@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going to be a very low number.
Many, many original rolls of 38-D Buffalos were saved when they came out. Later they were graded as such. It's why the PCGS pops show 60,000 coins in 65-66, dwarfing the population of the next highest pop coins, the 1913 Type I and 1937, by a factor of almost 9. These aren't special coins on their own. Might want to check for D/D or D/S.
Obviously, we can't make the call from photos alone, but you're looking at rather long odds for a gold sticker and questionable returns at best on spending money for green one. My thoughts are to just buy a 67 CAC.
Edit: That was my thoughts on the sticker strategy. My thoughts on the coin are that it seems nice from here.
Appreciate your feedback. Is it possible that many of the MS 66 1938-D Buffalo silverbacks issued from 2005-10 were capped at MS 66 as PCGS didn’t want too many 67 coins to be released to the market? Just my speculation as perhaps the grading was tighter in this era?
No, your speculation is exactly incorrect and couldn't be more wrong.
2005-2010 was the absolute peak of gradeflation and one of the primary reasons why CAC was founded in 2007.
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going to be a very low number.
Many, many original rolls of 38-D Buffalos were saved when they came out. Later they were graded as such. It's why the PCGS pops show 60,000 coins in 65-66, dwarfing the population of the next highest pop coins, the 1913 Type I and 1937, by a factor of almost 9. These aren't special coins on their own. Might want to check for D/D or D/S.
Obviously, we can't make the call from photos alone, but you're looking at rather long odds for a gold sticker and questionable returns at best on spending money for green one. My thoughts are to just buy a 67 CAC.
Edit: That was my thoughts on the sticker strategy. My thoughts on the coin are that it seems nice from here.
To be honest I looked at some gold CAC Buffalos online and some may have a better look but several seemed to be nice coins but not a wow factor and looked no better than mine. At least 1 had a weak obverse strike by the braids. So I am not sure what look CAC uses to award a gold sticker.
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going to be a very low number.
Many, many original rolls of 38-D Buffalos were saved when they came out. Later they were graded as such. It's why the PCGS pops show 60,000 coins in 65-66, dwarfing the population of the next highest pop coins, the 1913 Type I and 1937, by a factor of almost 9. These aren't special coins on their own. Might want to check for D/D or D/S.
Obviously, we can't make the call from photos alone, but you're looking at rather long odds for a gold sticker and questionable returns at best on spending money for green one. My thoughts are to just buy a 67 CAC.
Edit: That was my thoughts on the sticker strategy. My thoughts on the coin are that it seems nice from here.
Appreciate your feedback. Is it possible that many of the MS 66 1938-D Buffalo silverbacks issued from 2005-10 were capped at MS 66 as PCGS didn’t want too many 67 coins to be released to the market? Just my speculation as perhaps the grading was tighter in this era?
Your speculation regarding PCGS having capped 1938-D nickels at MS66 sounds preposterous.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Walkerlover said:
And I see a legitimate real shot for gold as the coin is very clean as well
Nice coin but virtually no chance. I would bet a lot of money and lay odds on the "No Gold".
How did you come to such a strong conclusion without benefit of seeing the coin in hand?
A number of reasons regarding the look of the coin and the requirements to get a gold CAC on any coin, particularly a MS66.
But honestly, the number one reason? It's not very nice but, at this stage, betting against your grading acumen has been a winning proposition with every coin you've ever posted (to the best of my recollection).
Eek
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@jmlanzaf said:
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
Stridency aside, yes, of course, he can do whatever he likes.
However, historically, what he likes to do is post coins on this forum for public opinion, sometimes return them to innocent sellers for no particular reason, and make (to be kind) uninformed claims that don't hold up under the slightest amount of examination. This pattern has repeated itself time and again. He buys perfectly fine coins and then gets delusions of grandeur and asks for opinions on his delusions.
So, it's either ignore him completely (which is a reasonable option) or puncture his balloon and hope that he learns something this time.
@Walkerlover said:
Appreciate your feedback. Is it possible that many of the MS 66 1938-D Buffalo silverbacks issued from 2005-10 were capped at MS 66 as PCGS didn’t want too many 67 coins to be released to the market? Just my speculation as perhaps the grading was tighter in this era?
Stridency aside, yes, of course, he can do whatever he likes.
However, historically, what he likes to do is post coins on this forum for public opinion, sometimes return them to innocent sellers for no particular reason, and make (to be kind) uninformed claims that don't hold up under the slightest amount of examination. This pattern has repeated itself time and again. He buys perfectly fine coins and then gets delusions of grandeur and asks for opinions on his delusions.
So, it's either ignore him completely (which is a reasonable option) or puncture his balloon and hope that he learns something this time.
Some would state it is easy to underestimate the OP's ability to pick and choose coins. And that he has apparently set boundaries between himself and common sense, but I like your kind yet firm take on all of this better.
Stridency aside, yes, of course, he can do whatever he likes.
However, historically, what he likes to do is post coins on this forum for public opinion, sometimes return them to innocent sellers for no particular reason, and make (to be kind) uninformed claims that don't hold up under the slightest amount of examination. This pattern has repeated itself time and again. He buys perfectly fine coins and then gets delusions of grandeur and asks for opinions on his delusions.
So, it's either ignore him completely (which is a reasonable option) or puncture his balloon and hope that he learns something this time.
Some would state it is easy to underestimate the OP's ability to pick and choose coins. And that he has apparently set boundaries between himself and common sense, but I like your kind yet firm take on all of this better.
I'm not sure i disagree with any of those observations. [I hate abuse of return privileges. ] I'm just not sure there is any point in saying it out loud. (Although I guess I just sort of did. ) The forum is a bit prone to cliques. So people in the OP's click just think we are donkeys and people in your clique will pile on. And it just makes the forum more divided.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going > @jmlanzaf said:
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
It’s not like I don’t do research when I make some of my decisions. Here is a coin that got a gold sticker in a modern holder. The coin has okay appearance but doesn’t have that great 67+ look. Also there is a tick which I circled on the cheek. Granted maybe I hand it looks better but photos not impressive.
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going > @jmlanzaf said:
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
It’s not like I don’t do research when I make some of my decisions. Here is a coin that got a gold sticker in a modern holder. The coin has okay appearance but doesn’t have that great 67+ look. Also there is a tick which I circled on the cheek. Granted maybe I hand it looks better but photos not impressive.
38D coins come very nice and usually 66. [Heavily hoarded because of the transition year. ] 67 are much harder.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going > @jmlanzaf said:
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
It’s not like I don’t do research when I make some of my decisions. Here is a coin that got a gold sticker in a modern holder. The coin has okay appearance but doesn’t have that great 67+ look. Also there is a tick which I circled on the cheek. Granted maybe I hand it looks better but photos not impressive.
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going > @jmlanzaf said:
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
It’s not like I don’t do research when I make some of my decisions. Here is a coin that got a gold sticker in a modern holder. The coin has okay appearance but doesn’t have that great 67+ look. Also there is a tick which I circled on the cheek. Granted maybe I hand it looks better but photos not impressive.
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going > @jmlanzaf said:
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
It’s not like I don’t do research when I make some of my decisions. Here is a coin that got a gold sticker in a modern holder. The coin has okay appearance but doesn’t have that great 67+ look. Also there is a tick which I circled on the cheek. Granted maybe I hand it looks better but photos not impressive.
But isn’t that the glamour shot true-view? And what about the tick I circled on the cheek in a primary focal area?
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going > @jmlanzaf said:
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
It’s not like I don’t do research when I make some of my decisions. Here is a coin that got a gold sticker in a modern holder. The coin has okay appearance but doesn’t have that great 67+ look. Also there is a tick which I circled on the cheek. Granted maybe I hand it looks better but photos not impressive.
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going > @jmlanzaf said:
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
It’s not like I don’t do research when I make some of my decisions. Here is a coin that got a gold sticker in a modern holder. The coin has okay appearance but doesn’t have that great 67+ look. Also there is a tick which I circled on the cheek. Granted maybe I hand it looks better but photos not impressive.
But isn’t that the glamour shot true-view? And what about the tick I circled on the cheek in a primary focal area?
A 66 or even a 67 can have a tick. And True Views are sometimes a glamor shot, sometimes not. But the in slab photo is garbage.
I said, send it in. There's maybe a 1% chance it gets a gold sticker. Original rolls for these are common (I added to my previous post) and you will notice the pop difference between 66 and 67.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going > @jmlanzaf said:
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
It’s not like I don’t do research when I make some of my decisions. Here is a coin that got a gold sticker in a modern holder. The coin has okay appearance but doesn’t have that great 67+ look. Also there is a tick which I circled on the cheek. Granted maybe I hand it looks better but photos not impressive.
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going > @jmlanzaf said:
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
It’s not like I don’t do research when I make some of my decisions. Here is a coin that got a gold sticker in a modern holder. The coin has okay appearance but doesn’t have that great 67+ look. Also there is a tick which I circled on the cheek. Granted maybe I hand it looks better but photos not impressive.
But isn’t that the glamour shot true-view? And what about the tick I circled on the cheek in a primary focal area?
A 66 or even a 67 can have a tick. And True Views are sometimes a glamor shot, sometimes not. But the in slab photo is garbage.
I said, send it in. There's maybe a 1% chance it gets a gold sticker. Original rolls for these are common (I added to my previous post) and you will notice the pop difference between 66 and 67.
Okay I am good with a green sticker. But I want to learn from you, what is your reasoning why I only a 1% chance for gold?
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going > @jmlanzaf said:
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
It’s not like I don’t do research when I make some of my decisions. Here is a coin that got a gold sticker in a modern holder. The coin has okay appearance but doesn’t have that great 67+ look. Also there is a tick which I circled on the cheek. Granted maybe I hand it looks better but photos not impressive.
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going > @jmlanzaf said:
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
It’s not like I don’t do research when I make some of my decisions. Here is a coin that got a gold sticker in a modern holder. The coin has okay appearance but doesn’t have that great 67+ look. Also there is a tick which I circled on the cheek. Granted maybe I hand it looks better but photos not impressive.
But isn’t that the glamour shot true-view? And what about the tick I circled on the cheek in a primary focal area?
A 66 or even a 67 can have a tick. And True Views are sometimes a glamor shot, sometimes not. But the in slab photo is garbage.
I said, send it in. There's maybe a 1% chance it gets a gold sticker. Original rolls for these are common (I added to my previous post) and you will notice the pop difference between 66 and 67.
Okay I am good with a green sticker. But I want to learn from you, what is your reasoning why I only a 1% chance for gold?
Because to get gold it would have to be but just a 67 but a green sticker 67. There's a reason there's a significant price difference between 66 and 67. Most people only send these in if they think they will 67. A 66 really isn't worth the cost of the slab. Yet less than 10% of those actually get a 67. So, what are the odds of a green label 67? It's somewhere less than 10%.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going > @jmlanzaf said:
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
It’s not like I don’t do research when I make some of my decisions. Here is a coin that got a gold sticker in a modern holder. The coin has okay appearance but doesn’t have that great 67+ look. Also there is a tick which I circled on the cheek. Granted maybe I hand it looks better but photos not impressive.
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going > @jmlanzaf said:
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
It’s not like I don’t do research when I make some of my decisions. Here is a coin that got a gold sticker in a modern holder. The coin has okay appearance but doesn’t have that great 67+ look. Also there is a tick which I circled on the cheek. Granted maybe I hand it looks better but photos not impressive.
But isn’t that the glamour shot true-view? And what about the tick I circled on the cheek in a primary focal area?
A 66 or even a 67 can have a tick. And True Views are sometimes a glamor shot, sometimes not. But the in slab photo is garbage.
I said, send it in. There's maybe a 1% chance it gets a gold sticker. Original rolls for these are common (I added to my previous post) and you will notice the pop difference between 66 and 67.
Okay I am good with a green sticker. But I want to learn from you, what is your reasoning why I only a 1% chance for gold?
Because to get gold it would have to be but just a 67 but a green sticker 67. There's a reason there's a significant price difference between 66 and 67. Most people only send these in if they think they will 67. A 66 really isn't worth the cost of the slab. Yet less than 10% of those actually get a 67. So, what are the odds of a green label 67? It's somewhere less than 10%.
In addition to that, the coin doesn’t look like anything special.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going > @jmlanzaf said:
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
It’s not like I don’t do research when I make some of my decisions. Here is a coin that got a gold sticker in a modern holder. The coin has okay appearance but doesn’t have that great 67+ look. Also there is a tick which I circled on the cheek. Granted maybe I hand it looks better but photos not impressive.
That is a coin I wouldn't even want to pay MS66 non-CAC money for. I have to wonder if it turned in the holder after CAC, it looks hazy, and there is a fingerprint right in the center of the reverse.
Just out of curiosity, I looked in the archives at GC. They have sold a total of nineteen 1938-D Buffalo Nickels with a Gold CAC sticker. Nineteen (19) over fourteen years, since the first one was sold in 2012. Of these nineteen, all were in PCGS Rattlers or OGH's, with a couple in NGC fatty holders. None were in more recent holders like the OP's coin. I know this is a small sampling and these aren't definitive stats, but they are pretty telling. So while the OP's coin may have a chance at a Green sticker (although not a guarantee), its chances at a Gold are really slim.
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going > @jmlanzaf said:
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
It’s not like I don’t do research when I make some of my decisions. Here is a coin that got a gold sticker in a modern holder. The coin has okay appearance but doesn’t have that great 67+ look. Also there is a tick which I circled on the cheek. Granted maybe I hand it looks better but photos not impressive.
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going > @jmlanzaf said:
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
It’s not like I don’t do research when I make some of my decisions. Here is a coin that got a gold sticker in a modern holder. The coin has okay appearance but doesn’t have that great 67+ look. Also there is a tick which I circled on the cheek. Granted maybe I hand it looks better but photos not impressive.
But isn’t that the glamour shot true-view? And what about the tick I circled on the cheek in a primary focal area?
A 66 or even a 67 can have a tick. And True Views are sometimes a glamor shot, sometimes not. But the in slab photo is garbage.
I said, send it in. There's maybe a 1% chance it gets a gold sticker. Original rolls for these are common (I added to my previous post) and you will notice the pop difference between 66 and 67.
Okay I am good with a green sticker. But I want to learn from you, what is your reasoning why I only a 1% chance for gold?
Because to get gold it would have to be but just a 67 but a green sticker 67. There's a reason there's a significant price difference between 66 and 67. Most people only send these in if they think they will 67. A 66 really isn't worth the cost of the slab. Yet less than 10% of those actually get a 67. So, what are the odds of a green label 67? It's somewhere less than 10%.
In addition to that, the coin doesn’t look like anything special.
I was impressed with the very high luster and original golden toning from the coin being in the roll for 70 years as well as the technical aspects being very clean. So I rate the green sticker chance at virtually 100%. Gold sticker 25% maybe. I don’t think that is unrealistic or ownership pride.
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going > @jmlanzaf said:
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
It’s not like I don’t do research when I make some of my decisions. Here is a coin that got a gold sticker in a modern holder. The coin has okay appearance but doesn’t have that great 67+ look. Also there is a tick which I circled on the cheek. Granted maybe I hand it looks better but photos not impressive.
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going > @jmlanzaf said:
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
It’s not like I don’t do research when I make some of my decisions. Here is a coin that got a gold sticker in a modern holder. The coin has okay appearance but doesn’t have that great 67+ look. Also there is a tick which I circled on the cheek. Granted maybe I hand it looks better but photos not impressive.
But isn’t that the glamour shot true-view? And what about the tick I circled on the cheek in a primary focal area?
A 66 or even a 67 can have a tick. And True Views are sometimes a glamor shot, sometimes not. But the in slab photo is garbage.
I said, send it in. There's maybe a 1% chance it gets a gold sticker. Original rolls for these are common (I added to my previous post) and you will notice the pop difference between 66 and 67.
Okay I am good with a green sticker. But I want to learn from you, what is your reasoning why I only a 1% chance for gold?
Because to get gold it would have to be but just a 67 but a green sticker 67. There's a reason there's a significant price difference between 66 and 67. Most people only send these in if they think they will 67. A 66 really isn't worth the cost of the slab. Yet less than 10% of those actually get a 67. So, what are the odds of a green label 67? It's somewhere less than 10%.
In addition to that, the coin doesn’t look like anything special.
Gold sticker 25% maybe. I don’t think that is unrealistic or ownership pride.
You may not think that 25% chance of gold is unrealistic or ownership pride but virtually everyone else does.
Tell you what, since you think the odds are in 1 in 4, I'll offer you double odds, 8:1 on your submission fee, your $26 vs my $208.
@Walkerlover said:
I was impressed with the very high luster and original golden toning from the coin being in the roll for 70 years as well as the technical aspects being very clean. So I rate the green sticker chance at virtually 100%. Gold sticker 25% maybe. I don’t think that is unrealistic or ownership pride.
One thing I learned after a few punches from JA is to not be cocksure about any particular coin being guaranteed to bean. Humility has served me well since then and I have learned far more than I could have otherwise (with a long way still to go).
Superb collections are built more by omission than by addition.
@Walkerlover said:
I was impressed with the very high luster and original golden toning from the coin being in the roll for 70 years as well as the technical aspects being very clean. So I rate the green sticker chance at virtually 100%. Gold sticker 25% maybe. I don’t think that is unrealistic or ownership pride.
One thing I learned after a few punches from JA is to not be cocksure about any particular coin being guaranteed to bean. Humility has served me well since then and I have learned far more than I could have otherwise (with a long way still to go).
Fair enough. But it will be a huge surprise if it doesn’t. I don’t see any surface issues as it is from an original roll. Otherwise everything else on the coin is good. But I understand and appreciate your point
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going > @jmlanzaf said:
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
It’s not like I don’t do research when I make some of my decisions. Here is a coin that got a gold sticker in a modern holder. The coin has okay appearance but doesn’t have that great 67+ look. Also there is a tick which I circled on the cheek. Granted maybe I hand it looks better but photos not impressive.
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going > @jmlanzaf said:
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
It’s not like I don’t do research when I make some of my decisions. Here is a coin that got a gold sticker in a modern holder. The coin has okay appearance but doesn’t have that great 67+ look. Also there is a tick which I circled on the cheek. Granted maybe I hand it looks better but photos not impressive.
But isn’t that the glamour shot true-view? And what about the tick I circled on the cheek in a primary focal area?
A 66 or even a 67 can have a tick. And True Views are sometimes a glamor shot, sometimes not. But the in slab photo is garbage.
I said, send it in. There's maybe a 1% chance it gets a gold sticker. Original rolls for these are common (I added to my previous post) and you will notice the pop difference between 66 and 67.
Okay I am good with a green sticker. But I want to learn from you, what is your reasoning why I only a 1% chance for gold?
Because to get gold it would have to be but just a 67 but a green sticker 67. There's a reason there's a significant price difference between 66 and 67. Most people only send these in if they think they will 67. A 66 really isn't worth the cost of the slab. Yet less than 10% of those actually get a 67. So, what are the odds of a green label 67? It's somewhere less than 10%.
In addition to that, the coin doesn’t look like anything special.
Gold sticker 25% maybe. I don’t think that is unrealistic or ownership pride.
You may not think that 25% chance of gold is unrealistic or ownership pride but virtually everyone else does.
Tell you what, since you think the odds are in 1 in 4, I'll offer you double odds, 8:1 on your submission fee, your $26 vs my $208.
Interesting proposition I would consider that bet.
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going > @jmlanzaf said:
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
It’s not like I don’t do research when I make some of my decisions. Here is a coin that got a gold sticker in a modern holder. The coin has okay appearance but doesn’t have that great 67+ look. Also there is a tick which I circled on the cheek. Granted maybe I hand it looks better but photos not impressive.
@messydesk said:
Take a look at 67 CACs and 66 Gold CACs that have sold at auction. Does your coin look better? Statistically, it won't, given the population in 67 is about 8% of that in 66. Take out the low-end 67s and that number is probably closer to 3%. How many high-end 66s are better than all low-end 67s? Depends on the quality spread within each grade, but it's going > @jmlanzaf said:
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
It’s not like I don’t do research when I make some of my decisions. Here is a coin that got a gold sticker in a modern holder. The coin has okay appearance but doesn’t have that great 67+ look. Also there is a tick which I circled on the cheek. Granted maybe I hand it looks better but photos not impressive.
But isn’t that the glamour shot true-view? And what about the tick I circled on the cheek in a primary focal area?
A 66 or even a 67 can have a tick. And True Views are sometimes a glamor shot, sometimes not. But the in slab photo is garbage.
I said, send it in. There's maybe a 1% chance it gets a gold sticker. Original rolls for these are common (I added to my previous post) and you will notice the pop difference between 66 and 67.
Okay I am good with a green sticker. But I want to learn from you, what is your reasoning why I only a 1% chance for gold?
Because to get gold it would have to be but just a 67 but a green sticker 67. There's a reason there's a significant price difference between 66 and 67. Most people only send these in if they think they will 67. A 66 really isn't worth the cost of the slab. Yet less than 10% of those actually get a 67. So, what are the odds of a green label 67? It's somewhere less than 10%.
In addition to that, the coin doesn’t look like anything special.
I was impressed with the very high luster and original golden toning from the coin being in the roll for 70 years as well as the technical aspects being very clean. So I rate the green sticker chance at virtually 100%. Gold sticker 25% maybe. I don’t think that is unrealistic or ownership pride.
Strong luster and original golden toning aren’t out of the ordinary for 1938-D Buffalo nickels.
You sound somewhat fixated on and swayed by the coin being from a roll. As the expression goes, these days - “it is what it is” regardless of whether it spent decades in a roll.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Comments
No, your speculation is exactly incorrect and couldn't be more wrong.
2005-2010 was the absolute peak of gradeflation and one of the primary reasons why CAC was founded in 2007.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
To be honest I looked at some gold CAC Buffalos online and some may have a better look but several seemed to be nice coins but not a wow factor and looked no better than mine. At least 1 had a weak obverse strike by the braids. So I am not sure what look CAC uses to award a gold sticker.
Your speculation regarding PCGS having capped 1938-D nickels at MS66 sounds preposterous.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Eek
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
While I share the sentiments of many of my forum colleagues, I'm not sure i would be as strident.
It is very common for ownership to add a point or two.
It's his money. He can spend it as he wishes.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Stridency aside, yes, of course, he can do whatever he likes.
However, historically, what he likes to do is post coins on this forum for public opinion, sometimes return them to innocent sellers for no particular reason, and make (to be kind) uninformed claims that don't hold up under the slightest amount of examination. This pattern has repeated itself time and again. He buys perfectly fine coins and then gets delusions of grandeur and asks for opinions on his delusions.
So, it's either ignore him completely (which is a reasonable option) or puncture his balloon and hope that he learns something this time.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
I would answer these questions: No and No.
Some would state it is easy to underestimate the OP's ability to pick and choose coins. And that he has apparently set boundaries between himself and common sense, but I like your kind yet firm take on all of this better.
I'm not sure i disagree with any of those observations. [I hate abuse of return privileges. ] I'm just not sure there is any point in saying it out loud. (Although I guess I just sort of did. ) The forum is a bit prone to cliques. So people in the OP's click just think we are donkeys and people in your clique will pile on. And it just makes the forum more divided.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
It’s not like I don’t do research when I make some of my decisions. Here is a coin that got a gold sticker in a modern holder. The coin has okay appearance but doesn’t have that great 67+ look. Also there is a tick which I circled on the cheek. Granted maybe I hand it looks better but photos not impressive.
38D coins come very nice and usually 66. [Heavily hoarded because of the transition year. ] 67 are much harder.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
But isn’t that the glamour shot true-view? And what about the tick I circled on the cheek in a primary focal area?
A 66 or even a 67 can have a tick. And True Views are sometimes a glamor shot, sometimes not. But the in slab photo is garbage.
I said, send it in. There's maybe a 1% chance it gets a gold sticker. Original rolls for these are common (I added to my previous post) and you will notice the pop difference between 66 and 67.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Okay I am good with a green sticker. But I want to learn from you, what is your reasoning why I only a 1% chance for gold?
Because to get gold it would have to be but just a 67 but a green sticker 67. There's a reason there's a significant price difference between 66 and 67. Most people only send these in if they think they will 67. A 66 really isn't worth the cost of the slab. Yet less than 10% of those actually get a 67. So, what are the odds of a green label 67? It's somewhere less than 10%.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
In addition to that, the coin doesn’t look like anything special.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That is a coin I wouldn't even want to pay MS66 non-CAC money for. I have to wonder if it turned in the holder after CAC, it looks hazy, and there is a fingerprint right in the center of the reverse.
Collector, occasional seller
Just out of curiosity, I looked in the archives at GC. They have sold a total of nineteen 1938-D Buffalo Nickels with a Gold CAC sticker. Nineteen (19) over fourteen years, since the first one was sold in 2012. Of these nineteen, all were in PCGS Rattlers or OGH's, with a couple in NGC fatty holders. None were in more recent holders like the OP's coin. I know this is a small sampling and these aren't definitive stats, but they are pretty telling. So while the OP's coin may have a chance at a Green sticker (although not a guarantee), its chances at a Gold are really slim.
I have (11) 65/66 38-D Buffs w/CAC
4- 65 Green & 1 Gold
5-66 Green & 1 Gold
Here's my 66 CAC Gold
I was impressed with the very high luster and original golden toning from the coin being in the roll for 70 years as well as the technical aspects being very clean. So I rate the green sticker chance at virtually 100%. Gold sticker 25% maybe. I don’t think that is unrealistic or ownership pride.
You may not think that 25% chance of gold is unrealistic or ownership pride but virtually everyone else does.
Tell you what, since you think the odds are in 1 in 4, I'll offer you double odds, 8:1 on your submission fee, your $26 vs my $208.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
One thing I learned after a few punches from JA is to not be cocksure about any particular coin being guaranteed to bean. Humility has served me well since then and I have learned far more than I could have otherwise (with a long way still to go).
Superb collections are built more by omission than by addition.
Fair enough. But it will be a huge surprise if it doesn’t. I don’t see any surface issues as it is from an original roll. Otherwise everything else on the coin is good. But I understand and appreciate your point
Interesting proposition I would consider that bet.
Strong luster and original golden toning aren’t out of the ordinary for 1938-D Buffalo nickels.
You sound somewhat fixated on and swayed by the coin being from a roll. As the expression goes, these days - “it is what it is” regardless of whether it spent decades in a roll.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.