CAC red sticker
steveben
Posts: 4,620 ✭✭✭✭✭
yes, apparently there is a red sticker! ;-) this one came back from CAC a month or so ago:
i figured that weak mint marks might not sticker. but, i thought i would try anyway. i still wonder if it's just because it wasn't noted on the holder. either way, i think it's a cool coin.
i figured that weak mint marks might not sticker. but, i thought i would try anyway. i still wonder if it's just because it wasn't noted on the holder. either way, i think it's a cool coin.
0
Comments
Edited to add: nice coin
Latin American Collection
PVC
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>I don't see why he wouldn't CAC the coin, it's clearly very nice, what's the problem with having a weak mintmark? >>
While their marketing stresses the "premium quality" angle, at its core CAC is really about stickering coins that JA would pay CAC sight-unseen money for.
For this coin, JA doesn't want to sticker the coin and have to pay the going CAC sight-unseen rate, and get back a coin with that weak of a mintmark.
The weak mintmark is pretty neat, too, actually.
"CAC Red Sticker". Ha. Funny. Kind of like getting a compliment from the teacher on top of your term paper.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>That's a nice, original Southern gold piece, certainly very solid for the assigned grade. The weak C mint mark is due to the C being lightly impressed into the die, not caused by a weak strike. Thus, the weak C is a die variety. >>
Maybe the guy hit his thumb in the process. We could rename it the "S O &!T@#" variety.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>That's a nice, original Southern gold piece, certainly very solid for the assigned grade. The weak C mint mark is due to the C being lightly impressed into the die, not caused by a weak strike. Thus, the weak C is a die variety. >>
Agree. There are also D mint coins from this era with extremely weak mintmarks due to lightly impressed mintmarks on the reverse dies. The 1850-D is notorious for this.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.americanlegacycoins.com
<< <i>
What does that say?
Latin American Collection
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>Looks 65 RB...? >>
That's what I thought but figured I had to be wrong since that should mean a gold sticker.
Latin American Collection
<< <i>Looks 65 RB...? >>
ill go with that as well
<< <i>If the weakly impressed mintmark is a known variety of the date/issue, then the sticker comment would seem to be irrelevant to the CAC review. Maybe some other subtle reason ? >>
The weekly impressed mint mark is known among Southern gold specialists, but I don't know if JA gets that deeply into it. Clearly, "Weak MM" was his reason for not awarding the sticker.
I agree that it seems unfair to withhold CAC endorsement simply due to the die variety, when the coin is clearly very attractive and solid for the assigned grade. Perhaps if die variety collecting becomes more popular, CAC may change its stance toward weakly impressed mint marks.
<< <i>
<< <i>Looks 65 RB...? >>
That's what I thought but figured I had to be wrong since that should mean a gold sticker. >>
Not necessarily. CAC is endorsing both the numeric grade and the color designation by assigning a sticker. If the grade is low (64 instead of 65) but the color is inaccurate (RB, not RD as PCGS said), CAC will not assign a sticker...
At least this is my understanding of their standards.
<< <i>
<< <i>If the weakly impressed mintmark is a known variety of the date/issue, then the sticker comment would seem to be irrelevant to the CAC review. Maybe some other subtle reason ? >>
The weekly impressed mint mark is known among Southern gold specialists, but I don't know if JA gets that deeply into it. Clearly, "Weak MM" was his reason for not awarding the sticker.
I agree that it seems unfair to withhold CAC endorsement simply due to the die variety, when the coin is clearly very attractive and solid for the assigned grade. Perhaps if die variety collecting becomes more popular, CAC may change its stance toward weakly impressed mint marks. >>
The weak MM coins are less desirable than the regular MM 1853-C. Although 1853-C isn't listed, note the difference in PCGS price guide value for the 1854-C regular vs. weak C in XF 40: $3,000 vs. $1,700. If a typical collector is ponying up for a Charlotte coin, they want to see the C. The weak MM variety is a specialist's coin.
This coin is assigned a regular PCGS #8254 number. It would be expected to trade at regular sight-unseen #8254 money. However, no dealer wants to be on the receiving end of a sight-unseen trade for a less-desirable variety; they don't want to pay #8254 money for what should be a #98254.
Very simply, JA doesn't want to sticker the coin, and be held to regular CAC sight-unseen money for a #8254, with the weak MM. And there's nothing "unfair" about that.
If this coin had its own PCGS number like the 1854-C weak MM (8257 vs. 92857), I'm sure that coin would receive a green sticker as a premium example of a less-desirable variety .
<< <i>
<< <i>Looks 65 RB...? >>
That's what I thought but figured I had to be wrong since that should mean a gold sticker. >>
It's in a RD holder.
Nice looking cent.
Bummer about the red sticker steveben
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If the weakly impressed mintmark is a known variety of the date/issue, then the sticker comment would seem to be irrelevant to the CAC review. Maybe some other subtle reason ? >>
The weekly impressed mint mark is known among Southern gold specialists, but I don't know if JA gets that deeply into it. Clearly, "Weak MM" was his reason for not awarding the sticker.
I agree that it seems unfair to withhold CAC endorsement simply due to the die variety, when the coin is clearly very attractive and solid for the assigned grade. Perhaps if die variety collecting becomes more popular, CAC may change its stance toward weakly impressed mint marks. >>
The weak MM coins are less desirable than the regular MM 1853-C. Although 1853-C isn't listed, note the difference in PCGS price guide value for the 1854-C regular vs. weak C in XF 40: $3,000 vs. $1,700. If a typical collector is ponying up for a Charlotte coin, they want to see the C. The weak MM variety is a specialist's coin.
This coin is assigned a regular PCGS #8254 number. It would be expected to trade at regular sight-unseen #8254 money. However, no dealer wants to be on the receiving end of a sight-unseen trade for a less-desirable variety; they don't want to pay #8254 money for what should be a #98254.
Very simply, JA doesn't want to sticker the coin, and be held to regular CAC sight-unseen money for a #8254, with the weak MM. And there's nothing "unfair" about that.
If this coin had its own PCGS number like the 1854-C weak MM (8257 vs. 92857), I'm sure that coin would receive a green sticker as a premium example of a less-desirable variety . >>
Bean or no bean, this particular coin should be able to do well (price wise). As a Southern gold specialist, I disagree that the weak C variety is less desirable. This variety was unlisted until the Third Edition of Doug Winter's Gold Coins of the Charlotte Mint was published. It appears to be a very rare variety. If it's desirability as a Type Coin is diminished by the weaker mint mark, the coin's rarity and pleasing, original surfaces more than make up for it among Southern gold specialists. It's getting very difficult to find any Southern gold coin with original surfaces. I would rather own this piece than probably 75% of the extant XF40 1853-C "strong C" coins, as most have been dipped or scrubbed.
<< <i>Bean or no bean, this particular coin should be able to do well (price wise). As a Southern gold specialist, I disagree that the weak C variety is less desirable. This variety was unlisted until the Third Edition of Doug Winter's Gold Coins of the Charlotte Mint was published. It appears to be a very rare variety. If it's desirability as a Type Coin is diminished by the weaker mint mark, the coin's rarity and pleasing, original surfaces more than make up for it among Southern gold specialists. It's getting very difficult to find any Southern gold coin with original surfaces. I would rather own this piece than probably 75% of the extant XF40 1853-C "strong C" coins, as most have been dipped or scrubbed. >>
Very good summary. Thank you.
I think it's great that CAC provides the red sticker feedback. You definetely got something for your money.
K
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
<< <i>I do not see this related to wear. >>
I don't either. Not related to wear, therefore not related to grade.
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't see why he wouldn't CAC the coin, it's clearly very nice, what's the problem with having a weak mintmark? >>
While their marketing stresses the "premium quality" angle, at its core CAC is really about stickering coins that JA would pay CAC sight-unseen money for.
For this coin, JA doesn't want to sticker the coin and have to pay the going CAC sight-unseen rate, and get back a coin with that weak of a mintmark. >>
i am also happy about the responses in this thread! it made for interesting discussion and i'd love to see more red stickers if anyone has them.
@ kove: what you're saying makes sense to me and i wondered about whether or not it would receive a sticker had the proper designation been made on the holder. i tend to believe you're right.
@ georgekellogg: i appreciate your insight and thoughts on this weak c. i agree with you. however, i once showed the coin to doug winter and our dialog went something like this:
dw: it's a nice coin, but it has a weak mint mark.
me: yeah, i know, but in your book you mention that for this date, it is a scarce variety.
dw: yeah, but who cares? nobody collects varieties...yet.
i am pretty sure he said "yet," but i could be remembering it wrong. anyway, he felt it was nice, but that pcgs should have put "weak c" on the holder. ;-)
thanks again, everyone, for all the great responses!
<< <i>i was not disappointed by the sticker, but oddly happy and intrigued.
i am also happy about the responses in this thread! it made for interesting discussion and i'd love to see more red stickers if anyone has them.
@ kove: what you're saying makes sense to me and i wondered about whether or not it would receive a sticker had the proper designation been made on the holder. i tend to believe you're right.
@ georgekellogg: i appreciate your insight and thoughts on this weak c. i agree with you. however, i once showed the coin to doug winter and our dialog went something like this:
dw: it's a nice coin, but it has a weak mint mark.
me: yeah, i know, but in your book you mention that for this date, it is a scarce variety.
dw: yeah, but who cares? nobody collects varieties...yet.
i am pretty sure he said "yet," but i could be remembering it wrong. anyway, he felt it was nice, but that pcgs should have put "weak c" on the holder. ;-)
thanks again, everyone, for all the great responses! >>
With all due respect to Doug, there are some people who collect rare Southern gold die varieties (including me).