@KellenCoin said:
If you are collecting a coin series seriously, you should be learning enough about them to not need the CAC sticker.
... or a TPG holder. Too many collectors and dealers have lost (or never have gained) the ability to grade and rely too heavily on the TPG's opinion ... unless the TPG grade is lower that what they want it to be.
I disagree. TPG holders are helpful to verify the authenticity and give some general info on a coin.
And how many collectors and dealers rely on TPGs primarily for authenticity? Other than a few series or a few coins, the "counterfeit detection" aspect of the TPG is all but ignored. How many 1881-S dollars are submitted because the owners are afraid the coin is a counterfeit? That would be none ... okay, maybe one or two in the history of submissions.
Even still ... if collectors and dealers educated themselves, few would even need the counterfeit detection services of the TPGs.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
@KellenCoin said:
If you are collecting a coin series seriously, you should be learning enough about them to not need the CAC sticker.
... or a TPG holder. Too many collectors and dealers have lost (or never have gained) the ability to grade and rely too heavily on the TPG's opinion ... unless the TPG grade is lower that what they want it to be.
I disagree. TPG holders are helpful to verify the authenticity and give some general info on a coin.
And how many collectors and dealers rely on TPGs primarily for authenticity? Other than a few series or a few coins, the "counterfeit detection" aspect of the TPG is all but ignored. How many 1881-S dollars are submitted because the owners are afraid the coin is a counterfeit? That would be none ... okay, maybe one or two in the history of submissions.
Even still ... if collectors and dealers educated themselves, few would even need the counterfeit detection services of the TPGs.
@KellenCoin said:
If you are collecting a coin series seriously, you should be learning enough about them to not need the CAC sticker.
... or a TPG holder. Too many collectors and dealers have lost (or never have gained) the ability to grade and rely too heavily on the TPG's opinion ... unless the TPG grade is lower that what they want it to be.
I disagree. TPG holders are helpful to verify the authenticity and give some general info on a coin.
And how many collectors and dealers rely on TPGs primarily for authenticity? Other than a few series or a few coins, the "counterfeit detection" aspect of the TPG is all but ignored. How many 1881-S dollars are submitted because the owners are afraid the coin is a counterfeit? That would be none ... okay, maybe one or two in the history of submissions.
Even still ... if collectors and dealers educated themselves, few would even need the counterfeit detection services of the TPGs.
I partly disagree with that statement. While people might tend to send coins in for grading, I believe a considerable amount of coins would not have been submitted if it were not for the counterfeit detection. However, I do agree with you that people depend on TPG slabs way too much. As for your final statement, I disagree again. Education alone does not help prevent buying counterfeits.
Fan of the Oxford Comma
CCAC Representative of the General Public
2021 Young Numismatist of the Year
I partly disagree with that statement. While people might tend to send coins in for grading, I believe a considerable amount of coins would not have been submitted if it were not for the counterfeit detection. However, I do agree with you that people depend on TPG slabs way too much. As for your final statement, I disagree again. Education alone does not help prevent buying counterfeits.
<<"Education alone does not help prevent buying counterfeits">>
If not for education, how do the folks at the TPGs learn to detect counterfeits ... divine intervention? Education IS the key. Education includes experience, not just reading books.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
I partly disagree with that statement. While people might tend to send coins in for grading, I believe a considerable amount of coins would not have been submitted if it were not for the counterfeit detection. However, I do agree with you that people depend on TPG slabs way too much. As for your final statement, I disagree again. Education alone does not help prevent buying counterfeits.
<<"Education alone does not help prevent buying counterfeits">> badly
If not for education, how do the folks at the TPGs learn to detect counterfeits ... divine intervention? Education IS the key. Education includes experience, not just reading books.
Fine, fine, I agree with you there. Reading and having experience is the key to identifying counterfeits. My point (which I conveyed badly) was that TPGs are useful in some aspects, at the very least being a trustworthy second opinion.
Fan of the Oxford Comma
CCAC Representative of the General Public
2021 Young Numismatist of the Year
I partly disagree with that statement. While people might tend to send coins in for grading, I believe a considerable amount of coins would not have been submitted if it were not for the counterfeit detection. However, I do agree with you that people depend on TPG slabs way too much. As for your final statement, I disagree again. Education alone does not help prevent buying counterfeits.
<<"Education alone does not help prevent buying counterfeits">> badly
If not for education, how do the folks at the TPGs learn to detect counterfeits ... divine intervention? Education IS the key. Education includes experience, not just reading books.
Fine, fine, I agree with you there. Reading and having experience is the key to identifying counterfeits. My point (which I conveyed badly) was that TPGs are useful in some aspects, at the very least being a trustworthy second opinion.
We certainly agree there. I think TPGs are very useful and beneficial to the hobby, but too many collectors and dealers replace the need to learn with the ability to read a label. TPGs are great second opinions. I also think that CAC, WINGS, and QA are great "third opinions" as well.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
I partly disagree with that statement. While people might tend to send coins in for grading, I believe a considerable amount of coins would not have been submitted if it were not for the counterfeit detection. However, I do agree with you that people depend on TPG slabs way too much. As for your final statement, I disagree again. Education alone does not help prevent buying counterfeits.
<<"Education alone does not help prevent buying counterfeits">> badly
If not for education, how do the folks at the TPGs learn to detect counterfeits ... divine intervention? Education IS the key. Education includes experience, not just reading books.
Fine, fine, I agree with you there. Reading and having experience is the key to identifying counterfeits. My point (which I conveyed badly) was that TPGs are useful in some aspects, at the very least being a trustworthy second opinion.
We certainly agree there. I think TPGs are very useful and beneficial to the hobby, but too many collectors and dealers replace the need to learn with the ability to read a label. TPGs are great second opinions. I also think that CAC, WINGS, and QA are great "third opinions" as well.
Now we agree. I also believe the problem is that collectors and dealers don't think for themselves about whether they like the coin.
Fan of the Oxford Comma
CCAC Representative of the General Public
2021 Young Numismatist of the Year
TDN citing Analyst: _If someone showed me a collection of more than 750 pre-1934 coins (other than generics), including some very expensive coins, and each was PCGS-CAC, I would wonder whether that collector was just buying the holders rather than the coins.
TDN: Huh? I'd compliment him on his expertise on either getting all his coins crossed and beaned or taking the safest route to a high end collection by buying the right combination of holder and sticker in the first place.
I was referring to someone who buys PCGS-CAC coins, not to certifications that came about by way of some kind of process while having the same collector-owner.
TDN: The thought he was just buying holders would NEVER enter my mind and I completely fail to see your line of reasoning.
1) Consider the batting average analogy. CAC will be wrong about some coins. CAC buys back coins. Even Ted Williams struck out at times. Please read my posts above in this thread.
There are doctored coins with CAC stickers. There are also CAC approved coins that almost every other expert grader thinks are overgraded. Poll a significant number of expert graders, including some of those that have been named by Roadrunner in other threads, and this will be shown to be true.
This revelation is not a criticism of CAC; it is just a factual reality regarding coin grading. No player can get on base every time.
I acknowledge that JA is, indisputably, the nation's leading expert on U.S. gold coins and is perhaps the best grader overall. Nevertheless, it is wrong to mislead people into thinking that JA bats 1.000 or anywhere near 1.000.
2) Even among coins that are clearly not doctored, there will always be legitimate differences of opinion among experts regarding the grades of some coins. This is especially true in regard to eye appeal, which is a strong component of a -64 to -68 grade. Let us again consider someone who has a collection of more than 750 pre-1934 coins (other than generics), including some very expensive coins and including many rarities, and each was PCGS-CAC. He would probably (though not necessarily) be someone who is not incorporating his own expert views nor other expert analyses into his selections and would just be buying the holders.
3) TDN said, safest route to a high end collection
The safest route in the present will not always be the safest route. JA could get killed in a car accident tomorrow. PCGS grading now is much different now from what it was in the 1980s. PCGS will not be around forever, either. While the issue of financial safety is not clear in regard to coins, a logical strategy is to learn about the positive and negative aspects of each expensive coin, and consider multiple, informed points of view. When Bob Grellman catalogues large cents, he often includes grade assignments from three to five different sources, including that of PCGS and his own.
I would hope that Bochiman would agree that the following article is very much pertinent to CAC and this thread. If Bochiman actually bothered to read it, he may find it illuminating, entertaining or at least worthy of intelligent discussion.
@Wabbit2313 said:
If they don't believe their coins are worth less money without CAC, they really need to spend just 2 minutes searching HA auction history. It is what it is.
That just shows it's not that their coins are worth less, it's that the plastic around the coin is worth less.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@Sonorandesertrat said:
WIll someone please post and maintain a scoreboard?
Now that the debate has become tag-team, I am having trouble keeping score.
I don't think there is a score or needs to be one. Use CAC if you want......just don't put down coins that are not stickered.
Wow posters getting their shorts bunched . I will pass on a non CAC coin .. sorry not going to drop 5 figures on a coin bet whether all is there with the coin .
Whether coins with non CAC s are put down .. who cares ?
Coin club drops six figures on several coin auctions . even with a dealer eye at auction .....only CACs are acceptable
I see a business opportunity here.
I will call it CrACk.
You send me ANY coin in ANY TPG holder with ANY stickers and I will:
1. Crack it out.
2. If toned, I will dip it white.
3. If in a secure plus holder, I will put it on the floor of my garage and smack it hard with a hammer so that it no longer conforms to the laser scan at PCGS.
4. I will return all inserts to the TPG's and CAC so that they are removed from any databases.
5. I will return it to you so that you can tell people what it grades without having any other opinion interfere with your enjoyment of the coin.
And how many collectors and dealers rely on TPGs primarily for authenticity? Other than a few series or a few coins, the "counterfeit detection" aspect of the TPG is all but ignored. How many 1881-S dollars are submitted because the owners are afraid the coin is a counterfeit? That would be none ... okay, maybe one or two in the history of submissions.
Even still ... if collectors and dealers educated themselves, few would even need the counterfeit detection services of the TPGs.
It's just a matter of time before even an 1881-s needs to be authenticated.
@MrEureka said:
PCGS and NGC attempt to assign the most appropriate grade to every coin.
CAC determines if they would want to buy the coin at the already-assigned grade.
As every reasonably fussy collector knows, these are very, very different things. Is this not obvious?
It is obvious. This "appropriate" grade thing is what got the grading market in trouble. There'd be no CAC otherwise. The fact that it took until November 2008 is the odd thing, because the downward grading slope had been going on for almost a decade.
Many of us didn't need the TPG's to buy quality coins in the pre-1988 era. One quality dealer with sharp grading eyes was all it really took to support us. I guess you could call that the equivalent of a CAC back then. In a way, you could say it's the TPG's that are less needed than just one great set of eyes working for you. I'd also submit that because of CAC, the coin doctors had to up their game as the high grade raw coin market disappeared.
Wow! Several members have vivid imaginations, for some reason they continue to spew inaccurate information. If you don't want or need CAC's services then don't use them.
So why do they continue with their rants? I believe they know that by choosing not to use CAC their coin's are worth less money in the current market. I think that really bothers them and that's why they continue to rail against JA and CAC.
You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine.
I resent the fact that any coin that doesn't have a sticker is viewed as "a loser" that is worth less money because ONE MAN has decided that is so. It would many thousands of dollars in shipping fees and insurance to get my collection regraded. I really resent that. ONE MAN should have that much power, especially when the service he offers is far easier to perform that a full blown grading service. I might feel differently if his batting average was close to 1.000, but it's not.
I don't boycott CAC coins. I bought three pieces at the last FUN show. Two of them were CAC approved. The third, the 1880 gold dollar in PCGS MS-65 that I've posted on this forum, I will guarantee you has never seen the inside of the CAC grading room. If it had, it would be CACd if the powers in charge there know their business at all.
I like markets, democracy and competition. I don't care for monoplies and dictators. As Bob Dylan wrote many years ago, "Don't follow leaders; watch your parking meters."
Actually, it's not one man that has decided so, it's the market that has decided so. Do you rant against Pcgs because the market has decided that your Ngc coins are worth less? I know you used to do so...haven't heard so much lately....
Don't put words in my mouth. I have never written that I am upset that my NGC graded coins are worth less than PCGS graded pieces. I have written that an astute shopper can buy coins of equal quality in NGC holders for less money.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Don't put words in my mouth. I have never written that I am upset that my NGC graded coins are worth less than PCGS graded pieces. I have written that an astute shopper can buy coins of equal quality in NGC holders for less money.
ANY shopper can buy coins of equal quality in NGC holders for less money as they routinely sell for less money. And when you go to sell them they will likely sell for that same % less money.....unless you messed up. Then they sell for a ton less money. The truly astute ones can get them crossed/upgraded/stickered in order to realize the same money as a PCGS coin would bring.....often a score if they were able to buy them with the usual holder-bias discounts.
@tradedollarnut said:
_If someone showed me a collection of more than 750 pre-1934 coins (other than generics), including some very expensive cons, and each was PCGS-CAC, I would wonder whether that collector was just buying the holders rather than the coins. _
Huh? I'd compliment him on his expertise on either getting all his coins crossed and beaned or taking the safest route to a high end collection by buying the right combination of holder and sticker in the first place. The thought he was just buying holders would NEVER enter my mind and I completely fail to see your line of reasoning
This is by far the best answer.
MLAeBayNumismatics: "The greatest hobby in the world!"
Wow! Several members have vivid imaginations, for some reason they continue to spew inaccurate information. If you don't want or need CAC's services then don't use them.
So why do they continue with their rants? I believe they know that by choosing not to use CAC their coin's are worth less money in the current market. I think that really bothers them and that's why they continue to rail against JA and CAC.
You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine.
I resent the fact that any coin that doesn't have a sticker is viewed as "a loser" that is worth less money because ONE MAN has decided that is so. It would many thousands of dollars in shipping fees and insurance to get my collection regraded. I really resent that. ONE MAN should have that much power, especially when the service he offers is far easier to perform that a full blown grading service. I might feel differently if his batting average was close to 1.000, but it's not.
I don't boycott CAC coins. I bought three pieces at the last FUN show. Two of them were CAC approved. The third, the 1880 gold dollar in PCGS MS-65 that I've posted on this forum, I will guarantee you has never seen the inside of the CAC grading room. If it had, it would be CACd if the powers in charge there know their business at all.
I like markets, democracy and competition. I don't care for monoplies and dictators. As Bob Dylan wrote many years ago, "Don't follow leaders; watch your parking meters."
Actually, it's not one man that has decided so, it's the market that has decided so. Do you rant against Pcgs because the market has decided that your Ngc coins are worth less? I know you used to do so...haven't heard so much lately....
Don't put words in my mouth. I have never written that I am upset that my NGC graded coins are worth less than PCGS graded pieces. I have written that an astute shopper can buy coins of equal quality in NGC holders for less money.
Then you are inconsistent. Why be mad at CAC but not PCGS? In order to get the most money for your coins you will have to cross them AND sticker them. It's illogical to be mad at one but not the other
The safest route in the present will not always be the safest route. JA could get killed in a car accident tomorrow. PCGS grading now is much different now from what it was in the 1980s. PCGS will not be around forever, either. While the issue of financial safety is not clear in regard to coins, a logical strategy is to learn about the positive and negative aspects of each expensive coin, and consider multiple, informed points of view. When Bob Grellman catalogues large cents, he often includes grade assignments from three to five different sources, including that of PCGS and his own.
Truly considering the opinions of experts, even if in complete opposition to your own views, is a sign of an educated mind. Mark Feld's collecting rules come to mind:
Buy/collect what YOU like. But keep in mind that when it comes time to sell, not everyone else will necessarily like what you did/do.
Many people hold too tightly to their own notions, even when they're demonstrably incorrect. CAC's opinion is an informed data point. When you get a cluster of closely grouped data points from a variety of widely regarded experts, you may have something to go on.
The safest route in the present will not always be the safest route. JA could get killed in a car accident tomorrow. PCGS grading now is much different now from what it was in the 1980s. PCGS will not be around forever, either. While the issue of financial safety is not clear in regard to coins, a logical strategy is to learn about the positive and negative aspects of each expensive coin, and consider multiple, informed points of view. When Bob Grellman catalogues large cents, he often includes grade assignments from three to five different sources, including that of PCGS and his own.
Truly considering the opinions of experts, even if in complete opposition to your own views, is a sign of an educated mind. Mark Feld's collecting rules come to mind:
Buy/collect what YOU like. But keep in mind that when it comes time to sell, not everyone else will necessarily like what you did/do.
Many people hold too tightly to their own notions, even when they're demonstrably incorrect. CAC's opinion is an informed data point. ** When you get a cluster of closely grouped data points from a variety of widely regarded experts, you may have something to go on**.
Yup, that is the key and how one can learn to make better selections.
two points that are themes in this thread:
1) What if JA was gone tomorrow? Lets assume that you believe JA is one of the best graders of Gold coins (if you don't believe it then you would never buy a CAC coin). If that is the case and you buy a gold coin with a green sticker and JA is gone tomorrow---the coin is still the coin! If the coin is solid for the grade and has not been messed with---it will always be that coin. If CAC disappears and the sticker was ripped off---that coin up for auction in 5 or ten years would still do better than the same coin that has been harshly cleaned and is low for the grade.
2) If I was considering a purchase of a gold coin say at auction and asked Doug Winter or Jeff Garrett for their opinion I would be told "smart move" (and it would be smart to get those two expert's opinions)----so why would someone be critical of wanting to get JA's opinion on a gold coin by virtue of wanting the coin to have a CAC sticker?
@Gazes said:
two points that are themes in this thread:
1) What if JA was gone tomorrow? Lets assume that you believe JA is one of the best graders of Gold coins (if you don't believe it then you would never buy a CAC coin). If that is the case and you buy a gold coin with a green sticker and JA is gone tomorrow---the coin is still the coin! If the coin is solid for the grade and has not been messed with---it will always be that coin. If CAC disappears and the sticker was ripped off---that coin up for auction in 5 or ten years would still do better than the same coin that has been harshly cleaned and is low for the grade.
2) If I was considering a purchase of a gold coin say at auction and asked Doug Winter or Jeff Garrett for their opinion I would be told "smart move" (and it would be smart to get those two expert's opinions)----so why would someone be critical of wanting to get JA's opinion on a gold coin by virtue of wanting the coin to have a CAC sticker?
Good summary of two of the main themes. Thank you.
I would add my own two cents on those that argue point number 1. I believe pretty much all the CAC fans would agree with that point. However, while a superior coin is still superior regardless of a particular sticker or holder, those attributes can make it easier for buyers to recognize it as superior. And if you are selling, a potentially larger pool of buyers/more confident buyers can certainly be a benefit.
How far an individual collectors goes fretting over certain grading companies, resubmissions, stickers, provenance, etc. is completely up to them and I couldn't care less.
Great Collections has a 1795 $1 PCGS AU 55 .. with a Green CAC this week ....
The CAC sticker gives some weight that the grade is legit ,and worth putting a bid on
Non CACer's comment ?
@Gazes said:
two points that are themes in this thread:
1) What if JA was gone tomorrow? .............If CAC disappears and the sticker was ripped off---that coin up for auction in 5 or ten years would still do better than the same coin that has been harshly cleaned and is low for the grade.
Not necessarily and probably NO. JA's gold eye, especially when it comes to choice/gem gold is very different than most anyone in the market. In fact, probably different from everyone else except the dealers he has trained that assist in stickering. How else could he only sticker about 5% of all MS65/66/67 Saints and $20 Libs? Tell me who would pick up that slack in JA's absence to drive auction prices to match this tiny 5% grouping of gold coins? No one was doing it before JA. Most were just happy with blasty luster and few marks....dealers and collectors alike. I suspect things would probably revert back to that same notion once again. And if stickers were all removed, you'd have an impossible time finding those same 5% again without knowing serial numbers. JA's focus is uniquely on surfaces. I'd bet if I put out 20 ok for the grade PCGS MS65 Saints, that almost no one here could pick out the single coin that JA would. Been there, done that.
We're not talking about JA not stickering harshly cleaned/very low end coins for the grade. He's rejecting 95% of the TPG slabs in these grades. You can't tell me that 95% of those are by market standards low end/cleaned/problematic? No. It's JA's unique eye where he wants to pull out the very top 5% of a huge market for his own trading company. In my mind, JA's selection of choice/gem gold coins is very different in how he selects choice/gem silver type.
@Gazes said:
two points that are themes in this thread:
1) What if JA was gone tomorrow? .............If CAC disappears and the sticker was ripped off---that coin up for auction in 5 or ten years would still do better than the same coin that has been harshly cleaned and is low for the grade.
Not necessarily and probably NO. JA's gold eye, especially when it comes to choice/gem gold is very different than most anyone in the market. In fact, probably different from everyone else except the dealers he has trained that assist in stickering. How else could he only sticker about 5% of all MS65/66/67 Saints and $20 Libs? Tell me who would pick up that slack in JA's absence to drive auction prices to match this tiny 5% grouping of gold coins? No one was doing it before JA. Most were just happy with blasty luster and few marks....dealers and collectors alike. I suspect things would probably revert back to that same notion once again. And if stickers were all removed, you'd have an impossible time finding those same 5% again without knowing serial numbers. JA's focus is uniquely on surfaces. I'd bet if I put out 20 ok for the grade PCGS MS65 Saints, that almost no one here could pick out the single coin that JA would. Been there, done that.
We're not talking about JA not stickering harshly cleaned/very low end coins for the grade. He's rejecting 95% of the TPG slabs in these grades. You can't tell me that 95% of those are by market standards low end/cleaned/problematic? No. It's JA's unique eye where he wants to pull out the very top 5% of a huge market for his own trading company. In my mind, JA's selection of choice/gem gold coins is very different in how he selects choice/gem silver type.
Liberty gold from 1891-1900 IS in the 19th century and quite common. In fact, I'd wager that those coins make up much more than half of the entire 19th century Liberty gold pops in MS64 and higher. So if we're talking about the majority of 19th century choice/gem gold....it's in the last decade of the 19th century.
From the strictest possible sense of the word cleaned/problematic we "might" be able to say that 75-90% of all pre-1891 19th century gold and pre-1878 silver applies to that. Any negative mishandling, wiping, hairlines, spotting, staining, etc. could eliminate most 19th century silver/gold coinage from the totally "purist" level. Doug Winter is focusing on better dates/types in totally original, problem free condition. And yes, only the top 5-25% of all existing better date 19th century No Motto gold coins still exist problem free and original. You can apply that to better date silver and copper coinage. If you can find me a totally original and problem free 1860-s seated quarter or 1874-cc dime....good luck. I'd guess 5-10% might meet those requirements.
It's a 19th century thing...not so much a gold thing. If anything the silver coins took more of beating because many toned ugly dark colors. Gold being much less reactive didn't always "need" to be cleaned along with the silver tea set. Ironically, when my mom had me clean her silverware every year with silver polish, invariably that's when I'd drag out some of my 19th century silver and copper coins to give them a scrub. The lustrous AU 1822 half my grandpa gave me in 1966 (age 12) turned into a mess after several polishings. Sheesh.
@VanHalen said:
But Saints aren't 19th century gold. Are you contending that 95% of 65 to 67 Saints are low end/cleaned/problematic too?
That's why "too" is placed at the end of a sentence. It means "also" or "in addition" to Liberty gold. His entire post was in reference to your 5% comment regarding Saints.
A 5% sticker rate on 65 to 67 Saints means 95% are low end/cleaned/problematic to answer my own question. That's what CAC states in their founding documents. Thank you.
What seems to go unaddressed is what influences one to add a coin to their collection.
Is it to compete for "approval?"
What of a coin that may not be "original" by some yet uncodified universal definition but may be a chosen variety?
What about a coin chosen for superior strike that affords a glimpse at the intent of the engraver to convey his design?
Are these coins to be avoided for having been owned by somebody who dusted their coin cabinet?
Or lightly wiped it to present it to someone?
We seem to want to ignore the histories of the piece and concentrate on the lack of history.
We've all heard the mantra of "collect what you like" but some seem to want to do a lot of steering.
@topstuf said:
What seems to go unaddressed is what influences one to add a coin to their collection.
Is it to compete for "approval?"
What of a coin that may not be "original" by some yet uncodified universal definition but may be a chosen variety?
What about a coin chosen for superior strike that affords a glimpse at the intent of the engraver to convey his design?
Are these coins to be avoided for having been owned by somebody who dusted their coin cabinet?
Or lightly wiped it to present it to someone?
We seem to want to ignore the histories of the piece and concentrate on the lack of history.
We've all heard the mantra of "collect what you like" but some seem to want to do a lot of steering.
all valid points. But don't underestimate that "collect what you like" may also mean the same things that CAC looks for---original coins that are solid for the grade. My CAC gold definitely has a similar look to it that I enjoy.
Roadrunner: Liberty gold from 1891-1900 IS in the 19th century and quite common. In fact, I'd wager that those coins make up much more than half of the entire 19th century Liberty gold pops in MS64 and higher. So if we're talking about the majority of 19th century choice/gem gold....it's in the last decade of the 19th century.
A better dividing line would be 1880 or 1878. Post-1880 19th century gold is widely available. There are some better dates from 1880 to 1899, even rarities, but very few. There are also very large quantities of relatively common dates and of representatives of slightly better dates during this time period. Roadrunner's point, with which I agree, is that surviving gold coins and better date silver coins from before 1880 tend to be not all that orginal, but most of them are accepted in the marketplace.
Roadrunner: Any negative mishandling, wiping, hairlines, spotting, staining, etc. could eliminate most 19th century silver/gold coinage from the totally "purist" level. Doug Winter is focusing on better dates/types in totally original, problem free condition. And yes, only the top 5-25% of all existing better date 19th century No Motto gold coins still exist problem free and original. You can apply that to better date silver ... .
Gazes: I do collect liberty gold and this article by Doug Winter supports the stingy amount of stickers on 19th Century gold.
No, Winter's point about originality is much different from JA's point about a coin being solid for its already certified grade. There are many coins that do NOT score high in the category of originality that are CAC approved. A never doctored coin may have been dipped many times, and may have a sticker. Although I weigh originality heavily in my interpretation of a coin, graders at PCGS, ATS, and JA all have a different philosophy in regard to dipping. To a considerable extente, Winter and I are in agreement on this point, but most leading dealers and telemarketers think differently, in regard to dipping and originality. Also, there are coins that are extremely original yet fail at CAC.
Hopefully, Bochiman will agree that the following articles are extremely pertinent to the topic of originality, dipping and CAC stickers.
No, Winter's point about originality is much different from JA's point about a coin being solid for its already certified grade. There are many coins that do NOT score high in the category of originality that are CAC approved. A never doctored coin may have been dipped many times, and may have a sticker. Although I weigh originality heavily in my interpretation of a coin, graders at PCGS, ATS, and JA all have a different philosophy in regard to dipping. To a considerable extente, Winter and I are in agreement on this point, but most leading dealers and telemarketers think differently, in regard to dipping and originality. Also, there are coins that are extremely original yet fail at CAC.
Sorry, I have to disagree with the above. While JA does allow "some" dipped choice/gem gold into the fold, he generally goes towards orig surfaces, especially at the 64 and higher grades which is what my discussion was focused on. And if that's not enough to limit the stickers, then he's tough on marks and strike to boot. No doubt very orig gold coins fail at CAC because they have too many marks or too much rub....those are the easy ones to weed out. If CAC is only letting in 5-15% of all gem gold, you can bet dipped coins are a small minority of that grouping. My original point was that with as low as a 3-5% sticker rate for choice/gem gold, clearly JA/CAC are treating gold coins FAR differently than the TPG's or even the vast majority dealers for that matter.
And the reason I chose 1891-onward as a demarcation point for choice/gem gold is because for the $20's, there's almost nothing prior to 1891 out there. If not for the fairly recent discovery of the Saddle Ridge hoard, the $20's in the 1877-1891 range would still be quite rare in choice/gem unc. Sort of a fluke, really. The $5's and some $10's of that era are also scarce with only a few common dates readily available. My entire discussion above was mainly for nice unc coins....not VF-AU circs or train-wrecked uncs.
Roadrunner: Sorry, I have to disagree with the above. While JA does allow "some" dipped choice/gem gold into the fold, he generally goes towards orig surfaces, especially at the 64 and higher grades which is what my discussion was focused on. ... My original point was that with as low as a 3-5% sticker rate for choice/gem gold, clearly JA/CAC are treating gold coins FAR differently than the TPG's or even the vast majority dealers for that matter.
A. Generics are really beside the thrust of this thread. I was hoping that it was clear that I was referring to pre-1880 gold coins in my last post before this one. Roadrunner and I were talking past each other, apples and oranges. The stickering of MS-65 1924 Saints is a different matter.
B. I am concerned that Gazes and others my be under the impression that the pre-1880 gold coins that Winter terms "original" and the pre-1880 gold coins that sticker are the same. While there is some overlap, there is not that much overlap. Many of the pre-1880 gold coins that sticker have been dipped and/or moderately cleaned. More than a few of the pre-1880 gold coins that Winter terms "original" fail to sticker. Note that Winter sells a lot of coins without stickers. I just glanced at the LH quarter eagles on the first page of Winter's online inventory, 4 of 12 have stickers (33%).
C. As Roadrunner noted, there are multiple reasons as to why a coin that is high on the spectrum of originality might fail to be CAC approved. He is missing the point that much of the stickering process relates to how dealers or other players who have considerable idea as to how to grade coins, would value them in the marketplace. Eye appeal is an important factor, and most relevant dealers, despite objections by myself and Winter (among others), like dipped coins and think that obviously dipped coins have a lot of eye appeal.
D. Dipped coins are brighter and livelier, ON AVERAGE, certainly not always. Many coins that are original fail to sticker because they are not lively or lack sufficient eye appeal in JA's view. As I said, I have a philosophical disagreement with JA on this issue. More to the point here, some of the contributors to this thread who favor CAC stickered coins might not really understand what CAC is all about. While it is an extremely important factor, the filtering of doctored coins by CAC is one factor among several.
"In order to understand the scarce coins that you own or see, you must learn about coins that you cannot afford." -Me
We still disagree on most everything here. I'm not looking only at generic gold coins. CAC is not a fan of dipped pre-1880 gold even though you seem to say they are....to align with market forces that love dipped gold coins. What CAC offers for the coin is not the same just because it's stickered. I have to wonder if in their data base they don't keep track of dipped coins or other issues, especially on 4 figures and up. I know I would. It would affect my offer down the road. Regardless of what other dealers think or say, JA's view of the ENTIRE gold coin market imo is quite different from the TPG/dealer norm, and that includes dipped gold coins. It's not quite as different with silver 19th/early 20th century choice/gem type coins.
"Regardless of what other dealers think or say, JA's view of the ENTIRE gold coin market imo is quite different from the TPG/dealer norm, and that includes dipped gold coins. It's not quite as different with silver 19th/early 20th century choice/gem type coins."
I would add that IMHO JA has continued to maintain a strict standard on seated and trade dollars. Perhaps a bit to tough in a few cases.
Roadrunner: CAC is not a fan of dipped pre-1880 gold even though you seem to say they are.
A. Consider all the obviously dipped silver coins that have CAC stickers. In a major HA or SBG auction, plenty of examples could be found.
B. It is often not possible to tell if a gold coin has been dipped from photographs or online images. I am there viewing the coins 'in person.' In many cases, I viewed every pre-1880 silver or gold coin in a Platinum Night or a Rarities Night event. Did Roadrunner view FUN Platinum Night lots, Pogue Collection lots, SBG Rarities Night lots? How would Roadrunner know if CAC approved, pre-1880 gold coins have been dipped? I have seen many that I am certain have been dipped.
C. Indeed, there is no doubt about the fact that there are many dipped pre-1880 gold coins with CAC stickers. While I continually maintain that dipping is harmful, JA does not perceive the matter in the same way. In my conversations with him, he has never indicated that he finds dipping to be harmful, except for silver coins that grade below AU-50. There are some coins that JA finds to have been overdipped, but that is a different topic. In any event, ask him.
Comments
And how many collectors and dealers rely on TPGs primarily for authenticity? Other than a few series or a few coins, the "counterfeit detection" aspect of the TPG is all but ignored. How many 1881-S dollars are submitted because the owners are afraid the coin is a counterfeit? That would be none ... okay, maybe one or two in the history of submissions.
Even still ... if collectors and dealers educated themselves, few would even need the counterfeit detection services of the TPGs.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
I partly disagree with that statement. While people might tend to send coins in for grading, I believe a considerable amount of coins would not have been submitted if it were not for the counterfeit detection. However, I do agree with you that people depend on TPG slabs way too much. As for your final statement, I disagree again. Education alone does not help prevent buying counterfeits.
Fan of the Oxford Comma
CCAC Representative of the General Public
2021 Young Numismatist of the Year
<<"Education alone does not help prevent buying counterfeits">>
If not for education, how do the folks at the TPGs learn to detect counterfeits ... divine intervention? Education IS the key. Education includes experience, not just reading books.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Fine, fine, I agree with you there. Reading and having experience is the key to identifying counterfeits. My point (which I conveyed badly) was that TPGs are useful in some aspects, at the very least being a trustworthy second opinion.
Fan of the Oxford Comma
CCAC Representative of the General Public
2021 Young Numismatist of the Year
We certainly agree there. I think TPGs are very useful and beneficial to the hobby, but too many collectors and dealers replace the need to learn with the ability to read a label. TPGs are great second opinions. I also think that CAC, WINGS, and QA are great "third opinions" as well.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Now we agree. I also believe the problem is that collectors and dealers don't think for themselves about whether they like the coin.
Fan of the Oxford Comma
CCAC Representative of the General Public
2021 Young Numismatist of the Year
Some coins are better than others. And then there are stickers on plastic.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
TDN citing Analyst:
TDN:
I was referring to someone who buys PCGS-CAC coins, not to certifications that came about by way of some kind of process while having the same collector-owner.
TDN:
1) Consider the batting average analogy. CAC will be wrong about some coins. CAC buys back coins. Even Ted Williams struck out at times. Please read my posts above in this thread.
There are doctored coins with CAC stickers. There are also CAC approved coins that almost every other expert grader thinks are overgraded. Poll a significant number of expert graders, including some of those that have been named by Roadrunner in other threads, and this will be shown to be true.
This revelation is not a criticism of CAC; it is just a factual reality regarding coin grading. No player can get on base every time.
I acknowledge that JA is, indisputably, the nation's leading expert on U.S. gold coins and is perhaps the best grader overall. Nevertheless, it is wrong to mislead people into thinking that JA bats 1.000 or anywhere near 1.000.
2) Even among coins that are clearly not doctored, there will always be legitimate differences of opinion among experts regarding the grades of some coins. This is especially true in regard to eye appeal, which is a strong component of a -64 to -68 grade. Let us again consider someone who has a collection of more than 750 pre-1934 coins (other than generics), including some very expensive coins and including many rarities, and each was PCGS-CAC. He would probably (though not necessarily) be someone who is not incorporating his own expert views nor other expert analyses into his selections and would just be buying the holders.
3) TDN said,
The safest route in the present will not always be the safest route. JA could get killed in a car accident tomorrow. PCGS grading now is much different now from what it was in the 1980s. PCGS will not be around forever, either. While the issue of financial safety is not clear in regard to coins, a logical strategy is to learn about the positive and negative aspects of each expensive coin, and consider multiple, informed points of view. When Bob Grellman catalogues large cents, he often includes grade assignments from three to five different sources, including that of PCGS and his own.
I would hope that Bochiman would agree that the following article is very much pertinent to CAC and this thread. If Bochiman actually bothered to read it, he may find it illuminating, entertaining or at least worthy of intelligent discussion.
How will Coin Collectors Interpret Certified Coin Grades in the Future?
Copyright 2017 Greg Reynolds
That just shows it's not that their coins are worth less, it's that the plastic around the coin is worth less.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Analyst:
While it looks like your posts might be informative, they are too long for me, AND WAY too long when you have to copyright them!!
Wow posters getting their shorts bunched . I will pass on a non CAC coin .. sorry not going to drop 5 figures on a coin bet whether all is there with the coin .
Whether coins with non CAC s are put down .. who cares ?
Coin club drops six figures on several coin auctions . even with a dealer eye at auction .....only CACs are acceptable
I see a business opportunity here.
I will call it CrACk.
You send me ANY coin in ANY TPG holder with ANY stickers and I will:
1. Crack it out.
2. If toned, I will dip it white.
3. If in a secure plus holder, I will put it on the floor of my garage and smack it hard with a hammer so that it no longer conforms to the laser scan at PCGS.
4. I will return all inserts to the TPG's and CAC so that they are removed from any databases.
5. I will return it to you so that you can tell people what it grades without having any other opinion interfere with your enjoyment of the coin.
How about $5 per coin plus shipping?
It's just a matter of time before even an 1881-s needs to be authenticated.
https://aliexpress.com/item/1881-S-90-Silver-Morgan-Dollar-FREE-SHIPPING/32336476501.html?spm=2114.40010408.3.1.kY6K2f
It is obvious. This "appropriate" grade thing is what got the grading market in trouble. There'd be no CAC otherwise. The fact that it took until November 2008 is the odd thing, because the downward grading slope had been going on for almost a decade.
Many of us didn't need the TPG's to buy quality coins in the pre-1988 era. One quality dealer with sharp grading eyes was all it really took to support us. I guess you could call that the equivalent of a CAC back then. In a way, you could say it's the TPG's that are less needed than just one great set of eyes working for you. I'd also submit that because of CAC, the coin doctors had to up their game as the high grade raw coin market disappeared.
Don't put words in my mouth. I have never written that I am upset that my NGC graded coins are worth less than PCGS graded pieces. I have written that an astute shopper can buy coins of equal quality in NGC holders for less money.
ANY shopper can buy coins of equal quality in NGC holders for less money as they routinely sell for less money. And when you go to sell them they will likely sell for that same % less money.....unless you messed up. Then they sell for a ton less money. The truly astute ones can get them crossed/upgraded/stickered in order to realize the same money as a PCGS coin would bring.....often a score if they were able to buy them with the usual holder-bias discounts.
This is by far the best answer.
Then you are inconsistent. Why be mad at CAC but not PCGS? In order to get the most money for your coins you will have to cross them AND sticker them. It's illogical to be mad at one but not the other
>
Truly considering the opinions of experts, even if in complete opposition to your own views, is a sign of an educated mind. Mark Feld's collecting rules come to mind:
Many people hold too tightly to their own notions, even when they're demonstrably incorrect. CAC's opinion is an informed data point. When you get a cluster of closely grouped data points from a variety of widely regarded experts, you may have something to go on.
Yup, that is the key and how one can learn to make better selections.
Best, SH
two points that are themes in this thread:
1) What if JA was gone tomorrow? Lets assume that you believe JA is one of the best graders of Gold coins (if you don't believe it then you would never buy a CAC coin). If that is the case and you buy a gold coin with a green sticker and JA is gone tomorrow---the coin is still the coin! If the coin is solid for the grade and has not been messed with---it will always be that coin. If CAC disappears and the sticker was ripped off---that coin up for auction in 5 or ten years would still do better than the same coin that has been harshly cleaned and is low for the grade.
2) If I was considering a purchase of a gold coin say at auction and asked Doug Winter or Jeff Garrett for their opinion I would be told "smart move" (and it would be smart to get those two expert's opinions)----so why would someone be critical of wanting to get JA's opinion on a gold coin by virtue of wanting the coin to have a CAC sticker?
I am a little bit peeved they won't "sticker" this as I love stickers with or without the coin.
Good summary of two of the main themes. Thank you.
I would add my own two cents on those that argue point number 1. I believe pretty much all the CAC fans would agree with that point. However, while a superior coin is still superior regardless of a particular sticker or holder, those attributes can make it easier for buyers to recognize it as superior. And if you are selling, a potentially larger pool of buyers/more confident buyers can certainly be a benefit.
How far an individual collectors goes fretting over certain grading companies, resubmissions, stickers, provenance, etc. is completely up to them and I couldn't care less.
Buy the coin. Sell the assurance.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Great Collections has a 1795 $1 PCGS AU 55 .. with a Green CAC this week ....
The CAC sticker gives some weight that the grade is legit ,and worth putting a bid on
Non CACer's comment ?
Not necessarily and probably NO. JA's gold eye, especially when it comes to choice/gem gold is very different than most anyone in the market. In fact, probably different from everyone else except the dealers he has trained that assist in stickering. How else could he only sticker about 5% of all MS65/66/67 Saints and $20 Libs? Tell me who would pick up that slack in JA's absence to drive auction prices to match this tiny 5% grouping of gold coins? No one was doing it before JA. Most were just happy with blasty luster and few marks....dealers and collectors alike. I suspect things would probably revert back to that same notion once again. And if stickers were all removed, you'd have an impossible time finding those same 5% again without knowing serial numbers. JA's focus is uniquely on surfaces. I'd bet if I put out 20 ok for the grade PCGS MS65 Saints, that almost no one here could pick out the single coin that JA would. Been there, done that.
We're not talking about JA not stickering harshly cleaned/very low end coins for the grade. He's rejecting 95% of the TPG slabs in these grades. You can't tell me that 95% of those are by market standards low end/cleaned/problematic? No. It's JA's unique eye where he wants to pull out the very top 5% of a huge market for his own trading company. In my mind, JA's selection of choice/gem gold coins is very different in how he selects choice/gem silver type.
I don't collect Saints but I do collect liberty gold and this article by Doug Winter supports the stingy amount of stickers on 19th Century gold. http://raregoldcoins.com/blog/2016/6/21/why-are-so-many-19th-century-dated-gold-issues-so-rare-with-original-color-and-choice-surfaces
In other words, yes it is possible that 95% of 19th century gold is low end/cleaned/problematic.
But Saints aren't 19th century gold. Are you contending that 95% of 65 to 67 Saints are low end/cleaned/problematic too?
Liberty gold from 1891-1900 IS in the 19th century and quite common. In fact, I'd wager that those coins make up much more than half of the entire 19th century Liberty gold pops in MS64 and higher. So if we're talking about the majority of 19th century choice/gem gold....it's in the last decade of the 19th century.
From the strictest possible sense of the word cleaned/problematic we "might" be able to say that 75-90% of all pre-1891 19th century gold and pre-1878 silver applies to that. Any negative mishandling, wiping, hairlines, spotting, staining, etc. could eliminate most 19th century silver/gold coinage from the totally "purist" level. Doug Winter is focusing on better dates/types in totally original, problem free condition. And yes, only the top 5-25% of all existing better date 19th century No Motto gold coins still exist problem free and original. You can apply that to better date silver and copper coinage. If you can find me a totally original and problem free 1860-s seated quarter or 1874-cc dime....good luck. I'd guess 5-10% might meet those requirements.
It's a 19th century thing...not so much a gold thing. If anything the silver coins took more of beating because many toned ugly dark colors. Gold being much less reactive didn't always "need" to be cleaned along with the silver tea set. Ironically, when my mom had me clean her silverware every year with silver polish, invariably that's when I'd drag out some of my 19th century silver and copper coins to give them a scrub. The lustrous AU 1822 half my grandpa gave me in 1966 (age 12) turned into a mess after several polishings. Sheesh.
That's why "too" is placed at the end of a sentence. It means "also" or "in addition" to Liberty gold. His entire post was in reference to your 5% comment regarding Saints.
A 5% sticker rate on 65 to 67 Saints means 95% are low end/cleaned/problematic to answer my own question. That's what CAC states in their founding documents. Thank you.
What seems to go unaddressed is what influences one to add a coin to their collection.
Is it to compete for "approval?"
What of a coin that may not be "original" by some yet uncodified universal definition but may be a chosen variety?
What about a coin chosen for superior strike that affords a glimpse at the intent of the engraver to convey his design?
Are these coins to be avoided for having been owned by somebody who dusted their coin cabinet?
Or lightly wiped it to present it to someone?
We seem to want to ignore the histories of the piece and concentrate on the lack of history.
We've all heard the mantra of "collect what you like" but some seem to want to do a lot of steering.
all valid points. But don't underestimate that "collect what you like" may also mean the same things that CAC looks for---original coins that are solid for the grade. My CAC gold definitely has a similar look to it that I enjoy.
Granted.
However, this thread has significantly changed MY thinking.
I was about to take all my unstickered coins into the street and wait for the roadroller.
Now I'm back to not giving a crap anymore.
...I think
Roadrunner:
A better dividing line would be 1880 or 1878. Post-1880 19th century gold is widely available. There are some better dates from 1880 to 1899, even rarities, but very few. There are also very large quantities of relatively common dates and of representatives of slightly better dates during this time period. Roadrunner's point, with which I agree, is that surviving gold coins and better date silver coins from before 1880 tend to be not all that orginal, but most of them are accepted in the marketplace.
Roadrunner:
Gazes:
No, Winter's point about originality is much different from JA's point about a coin being solid for its already certified grade. There are many coins that do NOT score high in the category of originality that are CAC approved. A never doctored coin may have been dipped many times, and may have a sticker. Although I weigh originality heavily in my interpretation of a coin, graders at PCGS, ATS, and JA all have a different philosophy in regard to dipping. To a considerable extente, Winter and I are in agreement on this point, but most leading dealers and telemarketers think differently, in regard to dipping and originality. Also, there are coins that are extremely original yet fail at CAC.
Hopefully, Bochiman will agree that the following articles are extremely pertinent to the topic of originality, dipping and CAC stickers.
Understanding Classic U.S. Coins and Building Excellent Coin Collections, Part 2: Dipped Coins
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 3
Sorry, I have to disagree with the above. While JA does allow "some" dipped choice/gem gold into the fold, he generally goes towards orig surfaces, especially at the 64 and higher grades which is what my discussion was focused on. And if that's not enough to limit the stickers, then he's tough on marks and strike to boot. No doubt very orig gold coins fail at CAC because they have too many marks or too much rub....those are the easy ones to weed out. If CAC is only letting in 5-15% of all gem gold, you can bet dipped coins are a small minority of that grouping. My original point was that with as low as a 3-5% sticker rate for choice/gem gold, clearly JA/CAC are treating gold coins FAR differently than the TPG's or even the vast majority dealers for that matter.
And the reason I chose 1891-onward as a demarcation point for choice/gem gold is because for the $20's, there's almost nothing prior to 1891 out there. If not for the fairly recent discovery of the Saddle Ridge hoard, the $20's in the 1877-1891 range would still be quite rare in choice/gem unc. Sort of a fluke, really. The $5's and some $10's of that era are also scarce with only a few common dates readily available. My entire discussion above was mainly for nice unc coins....not VF-AU circs or train-wrecked uncs.
Roadrunner:
A. Generics are really beside the thrust of this thread. I was hoping that it was clear that I was referring to pre-1880 gold coins in my last post before this one. Roadrunner and I were talking past each other, apples and oranges. The stickering of MS-65 1924 Saints is a different matter.
B. I am concerned that Gazes and others my be under the impression that the pre-1880 gold coins that Winter terms "original" and the pre-1880 gold coins that sticker are the same. While there is some overlap, there is not that much overlap. Many of the pre-1880 gold coins that sticker have been dipped and/or moderately cleaned. More than a few of the pre-1880 gold coins that Winter terms "original" fail to sticker. Note that Winter sells a lot of coins without stickers. I just glanced at the LH quarter eagles on the first page of Winter's online inventory, 4 of 12 have stickers (33%).
C. As Roadrunner noted, there are multiple reasons as to why a coin that is high on the spectrum of originality might fail to be CAC approved. He is missing the point that much of the stickering process relates to how dealers or other players who have considerable idea as to how to grade coins, would value them in the marketplace. Eye appeal is an important factor, and most relevant dealers, despite objections by myself and Winter (among others), like dipped coins and think that obviously dipped coins have a lot of eye appeal.
D. Dipped coins are brighter and livelier, ON AVERAGE, certainly not always. Many coins that are original fail to sticker because they are not lively or lack sufficient eye appeal in JA's view. As I said, I have a philosophical disagreement with JA on this issue. More to the point here, some of the contributors to this thread who favor CAC stickered coins might not really understand what CAC is all about. While it is an extremely important factor, the filtering of doctored coins by CAC is one factor among several.
We still disagree on most everything here. I'm not looking only at generic gold coins. CAC is not a fan of dipped pre-1880 gold even though you seem to say they are....to align with market forces that love dipped gold coins. What CAC offers for the coin is not the same just because it's stickered. I have to wonder if in their data base they don't keep track of dipped coins or other issues, especially on 4 figures and up. I know I would. It would affect my offer down the road. Regardless of what other dealers think or say, JA's view of the ENTIRE gold coin market imo is quite different from the TPG/dealer norm, and that includes dipped gold coins. It's not quite as different with silver 19th/early 20th century choice/gem type coins.
Once again my experience aligns with roadrunner.
"Regardless of what other dealers think or say, JA's view of the ENTIRE gold coin market imo is quite different from the TPG/dealer norm, and that includes dipped gold coins. It's not quite as different with silver 19th/early 20th century choice/gem type coins."
I would add that IMHO JA has continued to maintain a strict standard on seated and trade dollars. Perhaps a bit to tough in a few cases.
Roadrunner:
A. Consider all the obviously dipped silver coins that have CAC stickers. In a major HA or SBG auction, plenty of examples could be found.
B. It is often not possible to tell if a gold coin has been dipped from photographs or online images. I am there viewing the coins 'in person.' In many cases, I viewed every pre-1880 silver or gold coin in a Platinum Night or a Rarities Night event. Did Roadrunner view FUN Platinum Night lots, Pogue Collection lots, SBG Rarities Night lots? How would Roadrunner know if CAC approved, pre-1880 gold coins have been dipped? I have seen many that I am certain have been dipped.
C. Indeed, there is no doubt about the fact that there are many dipped pre-1880 gold coins with CAC stickers. While I continually maintain that dipping is harmful, JA does not perceive the matter in the same way. In my conversations with him, he has never indicated that he finds dipping to be harmful, except for silver coins that grade below AU-50. There are some coins that JA finds to have been overdipped, but that is a different topic. In any event, ask him.
Understanding Classic U.S. Coins and Building Excellent Coin Collections, Part 2: Dipped Coins
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 3