clarification and any references to this.
@johnny010: you know I respect your opinions. In the case of IHC’s though, I cannot agree.
Ken
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
Ken I do agree with your counterpoint specific to IHC’s.
@jfriedm56 I think it's a gorgeous looking example and I'm glad you posted it. I looks more Brilliant than Satin, but I have never dug into that difference and studied the series that in depth. I can see the reflectance of a slab mark in the right obverse field.
Maybe a "dumb" question, but is it possible if it was sent to CAC that JA didn't like it's finish (as a Satin), and therefore didn't accept the grade as such?
.
.
I would also like to know if this is correct Chris, and if you could identify it, that would be great.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
Todd, the coin looks to be correctly designated. However, like a fairly small percentage of others I’ve seen, it appears more brilliant and flashier than a typical Satin example - almost like a hybrid between Type 1 (Satin) and Type 2 (Brilliant) Proofs.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
When I first saw this I thought it was a brilliant proof. Was almost surprised when I read Satin on the label. It’s not mis-attributed is it?
I can't speak in regards to it's CAC status.
I'll just say that the disturbances outlined by other posters are minimal and I, basically, like the coin.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
This is from the PR69 Coinfacts example, same line.
Scroll through here and you'll see it on pretty much all of them. I'm not 100% sure if that's due to the lighting used for the photos or if indeed there are a small number of them that don't have that die scratch.
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1936-5c-satin/images/3994
Collector, occasional seller
@ChrisH821 Thank you! Looked through most of them. The few I couldn't see them on had tell tale signs when zoomed on on the large size images.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
Similar on my coin
I find the course of this thread a bit strange. OP explicitly asked for specific feedback, then disparaged the resulting commenters as “brutal”, and then proclaimed that no one else’s opinion matters except that of him and PCGS, even though the original question was about CAC. A bit perplexing, but it’s a cool coin nonetheless.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Not at all . That wasn’t my intention. I appreciate feedback positive or negative. That’s all I asked for. You’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say your opinion doesn’t matter, but I like the coin and to me that what matters. Put it to rest.
If you’re not sure if it has ever been to CAC or not, go ahead and give it a try, why not? Looks like a nice coin to me.