I wonder how this coin received a green sticker...
KollectorKing
Posts: 4,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
it's graded ms63 by our host. Did cac gave it a sticker based on the reverse 
2
KollectorKing
Posts: 4,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
Clash?
Here is mine for comparison:
Scarface variety?
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Bingo!!
Just goes to show you can't count on anyone to make your choices for you! Even if we agree that's a 63, (and it may well be), there has to be better 63's out there....
Another scarface w/cac:
The 1907-D is an AU so that coin gets a bit more leeway. The 1907-O is graded MS-63 which makes the standard quite a bit tougher. The technical grade is close, but with the MS-63 grade on it, here is no way you could say that coin is "PQ" for that grade.
What Bill said.
@BillJones
Agreed.
Needs restoration service.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Leeway, schmeeway.....If a standard is a standard then it must be standard without leeway, schmeeway, freeway, or hokum.
The reverse looks phenomenal! To bad for the hit on the cheek.
@RogerB .... Sorry, there are no standards in grading... only general opinions.....This coin has taken some hits... and not sure what that is in front of the lips... looks like a clash, but I see no other evidence... Cheers, RickO
The issue is how did this coin (#1), received a green bean it's a pcgs ms63 :
This coin was called the "Mumps" variety in the 1970's.
Think about it. What does a "scar" look like? There is a "scarface" Franklin half with a "cut" in the face and "scarface" dollars with raised die breaks. This coin has a "swollen" lump (collapsed die) like the mumps.
if anyone in this discussion knows who the "Johnny-come-know-nothing" is that has changed the name of this variety and when/where it was done, I'd sure like to know.
Seems like a question that JA should answer.
When you render an opinion which ends up in a public forum in the public domain, then you should be prepared to defend that opinion in the same arena when it is called into question.
Ths "leeway" was for an AU coin. I expect less from an AU than I do from an MS-63 graded coin. Most collectors do expect less from them. But yes the straight scratch on that AU-55 graded Barber half is fair sized negative.
The reed mark and disturbances on the cheek of Ms. Liberty on MS-63 coin is a bigger negative because you don't expect to see all of the stuff on a coin with that grade. You might see one, but not both on a "B" or "A" coin. The Gem quuality reverse cannot save it.
This is another CAC flaw. If a coin is overgraded, it should not get a CAC st;icker, but if it is properly graded it has a chance at one. What about the nice coin that is overgraded by a point. I guess since it doesn't have CAC sticker, it's fit for the rubish heep.
For many years, coin dealers and advanced collectors have used the letters A, B, and C among themselves to further describe coins. C indicates low-end for the grade, B indicates solid for the grade, and A indicates high-end. CAC will only award stickers to coins in the A or B category. C coins, although accurately graded, will be returned without a CAC sticker.
http://www.caccoin.com/faqs/
Since the reed mark was (likely) acquired at the mint or whilst travelling in a mint bag, perhaps JA views this differently than most of us. I wouldn't want the coin as a 63 (or at all) , but then it does speak a kind of "originality". Surely there are other examples out there like this, a Morgan perhaps?
I'm not impressed.
The reed mark is distracting.
The scratch or slide mark is distracting. If it deserves a straight grade, I think it is overgraded.
There appears to be some left over dip residue.
The eye appeal sucks.
The coin is unoriginal.
If I was a dealer and was able to sell coins like this because of the sticker for an extra 30-40%, I'd rave about CAC and the importance of a foil sticker too.
So I suggest that the owner offer it to CAC at their current buy price. Others may be willing to pay more.
Is there anyone who would like to explain the PCGS guarantee resubmission process and how it might handle this sort of statistically inevitable error? Any parallels?
There are hundreds of millions (billions?) of dollars of CAC coins in the market.
How many bum deals can you come up with?
For some, the capacity for grievance offers stronger motivation than mere blood-letting will satisfy.
Mostly, they bleed for themselves.
>
Would it be better than a 63 without the reeding marks?
It's good see that one of the CAC advocates have admitted that the sticker should not be on this coin. That's progress. Maybe enough of you give constructive feedback to CAC so that they will tighten up their operation.
Don't think the coin in question sold for cac money. You be the judge:
https://www.scoins.com/lot.aspx?a=12&l=923
Another lesson of buy the coin, not the sticker or the holder.
One can always pick examples of mistakes and hold that as the standard. I think that regardless of the issues with this particular coin (which there are), CAC coins on the whole are nicer than the average population which has not met CAC standards and they genererally achieve a higher price in the market. Fact.
An individual should also have their own standard. I don’t like all CAC coins. For my money my standards are even higher as I have fewer resources than CAC and different goals as a collector vs to create a liquid sight unseen market. They are much better at detecting doctoring and other issues than I am and for that I am grateful for the silent support that they provide.
Latin American Collection
The issue is how did this coin (#1), received a green bean it's a pcgs ms63
I'm not picking on this poster, just using his concise answers as a way to save time commenting as I disagree with much of his post.
Here is my suggestion for the grading experts here who do not think the OP's coin is an MS-63. Swallow your pride, forget what you think you know, and take the basic ANA Coin Grading Seminar.
In the opinion of PCGS, CAC, myself (I've been in a few classes), and others posting, the coin is an MS-63. It is not higher, and it is not an AU. Now, I'll beg PCGS and JA, and others posting to allow me to try and defend OUR opinion.
@cameonut2011 said:
" The reed mark is distracting."
It certainly is. That's just one important reason the coin will not grade any higher. Although no one claims to follow the ANA Grading Guide this what it says about contact marks on a coin grading MS-63: "May have detracting marks in prime focal areas. This coin does, so contact mark grade = MS-63.
"The scratch or slide mark is distracting. If it deserves a straight grade, I think it is overgraded."
It certainly is. See answer #1. Marks is plural. Now, if that scratch is considered by some to be reason to "detail" grade a coin, you may wish to examine lot's of coins with more severe and distracting marks that are not detailed. IMO, you are "micro-grading." BTW, that scratch is also why the coin is grade limited to MS-63.
This is 100% incorrect (not an opinion). I've been dipping improperly neutralized coins for years and this looks nothing like "a dip residue stain." They are the typical pinhole oxidation stains from storage in cardboard 2X2's.
LOL, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. PCGS, JA, myself, and I'll net most of the folks in an advanced grading class would look at the Eye Appeal Chart in the ANA guide and pick "Rather Attractive" which also = MS-63.
LOL, no comment. You cannot fix _______:p. The reverse of that coin could be posted on the PCGS Internet Grading images as a 100% original and full-blazing MS-65! Unfortunately, reverses don't count for a whole lot so the coin is only graded MS-63 with a CAC sticker. Heck, what do we know?
@Insider2, don't hold back. Say you disagree w/100% of what I said. After all it is less than 5% of what you wrote above.
I didn't see you posted any comments in your discussion that were useful. Otherwise, I should have added it to my post. Saying a coin graded by a TPGS did not sell for what a PRICE GUIDE indicates is just blab, blab, blab. So what! Is that supposed to be some sort of "news flash." IMO, It happens all the time, does not reveal the reason the coin was assigned its grade, and adds nothing of value of your discussion.
BTW, I do agree that folks should buy the coin not the label. Especially when the grade on the label is correct and verified by CAC!
lol...another post for lil ode me
As Ricko® questioned, what IS going on with the lips?
@KollectorKing said: "lol...another post for lil ode me
"
I like this one better.
Those bar brawl scars & dip residue turning might seem attractive to some?
Buy the coin and not the holder or sticker.
Can you please say this again. Maybe some will begin to understand.
Larry Shepherd has a few of what he calls "CAC disasters" on his site and I believe on his Facebook page. He has been very vocal stating that he believes CAC is detrimental to the hobby.
@Broadstruck said: "Those bar brawl scars & dip residue turning might seem attractive to some?"
Would you please take some time to describe in words what dip residue toning looks like on a coin's surface? I'm asking because I don't see any of it on the two coins in this thread. I'm hoping if you explain what it looks like using words to describe characteristics like its color and and shape I may be able to understand your post better.
Thanks.
How can both be true? If either would limit the coin to MS-63, together, both mean it is less than MS-63.
What about the marks through the second to last leaf in the crown?
It's only on the 1907 in the OP with reeding mark on the cheek. That coin was dipped before being slabbed and fully white. The brown on the obverse & reverse rims in not toning but dip residue from not having been neutralized properly which is turning. There's mild trace brown spotting on the cheek too all which will continue to worsen and at some point eat into the surface of the coin once it's goes, from brown, to deep blue, then black.
It is so ugly and bad off, I'd be tempted to call it a mechanical error.
Marketing genius...
Professional and informed coin grading does not work the way you have posted. There is no contradiction at all in my post. Lets examine a coin with all things equal (including the location and severity of marks) EXCEPT for their NUMBER.
MS-60: Heavy marks all over.
MS-61: A few heavy or many light in prime & secondary areas.
MS-62: Detracting marks (more than one or two) in prime/and or secondary area.
Our coin is none of these.
The coin is not an MS-64 as the grading guide allows "light scattered marks; a few may be in prime focal areas" for a coin graded MS-64. The marks on the coin are NOT light.
That leaves us with one grade based on the marks alone: MS-63! An MS-63 may have distracting marks (plural = more than one or two) in the prime area. This coin can have even more marks as long as they are light and still be graded a SOLID MS-63 as PCGS, JA, and others have done. I cannot make it any clearer unless we were sitting next to each other examining a group of coins graded from MS-62 to MS-64.
PS Buy the coin and not the label is great advice. The only problem with this often stated advice is that it assumes a person knows how to grade coins! Unfortunately, the ANA has not done a very good job educating J.Q. Collector and in my experience J.Q has not taken the time to educate himself either.
PPS Taking the cue from you, here is some advice for everyone:
LEARN TO GRADE FOR YOURSELF. LEARN TO GRADE FOR YOURSELF. Until you do, buy the label and the slab. LOL!
It might be okay to have ONE of those on a MS63 coin, but it should not have BOTH. MS63 is supposedly a "choice" coin and there is nothing remotely choice about it. No one is arguing that a MS63 must be perfect. To call this a MS63 almost renders useless the MS60-MS62 range. As for the comments about being scratched, if it is a slide mark, it would traditionally be net-graded yes. If it is a scratch, then it should not straight grade at all. Yes, I realize that the services are more accepting, which is why I qualified my answer as it I realize the services have come a long way since I first started collecting. Regardless, even if one agrees that this is a MS63, it is disingenuous to call this a solid or high end for the grade coin.
The obverse is the most important side of the coin, and the reverse shouldn't save it. Yes, eye appeal is subjective. When I sell coins that are ugly, where are these folks that would call this "rather attractive?" I want to get to meet them.
I think J.Q. Collector is doing just fine. He/they just haven't bought into the Kool-Aid that this coin is a PQ coin.
I think "our coin" is EXACTLY one of these. An MS-62.
Now, you can throw the "expert" argument at me, and say NGC knows more than I do. (And believe me, I'm not going to argue). You can even say that Insider2 is a better grader than me. I still won't argue.
But, my money, my decision. Pass.
"rather attractive"
Reminds me of some very bad blind dates that were described in this manner.
Coins and women both look better after a few beers.
Maybe it was 'Happy Hour' when they were grading/stickering this one.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Many people don't realize it but the stickers are actually shot from small cannon at the slabs. Perhaps it was a windy day and it landed on the wrong coin?
Disagree. Please read the post above about the MS-63 grade and the number of marks. Additionally, I think you may wish to do some research into "slide marks." Yes, something slid against the cheek but I'll guarantee it was not the plastic slide from a coin folder. Even my five year old knows how to position a coin correctly into the hole in is coin folder.
As to this that you asked: "The obverse is the most important side of the coin, and the reverse shouldn't save it."
Of course it is. That's what I posted in a different way.
"Yes, eye appeal is subjective. When I sell coins that are ugly, where are these folks that would call this "rather attractive?" I want to get to meet them."
Take a grading class taught by a Professional TPGS grader as I suggested. In it you will need to decide if a coin is "unattractive, generally acceptable, rather attractive, pleasing, etc." Plus you'll get to meet the folks I'm talking about and test your grading opinions against the instructor and your peers.
I have found that many long time professional coin dealers (most have never taken a grading class) cannot grade. They would have had their "eyes-plucked-out" by now if it were not for the slab crutch!