<< <i>UPDATE #1 - I did ask that the label be returned, but it was not (at least I have the slab pics). Secondly, CAC green beaned the coin once again (reminder - the slab serial number was unchanged). >>
It is obvious to me that CAC blew this one.
If we accept that the green bean on the MS64+ holder is valid, CAC should have awarded a gold bean for the MS63 OGH (which was Catbert's preference in the first place). >>
The only thing that's gonna get a gold bean is a knock your socks off undergrade. CAC blew nothing on this one. Remember that plastic can have positive or negative value - why would CAC fight the negative value on the label unless the coin looked and talked like a gem? >>
Within the span of a few weeks, CAC awarded green beans for the same coin: first as an MS63 and then as an MS64+. By their own definition, green beans "meet" and gold beans "exceed" CAC's strict standards for the certified grade. Here's the problem: how can the coin in question meet CAC's strict standards for an MS64+ and (by the denial of a gold bean on the first submittal) not exceed their strict standards for an MS63?
<< <i>UPDATE #1 - I did ask that the label be returned, but it was not (at least I have the slab pics). Secondly, CAC green beaned the coin once again (reminder - the slab serial number was unchanged). >>
It is obvious to me that CAC blew this one.
If we accept that the green bean on the MS64+ holder is valid, CAC should have awarded a gold bean for the MS63 OGH (which was Catbert's preference in the first place). The only thing that's gonna get a gold bean is a knock your socks off undergrade. CAC blew nothing on this one. Remember that plastic can have positive or negative value - why would CAC fight the negative value on the label unless the coin looked and talked like a gem? >>
Within the span of a few weeks, CAC awarded green beans for the same coin: first as an MS63 and then as an MS64+. By their own definition, green beans "meet" and gold beans "exceed" CAC's strict standards for the certified grade. Here's the problem: how can the coin in question meet CAC's strict standards for an MS64+ and (by the denial of a gold bean on the first submittal) not exceed their strict standards for an MS63? >>
First of all, CAC ignores the + so throw that out of the equation. And the gold is for a coin that they are willing to pay at least the next grade up value. If you were going to put your money where your mouth is and pay the next grade up, you would want a coin that is all there and then some. A 64.8 or better if it was in a 63 holder. Once it's actually in the 64 holder, then 64.4 and better will do (or whatever the minimum is - roadrunner is better at this). Bottom line is, there's a window of overlap (ie: 64.4-64.7) where a coin will not get a gold sticker but will get re-greened after it goes up. I just used math to try to illustrate it, but it is more of a common sense item.
<< <i>UPDATE #1 - I did ask that the label be returned, but it was not (at least I have the slab pics). Secondly, CAC green beaned the coin once again (reminder - the slab serial number was unchanged). >>
It is obvious to me that CAC blew this one.
If we accept that the green bean on the MS64+ holder is valid, CAC should have awarded a gold bean for the MS63 OGH (which was Catbert's preference in the first place). The only thing that's gonna get a gold bean is a knock your socks off undergrade. CAC blew nothing on this one. Remember that plastic can have positive or negative value - why would CAC fight the negative value on the label unless the coin looked and talked like a gem? >>
Within the span of a few weeks, CAC awarded green beans for the same coin: first as an MS63 and then as an MS64+. By their own definition, green beans "meet" and gold beans "exceed" CAC's strict standards for the certified grade. Here's the problem: how can the coin in question meet CAC's strict standards for an MS64+ and (by the denial of a gold bean on the first submittal) not exceed their strict standards for an MS63? >>
First of all, CAC ignores the + so throw that out of the equation. And the gold is for a coin that they are willing to pay at least the next grade up value. If you were going to put your money where your mouth is and pay the next grade up, you would want a coin that is all there and then some. A 64.8 or better if it was in a 63 holder. Once it's actually in the 64 holder, then 64.4 and better will do (or whatever the minimum is - roadrunner is better at this). Bottom line is, there's a window of overlap (ie: 64.4-64.7) where a coin will not get a gold sticker but will get re-greened after it goes up. I just used math to try to illustrate it, but it is more of a common sense item. >>
I hear what you're saying, but to my mind, there still seems to be an inconsistency.
Using your explanation, CAC wasn't willing to award a gold bean to the MS63 holder, meaning that they wouldn't necessarily want to buy it at the next grade up (MS64), but by awarding a green bean to the MS64+ holder, aren't they now saying that they would want buy it as an MS64?
<< <i>UPDATE #1 - I did ask that the label be returned, but it was not (at least I have the slab pics). Secondly, CAC green beaned the coin once again (reminder - the slab serial number was unchanged). >>
It is obvious to me that CAC blew this one.
If we accept that the green bean on the MS64+ holder is valid, CAC should have awarded a gold bean for the MS63 OGH (which was Catbert's preference in the first place). The only thing that's gonna get a gold bean is a knock your socks off undergrade. CAC blew nothing on this one. Remember that plastic can have positive or negative value - why would CAC fight the negative value on the label unless the coin looked and talked like a gem? >>
Within the span of a few weeks, CAC awarded green beans for the same coin: first as an MS63 and then as an MS64+. By their own definition, green beans "meet" and gold beans "exceed" CAC's strict standards for the certified grade. Here's the problem: how can the coin in question meet CAC's strict standards for an MS64+ and (by the denial of a gold bean on the first submittal) not exceed their strict standards for an MS63? >>
First of all, CAC ignores the + so throw that out of the equation. And the gold is for a coin that they are willing to pay at least the next grade up value. If you were going to put your money where your mouth is and pay the next grade up, you would want a coin that is all there and then some. A 64.8 or better if it was in a 63 holder. Once it's actually in the 64 holder, then 64.4 and better will do (or whatever the minimum is - roadrunner is better at this). Bottom line is, there's a window of overlap (ie: 64.4-64.7) where a coin will not get a gold sticker but will get re-greened after it goes up. I just used math to try to illustrate it, but it is more of a common sense item. >>
I hear what you're saying, but to my mind, there still seems to be an inconsistency.
Using your explanation, CAC wasn't willing to award a gold bean to the MS63 holder, meaning that they wouldn't necessarily want to buy it at the next grade up (MS64), but by awarding a green bean to the MS64+ holder, aren't they now saying that they would want buy it as an MS64? >>
I can't speak for CAC, but it appears to me that the text in bold is a form of built-in downside protection on the part of CAC.
Using your explanation, CAC wasn't willing to award a gold bean to the MS63 holder, meaning that they wouldn't necessarily want to buy it at the next grade up (MS64), but by awarding a green bean to the MS64+ holder, aren't they now saying that they would want buy it as an MS64? >>
Exactly. The coin was nice, but not nice enough to overcome the negative value of the plastic it formerly resided in
This thread illustrates something that has been bothering me about the hobby for quite some time. I started collecting coin in the 1960s. I am happy if I can own some U.S. coins which are attractive to me, and if they could talk, would be to tell some interesting stories. I try to buy them right, and when / if becomes time to sell said coin, I hope not to lose money on the transaction.
If I want to make money, I'll do more accounting work, and / or make some changes to my stock market portfolio. 95% of people who collect coins lose money. The ones that make money either can grade, see quite a few coins, and have the right connections to buy coins with which they can make money. These are a small minority of those who make money. The rest are usually sellers who are more knowledgeable about said coins than the buyers, and / or have an easier time getting them (see the right connections comment in the last sentence).
For reasons described in the preceding paragraph, I try to buy the coin I like in the holder I like, and forget about it. Maybe if / when it's time to sell, I'll get it stickered (if it wasn't stickered when I bought it) , so I will be able to "cast a wider net" (to be polite) for such coin. By taking this route, I avoid the circuitous path this coin has taken.
We don't see the volume of threads here that used to appear five years ago or so, where people tried to upgrade specific liner coins, only to have multiple submissions of said coins without the desired results, or cracking the coin out and having to sent it in four or five times just to get back into its original holder, or worse.
Lastly, if you want an old copper in a 5 holder, I suggest buying one, rather than trying to get an upgrade, for reasons I won't get into on this thread.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>UPDATE #1 - I did ask that the label be returned, but it was not (at least I have the slab pics). Secondly, CAC green beaned the coin once again (reminder - the slab serial number was unchanged). >>
It is obvious to me that CAC blew this one.
If we accept that the green bean on the MS64+ holder is valid, CAC should have awarded a gold bean for the MS63 OGH (which was Catbert's preference in the first place). >>
The only thing that's gonna get a gold bean is a knock your socks off undergrade. CAC blew nothing on this one. Remember that plastic can have positive or negative value - why would CAC fight the negative value on the label unless the coin looked and talked like a gem? >>
Within the span of a few weeks, CAC awarded green beans for the same coin: first as an MS63 and then as an MS64+. By their own definition, green beans "meet" and gold beans "exceed" CAC's strict standards for the certified grade. Here's the problem: how can the coin in question meet CAC's strict standards for an MS64+ and (by the denial of a gold bean on the first submittal) not exceed their strict standards for an MS63?
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>UPDATE #1 - I did ask that the label be returned, but it was not (at least I have the slab pics). Secondly, CAC green beaned the coin once again (reminder - the slab serial number was unchanged). >>
It is obvious to me that CAC blew this one.
If we accept that the green bean on the MS64+ holder is valid, CAC should have awarded a gold bean for the MS63 OGH (which was Catbert's preference in the first place).
The only thing that's gonna get a gold bean is a knock your socks off undergrade. CAC blew nothing on this one. Remember that plastic can have positive or negative value - why would CAC fight the negative value on the label unless the coin looked and talked like a gem? >>
Within the span of a few weeks, CAC awarded green beans for the same coin: first as an MS63 and then as an MS64+. By their own definition, green beans "meet" and gold beans "exceed" CAC's strict standards for the certified grade. Here's the problem: how can the coin in question meet CAC's strict standards for an MS64+ and (by the denial of a gold bean on the first submittal) not exceed their strict standards for an MS63? >>
First of all, CAC ignores the + so throw that out of the equation. And the gold is for a coin that they are willing to pay at least the next grade up value. If you were going to put your money where your mouth is and pay the next grade up, you would want a coin that is all there and then some. A 64.8 or better if it was in a 63 holder. Once it's actually in the 64 holder, then 64.4 and better will do (or whatever the minimum is - roadrunner is better at this). Bottom line is, there's a window of overlap (ie: 64.4-64.7) where a coin will not get a gold sticker but will get re-greened after it goes up. I just used math to try to illustrate it, but it is more of a common sense item.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>UPDATE #1 - I did ask that the label be returned, but it was not (at least I have the slab pics). Secondly, CAC green beaned the coin once again (reminder - the slab serial number was unchanged). >>
It is obvious to me that CAC blew this one.
If we accept that the green bean on the MS64+ holder is valid, CAC should have awarded a gold bean for the MS63 OGH (which was Catbert's preference in the first place).
The only thing that's gonna get a gold bean is a knock your socks off undergrade. CAC blew nothing on this one. Remember that plastic can have positive or negative value - why would CAC fight the negative value on the label unless the coin looked and talked like a gem? >>
Within the span of a few weeks, CAC awarded green beans for the same coin: first as an MS63 and then as an MS64+. By their own definition, green beans "meet" and gold beans "exceed" CAC's strict standards for the certified grade. Here's the problem: how can the coin in question meet CAC's strict standards for an MS64+ and (by the denial of a gold bean on the first submittal) not exceed their strict standards for an MS63? >>
First of all, CAC ignores the + so throw that out of the equation. And the gold is for a coin that they are willing to pay at least the next grade up value. If you were going to put your money where your mouth is and pay the next grade up, you would want a coin that is all there and then some. A 64.8 or better if it was in a 63 holder. Once it's actually in the 64 holder, then 64.4 and better will do (or whatever the minimum is - roadrunner is better at this). Bottom line is, there's a window of overlap (ie: 64.4-64.7) where a coin will not get a gold sticker but will get re-greened after it goes up. I just used math to try to illustrate it, but it is more of a common sense item. >>
I hear what you're saying, but to my mind, there still seems to be an inconsistency.
Using your explanation, CAC wasn't willing to award a gold bean to the MS63 holder, meaning that they wouldn't necessarily want to buy it at the next grade up (MS64), but by awarding a green bean to the MS64+ holder, aren't they now saying that they would want buy it as an MS64?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>UPDATE #1 - I did ask that the label be returned, but it was not (at least I have the slab pics). Secondly, CAC green beaned the coin once again (reminder - the slab serial number was unchanged). >>
It is obvious to me that CAC blew this one.
If we accept that the green bean on the MS64+ holder is valid, CAC should have awarded a gold bean for the MS63 OGH (which was Catbert's preference in the first place).
The only thing that's gonna get a gold bean is a knock your socks off undergrade. CAC blew nothing on this one. Remember that plastic can have positive or negative value - why would CAC fight the negative value on the label unless the coin looked and talked like a gem? >>
Within the span of a few weeks, CAC awarded green beans for the same coin: first as an MS63 and then as an MS64+. By their own definition, green beans "meet" and gold beans "exceed" CAC's strict standards for the certified grade. Here's the problem: how can the coin in question meet CAC's strict standards for an MS64+ and (by the denial of a gold bean on the first submittal) not exceed their strict standards for an MS63? >>
First of all, CAC ignores the + so throw that out of the equation. And the gold is for a coin that they are willing to pay at least the next grade up value. If you were going to put your money where your mouth is and pay the next grade up, you would want a coin that is all there and then some. A 64.8 or better if it was in a 63 holder. Once it's actually in the 64 holder, then 64.4 and better will do (or whatever the minimum is - roadrunner is better at this). Bottom line is, there's a window of overlap (ie: 64.4-64.7) where a coin will not get a gold sticker but will get re-greened after it goes up. I just used math to try to illustrate it, but it is more of a common sense item. >>
I hear what you're saying, but to my mind, there still seems to be an inconsistency.
Using your explanation, CAC wasn't willing to award a gold bean to the MS63 holder, meaning that they wouldn't necessarily want to buy it at the next grade up (MS64), but by awarding a green bean to the MS64+ holder, aren't they now saying that they would want buy it as an MS64? >>
I can't speak for CAC, but it appears to me that the text in bold is a form of built-in downside protection on the part of CAC.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Exactly. The coin was nice, but not nice enough to overcome the negative value of the plastic it formerly resided in
If I want to make money, I'll do more accounting work, and / or make some changes to my stock market portfolio. 95% of people who collect coins lose money. The ones that make money either can grade, see quite a few coins, and have the right connections to buy coins with which they can make money. These are a small minority of those who make money. The rest are usually sellers who are more knowledgeable about said coins than the buyers, and / or have an easier time getting them (see the right connections comment in the last sentence).
For reasons described in the preceding paragraph, I try to buy the coin I like in the holder I like, and forget about it. Maybe if / when it's time to sell, I'll get it stickered (if it wasn't stickered when I bought it) , so I will be able to "cast a wider net" (to be polite) for such coin. By taking this route, I avoid the circuitous path this coin has taken.
We don't see the volume of threads here that used to appear five years ago or so, where people tried to upgrade specific liner coins, only to have multiple submissions of said coins without the desired results, or cracking the coin out and having to sent it in four or five times just to get back into its original holder, or worse.
Lastly, if you want an old copper in a 5 holder, I suggest buying one, rather than trying to get an upgrade, for reasons I won't get into on this thread.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."