@Goldbully said:
I would consider it a gutsy move crossing a PCGS graded FH w/privy to CACG. Anyone have any thoughts about on this crossover?
I must be missing something, where's the risk? If it doesn't straight cross then they return it. You're out shipping and grading fees which are considerable, but nothing in comparison really to the purchase price.
I’m just considering that all 230 privies were graded by PCGS from the start. Isn’t there something to be said about originality? Maybe I’m just putting too much thought into this since both our hosts and CACG are both MLG….Major League Graders.
I don’t see any extra value in that type of “originality”. On the other hand, I can at least imagine the possibility of a premium for a CACG example of the same grade, due to either perceived or actual stricter grading on their part. Either way, I don’t think of an attempted crossover as “gutsy”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Goldbully said:
I would consider it a gutsy move crossing a PCGS graded FH w/privy to CACG. Anyone have any thoughts about on this crossover?
I must be missing something, where's the risk? If it doesn't straight cross then they return it. You're out shipping and grading fees which are considerable, but nothing in comparison really to the purchase price.
I’m just considering that all 230 privies were graded by PCGS from the start. Isn’t there something to be said about originality? Maybe I’m just putting too much thought into this since both our hosts and CACG are both MLG….Major League Graders.
I don’t see any extra value in that type of “originality”. On the other hand, I can at least imagine the possibility of a premium for a CACG example of the same grade, due to either perceived or actual stricter grading on their part. Either way, I don’t think of an attempted crossover as “gutsy”.
I’m with you on your assessment. It’s just something I would not do. More power to the GC seller, will be interesting to see if others follow in his footsteps.
@Goldbully said:
I would consider it a gutsy move crossing a PCGS graded FH w/privy to CACG. Anyone have any thoughts about on this crossover?
I must be missing something, where's the risk? If it doesn't straight cross then they return it. You're out shipping and grading fees which are considerable, but nothing in comparison really to the purchase price.
I’m just considering that all 230 privies were graded by PCGS from the start. Isn’t there something to be said about originality? Maybe I’m just putting too much thought into this since both our hosts and CACG are both MLG….Major League Graders.
Are you worried about losing the two-month old vintage PCGS holder to numismatic history?
I don't see a problem with a cross between those two TPG's value wise. Nice gain for the SBG buyer.
However, I would've had a BIG problem with how CROOKED the coin had been placed into the plastic.
As a peeve of mine, it would've been sent back, even if it cost me something to straighten it out.
I don't see a problem with a cross between those two TPG's value wise. Nice gain for the SBG buyer.
However, I would've had a BIG problem with how CROOKED the coin had been placed into the plastic.
As a peeve of mine, it would've been sent back, even if it cost me something to straighten it out.
I don't see a problem with a cross between those two TPG's value wise. Nice gain for the SBG buyer.
However, I would've had a BIG problem with how CROOKED the coin had been placed into the plastic.
As a peeve of mine, it would've been sent back, even if it cost me something to straighten it.
Looks like CACG attempted to center the date. The date is supposed to be offset to the left.
@Rc5280 said:
However, I would've had a BIG problem with how CROOKED the coin had been placed into the plastic.
As a peeve of mine, it would've been sent back, even if it cost me something to straighten it out.
I'm taking a guess that they aligned the "bottom" of the coin as "keep the date flat" instead of knowing the date should be slightly left
@Rc5280 said:
However, I would've had a BIG problem with how CROOKED the coin had been placed into the plastic.
As a peeve of mine, it would've been sent back, even if it cost me something to straighten it out.
I'm taking a guess that they aligned the "bottom" of the coin as "keep the date flat" instead of knowing the date should be slightly left
Yup. Which only calls into question why people put them on a pedestal, revering them as the definitive word, and assigning a significant premium to their slabs and stickers. They are human, and fallible, just like any of the other major TPGs.
In this case, they either did not take the time to research what they were slabbing, or were careless in doing so. Particularly inexcusable in this case, given not only the value of the coin, but the cheat inherent in the coin by virtue of the unlevel privy mark, if not Lady Liberty staring into space in a way she does on no other coin.
This is a rare case where a CACG slab means the same as a sticker for a modern coin because you know you are getting 2 opinions of grade.
I don't fault CACG for how they slabbed it and I bet they would gladly reholder it if there was a complaint. You can either rotate the coin for a flat privy mark or you can align the date to the bottom. I'm not sure there's technically a wrong answer here.
@Rc5280 said:
However, I would've had a BIG problem with how CROOKED the coin had been placed into the plastic.
As a peeve of mine, it would've been sent back, even if it cost me something to straighten it out.
Two things:
First, you can tap (or bang) the corner of a slab on a firm surface and that will rotate the coin in the slab. Works on most holders with prongs. Easy trick I've used countless times.
Second, many CACG holders I've handled use gaskets too large for the coin. Either the coin can easily wobble between the prongs, or the entire gasket itself is loose within the plastic and can rotate like a coin in a rattler. CACG needs to lower their tolerance levels on factory production. So, if one would send this coin back to CACG to be recentered, it may be loose and rotate again in the mail.
"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
Comments
I don’t see any extra value in that type of “originality”. On the other hand, I can at least imagine the possibility of a premium for a CACG example of the same grade, due to either perceived or actual stricter grading on their part. Either way, I don’t think of an attempted crossover as “gutsy”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I’m with you on your assessment. It’s just something I would not do. More power to the GC seller, will be interesting to see if others follow in his footsteps.
‘’Originality”’ of a US Mint created “overnight modern rarity sensation “. 🤣
Wondercoin.
Are you worried about losing the two-month old vintage PCGS holder to numismatic history?
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
We got $47K.....do I hear $48k?
Hammer Time!!
$47,000
I don't see a problem with a cross between those two TPG's value wise. Nice gain for the SBG buyer.
However, I would've had a BIG problem with how CROOKED the coin had been placed into the plastic.
As a peeve of mine, it would've been sent back, even if it cost me something to straighten it out.
.
Good eye!
Looks like CACG attempted to center the date. The date is supposed to be offset to the left.
"Originality" of the 3rd party slab, no less.
I'm taking a guess that they aligned the "bottom" of the coin as "keep the date flat" instead of knowing the date should be slightly left
Yup. Which only calls into question why people put them on a pedestal, revering them as the definitive word, and assigning a significant premium to their slabs and stickers. They are human, and fallible, just like any of the other major TPGs.
In this case, they either did not take the time to research what they were slabbing, or were careless in doing so. Particularly inexcusable in this case, given not only the value of the coin, but the cheat inherent in the coin by virtue of the unlevel privy mark, if not Lady Liberty staring into space in a way she does on no other coin.
This is a rare case where a CACG slab means the same as a sticker for a modern coin because you know you are getting 2 opinions of grade.
I don't fault CACG for how they slabbed it and I bet they would gladly reholder it if there was a complaint. You can either rotate the coin for a flat privy mark or you can align the date to the bottom. I'm not sure there's technically a wrong answer here.
http://ProofCollection.Net
The Liberty and Date are aligned, maybe it is just a crooked privy
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
FWIW Coin #Uno............properly aligned in the TrueView, slightly off on the S-B image..
Of note, when we speak of 'originality,' PCGS put the reverse on the front of the slab.😉
Or.........did they put the description label on the reverse? 🤔
Two things:
"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