Washington Quarter Experts Help on Why This Coin CAC'd

segoja

Why did this coin get a CAC sticker? I know it's a tough coin, but this coin does not look appealing to me at all.

Sorry if the coin belongs to a forum member, I'm just trying to get some objective opinions.

Link

Moldnut

Probably the correct grade and has not been messed with would be my guess. Im not seeing any reason as to why it wouldnt get a sticker from the pics.

rkfish

imo the coin got the "bean" for it's originality and technical merits......not it's eye appeal.

While I sometime ask myself the same question as you have here, I do believe that eye appeal doesn't always play a role in CAC's decision making but originality does play a huge role. Just my opinion from what I have seen over the last few years at shows and auction lot viewings.

RYK

Because it is solid for the grade.

Next question...

wondercoin

One of the nicest, original, high grade 1956-D quarters out there. Disclosure ... a customer of mine owns the coin.

Wondercoin

LindeDad

Many coins do not look as appealing when imaged by that seller as they are when received. Plus that type of toning is very common on the mint set coins from that time frame.

ElmerFusterpuck

Original? Sure. Technically a 67? At least 2 parties say so. Appealing based on that photo? No way. IMHO, a 67 should have some pop or wow factor to it, and that coin seems to lack all that.

Wonder what the thoughts would be if this was an NGC coin with the same grade and sticker?

mkman123

The coin is butt ugly and I bet if it was in another holder everyone would have a cow.

njcoincrank

I would suspect that the coin has blooming luster under the toning that, as hard as they tried, the photographer couldn't capture. Photos are one dimensional, coins themselves are not.

NJCC

kaz

So much depends on how a coin appears when rotated under a light. I wouldn't put a whole lot of emphasis on how it looks in these images.

ChangeInHistory

<< <i>imo the coin got the "bean" for it's originality and technical merits......not it's eye appeal. >>

291fifth

Ugly!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dogwood

I'm sorry, do I read the Teletrade page correctly?
This coin bid to $2900 yet price history for NGC 67's last year was 20 times lower?

fc

<< <i>I'm sorry, do I read the Teletrade page correctly?
This coin bid to $2900 yet price history for NGC 67's last year was 20 times lower? >>



That price might not even be a live bidder if I recall teletrade correctly.
They walk the price up to the minimum bid set by the seller over time. It could very
well not even sell and you will see it again.

ColonialCoinUnion

<< <i>One of the nicest, original, high grade 1956-D quarters out there. >>



Seems like the people who have seen the coin in hand like it.

wondercoin

In my opinion, the Price Guide at $3,000 is little low for a nice quality PCGS 56-D especially a CAC'ed example. NGC examples sell for way less on MS67 Washington quarters. A perfect example, is a 55-D. I just sold a nice NGC-MS67 coin for around $1,500 as I recall. A PCGS coin in the same grade would be ... what ... close to a $15,000 - $20,000 coin?

Novices ... be careful with pop top silver Washington quarter pricing!

Wondercoin

Edited to add ... I am guessing the MS67 55-D PCGS price as PCGS has yet to grade a single example in about 25 years of grading the series!

Broadstruck

TT's scans are most likely not doing it due justice.

golden

A CAC sticker only agrees with the stated grade.It does not mean that it is a nice looking coin.I have seen several coins with a CAC sticker that were very ugly.

BaseballAbs

Not only got a CAC sticker, but also been secured. Seems like some money has been put into the coin. Must be worth doing.

oreville

Wondercoin,

Is this a mint set quarter or a quarter found in a roll?

segoja

Secured can be done for a small additional fee. It is not indicative of quality at all. Any coin can be "secure" graded.

CoinJunkie

<< <i>Secured can be done for a small additional fee. It is not indicative of quality at all. Any coin can be "secure" graded. >>


Well, it does indicate that it passed the sniffer... which I would say is indicative of quality.

segoja

Because a coin is original (passed the sniffer) it is quality??? Any coin in a current PCGS holder can get the secure holder, and I think we all would agree there are some great PCGS coins and some ugly ones.

I can show you a ton of original ugly coins that would pass the sniffer.

I'm going out on a limb and say the coin is question doesn't sell.

DoubleEagle59

Perhaps technically it's closer to an ms68 and maybe it's a little 'ugly'.

Personally, I'd rather own an ms 67 that's an 'ugly' 68, than one of these spectacularly toned ms65's or 66's that gets into a 67 holder.

I value the technical grade so much more than eye appeal (luster and toning).

CoinJunkie

<< <i>Because a coin is original (passed the sniffer) it is quality??? Any coin in a current PCGS holder can get the secure holder, and I think we all would agree there are some great PCGS coins and some ugly ones.

I can show you a ton of original ugly coins that would pass the sniffer.

I'm going out on a limb and say the coin is question doesn't sell. >>


Well, my comment was meant more in the sense of it puts a floor on the quality.

Windycity

Looks like the real deal to me and PCGS is really tough on Washingtons. That one is technically solid and original. I like it.

wondercoin

Oreville: As I recall, it appeared to me to be a mint set coin. I have not seen the coin in a while so I am only 99% certain of that. The only reason the coin might not sell tonight is the fact that the owner wants about a $4,000+ sales price on the coin (with buyers fee) ... or a strong price for a strong coin. If the coin was priced around Guide, I would personally snap it up in a minute. 1952-1956 Denver mint Washington quarters in PCGS-MS67 grade are among the toughest coins to locate in the entire series. Hence, a -0- pop still on 55-D. Just try finding a 56-D that looks like this coin with clean surfaces ... every couple of years on average a single coin is found in MS67 grade and not all of those will CAC like this one did. It may not sell, but that is because the coin is being auctioned off at a solid price ... way over the price guide level for a "typical" example. It is disingenuous to suggest the coin will not sell at 33% over guide because the quality is not there in my humble opinion.

Wondercoin

ElmerFusterpuck

I'd like to see that coin in person. If it has 15 stickers along with a 67 grade and it's ugly, I'd pass for sure.

I've seen my share of ugly 67's and have passed on all of them. In my book, ugly and 67 just don't go hand in hand, even a 64 or 65 for that matter.

I think it would be like Cindy Crawford with green buck teeth and a third eye - would we like her as she is?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

yellowjacket

On TT you will not know if the current bid is genuine or just the seller's minimum. It will be interesting to see if it sells.

Garrow

rainbowroosie

The coin looks very clean with original mint set toning. You all are offering that it lacks eye appeal; I disagree. if you've looked at a bazillion 56D coins, you'd know this is good for the grade. 56D's rarely come nicer...same with the dimes...some dates just don't come with nice toning.

CarlWohlforth

I don't love the toning, but it is OK. Looks like typical mint set toning to me.

I'm going with the "won't hit reserve" crowd tonight, let's check back later to see what happens. I would be happy if WC's customer find a buyer.

oreville

Indeed, Finding a nice D mint marked quarter from the mid 1950's onward is a cause for celebration.

magikbilly

Might the green and red be a little more apparent in hand as well as the luster? The CAC sticker places this as a solid "A" or "B" coin, which is what it looks like.

Best,
Eric

Edited to add "A" or "B"

Coppercolor

That coin was imaged so that the toning showed up flat and dark. Turned slightly I'd bet large that the toning is bright green and red. PCGS has rarely given a 67 grade to a silver Washington Quarter which didn't have some kind of "wow" look to it. I can't recall one.

Bruceswar

<< <i>Indeed, Finding a nice D mint marked quarter from the mid 1950's onward is a cause for celebration. >>



I agree. From the photos this coin does not look that nice, but I bet in hand it is super nice.

comma

I didn't think cac had anything to do with eye appeal but with the grade being solid. Where does it say that cac stickers for eye appeal?

TwoSides2aCoin

PCGS has only given 13 coins this grade, with none higher. That might be the most logical answer to the question. It was easy to put a sticker on the outside when someone else already did the work on the inside.

segoja

No Sale

I stick with my previous comments.

MS67 IMHO = Great Eye Appeal and CAC at this grade level should also equal eye appeal.

Maybe bad pics, but what I see in this coin is so-so, yes I know its a tough date and yes I've looked at tons of these as well.

ElmerFusterpuck

It seems like whoever is selling that coin would demand better pictures, especially in that lofty scarcity and grade. I know you can't base everything on images but based on what I saw there I would never bid, even if I was actively looking for that date.

bluelobster

<< <i>PCGS has only given 13 coins this grade, with none higher. That might be the most logical answer to the question. It was easy to put a sticker on the outside when someone else already did the work on the inside. >>



Coin looks very original to me, probably better in hand and I really don't think most CAC graders are coming close to rubber stamping what NGC or even PCGS gives as a grade. Plus, the PQ atributes of the coin carries MUCH less weight than an original un-messed with skin on the coin, regardless of subjective attractiveness.

RYK

I always give the benefit of the doubt to the guys who have seen the coin in hand (in this case PCGS, CAC, and Wondercoin), and little credence to the armchair folks who take pot shots based on a photo.

BillJones

Not all CAC approved coins are attractive. In this case the sticker was probably based upon originality and accurate grade.

PerryHall

<< <i>Not all CAC approved coins are attractive. In this case the sticker was probably based upon originality and accurate grade. >>



.......which is why even CAC stickered coins shouldn't be bought sight unseen.

Cocoinut

I personally don't care for that type of mint set toning, but the MS66 1956-D in my set has it. MS67 quarters from 1956-1958 with mint set toning used to be readily available for around $100, but as Registry collecting became more popular, they have probably increased. The vast majority of 1956-D quarters that I have seen in 66 or better have been toned; the coin shown in the OP appears to have better luster than most. Blast white specimens, when offered, can bring healthy bids.

Jim

agentjim007

Looks like my coin NGC unc. detail stained.

etexmike

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I kinda like the look of this Washie. Not in the market, but I like it.


Mike

wondercoin

"MS67 quarters from 1956-1958 with mint set toning used to be readily available for around $100, but as Registry collecting became more popular, they have probably increased."

Jim: They still are .... those are the P mint coins. I think I paid close to $4,500 for my 56-D quarter PCGS-MS67 set coin right around the start of set registry .... I want to say around 1999-2000.

Wondercoin

relicsncoins

Anyone who thinks they can grade a coin at the 67 level from a photo is fooling themselves. These coins need to be looked at in person.

wondercoin

A little additional information ... I started searching for high grade 1956-D Washington Quarters aggressively around 1983. I had a good roughly 20-25 year run in there before I slowed down the hunt. In that time, I located a half dozen or fewer coins from all those original rolls that graded MS66 at PCGS!! Bear in mind, I am talking about blazing white beauties here from these rolls ... true brilliant MS66 quality examples are quite scarce I discovered. My mint set searches over those same 20-25 years yielded one or two MS67 coins at best.

But, don't take my word for it ... set a goal for yourself to try to slab a freshly graded MS67 56-D Washington quarter at PCGS. Come back in a year or two and report how many you were able to slab and how you were able to do it. If you are able to do it from an original bank roll of 56-D quarters, I will pay you $3,500 sight-unseen for the first coin slabbed. I will even buy an "end - piece" if that is the coin from the original roll that grades MS67. That's well over current PCGS Guide and $3,500 for about $7 worth of silver and a $30 grading fee. I only need -1- coin at $3,500 (because the 56-D MS67 quarter in my Registry set is an incredible monster toned specimen that pedigrees back to Alan Epstein and John Benbow so I was told by JB when he sold it to me) ... first guy/gal to slab it and sell it to me "wins".

Wondercoin

TomB

I will echo Mitch's experience and statements with respect to the 1956-D. My own experience in high end WQs started about 1993 and I backed off this series around 2002. During that time there were a relatively small number of us who scoured everywhere for either ultra-clean, high grade WQs; wildly toned WQs; or both. The D-mint coins from this era, ending with the 1956-D, are prohibitively tough to find with good strike, clean surfaces and/or terrific color. They are so tough that I never even submitted one to PCGS for grading even though I made a fairly decent number of MS67 coins (and an MS68) during the 1990s and early 2000s. The MS67 pieces were made primarily in the 1990s when PCGS wasn't too happy to give out that grade for this series.

This particular coin is almost certainly from a Mint Set and I would imagine has pretty good color if a decent image were taken. However, I have not seen it in-hand.