Why wouldn't this 1895-O dime CAC? Now with THE ANSWER.

barberkeys · September 24, 2017 3:01PM

Koinicker · September 24, 2017 3:04PM

Overgraded?
No luster?
Who cares - it's a coin!

lkeigwin · September 24, 2017 3:27PM

The PVC spot under the chin surely didn't help it.

My guess is it was deemed neutral eye appeal with diminished luster.

But don't let it bother you. If you love it that's all that matters.
Lance.

ianrussell · September 24, 2017 3:42PM

PVC would eliminate CAC possibility instantly, I think. I've received coins back from CAC where they have pointed out the PVC. Also remember a rare "holder" that clearly looked like an upgrade to me that had PVC and didn't even green sticker.

Ian

Insider2 · September 24, 2017 3:56PM

Because it is covered in goop! IMO, it is under graded due to all the crap on it. Send it in for conservation. The grade should go up to at least AU-55!

PS This coin is LOADED w/original mint luster!

cameonut2011 · September 24, 2017 3:57PM

I agree with those citing Pvc. PVC = Dead on Arrival with CAC

cameonut2011 · September 24, 2017 3:58PM

If you send it to NGC under the appearance review, they should conserve it for you for free. There is no guarantee review fee with NGC.

barberkeys · September 24, 2017 4:15PM

That green spot is from my old camera. Notice there's one on the reverse as well. There isn't any PVC on the coin.

cameonut2011 · September 24, 2017 4:18PM

Luster is a factor at that level. Maybe CAC thought it was an AU50 with muted luster.

ldhair · September 24, 2017 4:56PM

I think the coin could be helped. The luster is hiding.

RogerB · September 24, 2017 4:58PM

An EF with verdigris....CAC puts stickers (except smiley faces) on coins they are willing to buy - at the right low price, of course.

amwldcoin · September 24, 2017 5:01PM

No offense but personally I don't like it. The toning almost looks like a dip gone bad. I have never been a fan of Brown-Russet toning.

logger7 · September 24, 2017 5:01PM

A diamond in the rough.

georgiacop50 · September 24, 2017 5:08PM

Camera artifact aside, are you SURE there is no PVC? Albanese can see it like nobody else!

rhedden · September 24, 2017 5:22PM

I'm with the crowd that thinks CAC just saw it as an AU50 rather than AU53. It looks nice and original to me. My second thought is that the little, tiny rim nick on the obverse near 1:00 might be bright and shiny in person (is it?). Can't rule out PVC, but I don't see it in the images, personally. I like to view a coin at a shallow angle to check for PVC residue on the high points, but one cannot do that with an image.

roadrunner · September 24, 2017 5:27PM

I'm with Rhedden. It's also possible some of that "dirt" in the lettering had become too thick and JA might have felt some of that was bordering on verdigris/corrosion. Overall, looks like a nice natural coin to me. That's how they're supposed to look....before the eventual trip to the cleaners for a new white suit and potential upgrade.

DIMEMAN · September 24, 2017 5:38PM

I like it. I would crack it out.....take care of the PVC......and send it to PCGS!

Lucanus · September 24, 2017 5:44PM

Very nice coin and very interesting comments!

Doug

jdimmick · September 24, 2017 6:06PM

Vern,

CAC is very tough on 95-o's . The ogh 63 I sold you wouldn't cac either. Both Dave Khan and I thought that coin was a shoe in years ago. also, if you remember the beymer 62, (used to reside in a 63) jack got it downgraded and a check to go with it.
Still wouldn't cac, reverse had that chatter, but obv was quite nice and original as he11. Also, harry L had a nice 63 that he upgraded a year or so ago, but it wouldn't cac either in the holder prior to upgrade, but did upgrade.

jdimmick · September 24, 2017 6:10PM

Vern,

you need to fix that damn camera , every photo you have taken over the past 5 years has that green spot people confuse with pvc

Insider2 · September 24, 2017 6:37PM

@amwldcoin said: "No offense but personally I don't like it. The toning almost looks like a dip gone bad. I have never been a fan of Brown-Russet toning."

Improperly rinsed coins with brown "dip toning stains" look nothing like this! Normally there is "flow" on the surface for those kinds of stains. Additionally, toning **DOES NOT" present itself as raised residue on a surface.

@georgiacop50 said: "Camera artifact aside, are you SURE there is no PVC? Albanese can see it like nobody else!"

IMHO, now that the green spot has been explained (fooled me too ) there is absolutely NO PVC on the coin. A simple conservation by anyone who knows what they are doing and which chemicals (NOT COIN DIP) to use would turn this coin into a beauty!

Cougar1978 · September 24, 2017 7:30PM

My guess - They view it as a C AU 53 or lower. I believe it has to be an A or B coin to sticker.

Cougar1978 · September 24, 2017 7:41PM

It's a nice Coin (NGC MV $3850) a cac one I would price at $5000.

DollarAfterDollar · September 24, 2017 8:04PM

CAC will notify you if they reject a coin due to PVC. That's not the issue.

I agree a quick dip would remove some of the obstructions but don't go full white.

lkeigwin · September 24, 2017 10:12PM

Good to know it's the camera and not PVC. I believe it, after seeing the spot on the reverse too. Never mind the coin...do something about the camera! LOL.

A dip would be an interesting experiment. But I wouldn't risk it on such a valuable coin. Can you trust NCS?

Maybe leave well enough alone. If it doesn't please you then sell it and move along.
Lance.

jtlee321 · September 24, 2017 11:19PM

I'm guessing it's not the technical grade that prevented it from passing CAC. I'm betting it's the gunk on the surfaces. The brownish orange on the obverse looks almost like it's stained rather than toned. I've had CAC fail a coin for what they thought looked too much like staining rather than toning.

I'm wondering if a gently rinse in a 50/50 mixture of MS-70 and distilled water would help lift some of the heavier gunk off without effecting the patina in a negative way. I've heard horror stories of NGC dipping a coin bright white as a way of conservation. I don't think I would go that route on this coin. If you do have them conserve it, maybe call them and tell them up front that you don't want the coin dipped white.

cameonut2011 · September 24, 2017 11:25PM

I'm not sure if you started the thread as a guess the issue type of post or whether you do not know. In case you didn't know, you can always leave a note asking John to explain any CAC rejects. John is very generous with his time, especially with a collector.

Treashunt · September 25, 2017 3:30AM

Simply put, they hate Barbers.

I sent in 10 '96 S quarters, none CAC'd.

astrorat · September 25, 2017 5:13AM

@Treashunt said:
Simply put, they hate Barbers.

I sent in 10 '96 S quarters, none CAC'd.

Nah ... I have had decent luck with Barbers at CAC and have seen a number of nice Barbers with CAC stickers. I think it's just more difficult to find nice, original Barber coinage. But 0 for 10 is pretty painful.

BillJones · September 25, 2017 5:34AM

I think that eye appeal might be the issue, plus, perhaps a lack of luster under the toning on the obverse. A Barber specialist might like this coin, but more generalist collectors might not find it appealing.

TwoSides2aCoin · September 25, 2017 6:02AM

In this environment, one wonders who cares ? Ask yourself why it's even graded with the environmental damage, instead.

GotTheBug · September 25, 2017 6:04AM

.

ricko · September 25, 2017 6:16AM

I believe the coin did not receive a sticker due to the dirt/residues on the surfaces. This could be concealing issues that would affect the grade. Have it conserved, and if no negative issues appear, resubmit. Cheers, RickO

Insider2 · September 25, 2017 12:09PM

@TwoSides2aCoin said: "Ask yourself why it's even graded with the environmental damage, instead."

What exactly is environmental damage? Is it dirt? Is it toning? Is it any type of residue? Glue?

Until your post, I thought it was a term reserved by the TPGS's specifically to describe something that has actually "corroded" the natural surface of a coin?

Wabbit2313 · September 25, 2017 12:17PM

It does not have much eye appeal, thus no sticker. Here is the NGC shot, note the green dot is still there!

-

ms70 · September 25, 2017 12:36PM

Who cares? It's a nice coin that stands on it's own merits.

Insider2 · September 25, 2017 12:39PM

The owner should care. With proper conservation (not complete dip) this coin will "rock." So will its value.

oih82w8 · September 25, 2017 12:47PM

I have submitted several coins that I, and some other forum members, thought would "sticker", but no dice...I guess the planets did not line up properly for this one either.

Lucanus · September 25, 2017 1:02PM

No environmental damage on that coin! Gem original.

Doug

golden · September 25, 2017 1:36PM

No eye appeal. Too dark.

jmlanzaf · September 25, 2017 1:41PM

@TwoSides2aCoin said:
In this environment, one wonders who cares ? Ask yourself why it's even graded with the environmental damage, instead.

"Natural toning" is not "environmental damage" unless it has roughened the surface.

acloco · September 25, 2017 1:42PM

Call me crazy.....but is that DIE CLASHING on obverse AND reverse that I see?

Insider2 · September 25, 2017 1:44PM

@jmlanzaf said: "Natural toning" is not "environmental damage" unless it has roughened the surface."

I agree, not ED; however, besides the natural toning there is "raised gunk" all over the surface of this coin.

jmlanzaf · September 25, 2017 1:45PM

@Insider2 said:
@TwoSides2aCoin said: "Ask yourself why it's even graded with the environmental damage, instead."

What exactly is environmental damage? Is it dirt? Is it toning? Is it any type of residue? Glue?

Until your post, I thought it was a term reserved by the TPGS's specifically to describe something that has actually "corroded" the natural surface of a coin?

I have seen several posters refer to natural toning as "environmental damage" on these boards. You are correct that the term usually isn't used unless the surface has been impaired. I'm not sure who is spreading the mis-information that natural toning is environmental damage.

Does everyone know that untoned copper is considered impaired? All "red" copper is actually not copper but toned copper. Untoned copper is what you get when you give your cents a dip in lemon juice, that white finish.

jmlanzaf · September 25, 2017 1:47PM

@Insider2 said:
@jmlanzaf said: "Natural toning" is not "environmental damage" unless it has roughened the surface."

I agree, not ED; however, besides the natural toning there is "raised gunk" all over the surface of this coin.

Hard to tell without tilting the coin. Sometimes the color shading creates the appearance of texture when there isn't any. You may be correct but I can't commit from just that one angle.

cameonut2011 · September 25, 2017 1:47PM

@jmlanzaf said:

@Insider2 said:
@TwoSides2aCoin said: "Ask yourself why it's even graded with the environmental damage, instead."

What exactly is environmental damage? Is it dirt? Is it toning? Is it any type of residue? Glue?

Until your post, I thought it was a term reserved by the TPGS's specifically to describe something that has actually "corroded" the natural surface of a coin?

I have seen several posters refer to natural toning as "environmental damage" on these boards. You are correct that the term usually isn't used unless the surface has been impaired. I'm not sure who is spreading the mis-information that natural toning is environmental damage.

Does everyone know that untoned copper is considered impaired? All "red" copper is actually not copper but toned copper. Untoned copper is what you get when you give your cents a dip in lemon juice, that white finish.

I have never seen pure copper or a bronze alloy with a white finish. I have seen freshly stripped copper with a pale pink color.

jmlanzaf · September 25, 2017 1:49PM

@cameonut2011 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Insider2 said:
@TwoSides2aCoin said: "Ask yourself why it's even graded with the environmental damage, instead."

What exactly is environmental damage? Is it dirt? Is it toning? Is it any type of residue? Glue?

Until your post, I thought it was a term reserved by the TPGS's specifically to describe something that has actually "corroded" the natural surface of a coin?

I have seen several posters refer to natural toning as "environmental damage" on these boards. You are correct that the term usually isn't used unless the surface has been impaired. I'm not sure who is spreading the mis-information that natural toning is environmental damage.

Does everyone know that untoned copper is considered impaired? All "red" copper is actually not copper but toned copper. Untoned copper is what you get when you give your cents a dip in lemon juice, that white finish.

I have never seen pure copper or a bronze alloy with a white finish. I have seen freshly stripped copper with a pale pink color.

it's a yellowish color. I always think of it as a whitened version of the red color we're used to. You can call it pink, if you like LOL. Technically, it's "copper colored". LOL. Although I think most of us think of that redder color as "copper colored".

TwoSides2aCoin · September 25, 2017 1:49PM

@jmlanzaf said:

@TwoSides2aCoin said:
In this environment, one wonders who cares ? Ask yourself why it's even graded with the environmental damage, instead.

"Natural toning" is not "environmental damage" unless it has roughened the surface.

Well, ... someone has to keep stoking the fire. I merely enjoy fanning it.

jmlanzaf · September 25, 2017 1:52PM

@TwoSides2aCoin said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@TwoSides2aCoin said:
In this environment, one wonders who cares ? Ask yourself why it's even graded with the environmental damage, instead.

"Natural toning" is not "environmental damage" unless it has roughened the surface.

Well, ... someone has to keep stoking the fire. I merely enjoy fanning it.

LOL. Honestly, everyone seems to think that everything should CAC. The more things CAC, the less relevant the CAC.

I think this is a nice but unexceptional AU, as it appears in the picture. The luster is subdued. It has obvious high point wear.

I think it is an AU50 with a CAC or an AU53 without a CAC.

Here's a fun follow-up question: Would you be better off in this market taking the downgrade with the CAC rather than the upgrade without it?

Insider2 · September 25, 2017 1:53PM

@jmlanzaf said: "Does everyone know that untoned copper is considered impaired? All "red" copper is actually not copper but toned copper. Untoned copper is what you get when you give your cents a dip in lemon juice, that white finish."

Please keep posting all these interesting observations. You are giving me a lot of material to pass on in class.

TwoSides2aCoin · September 25, 2017 1:53PM

It's really hard to answer the OP's question because few of us have seen the coin, in hand. (my opinion)
And why JA didn't give it a go, I'm certain he has his reason.

Why wouldn't this 1895-O dime CAC? Now with THE ANSWER.

Comments

Leave a Comment

Categories