See the way the luster has shadows around the raised parts of the coin? It probably indicates some light hairlining and unoriginality . I think rejection just means JA won't buy it not that the grade is incorrect. Nice coin.
PS I think you should have started you own discussion as now there are different coins in the same discussion.
@Insider2 said:
See the way the luster has shadows around the raised parts of the coin? It probably indicates some light hairlining and unoriginality . I think rejection just means JA won't buy it not that the grade is incorrect. Nice coin.
PS I think you should have started you own discussion as now there are different coins in the same discussion.
So light hairlines are a problem, but huge deep scratches are okay? That makes no sense. I think hairlines and scratches are both grounds to deny a sticker.
"New Orleans took a pair of aged dies and smacked them together as hard as they could to produce this specimen, which shows significant orange peel luster and fascinating distortion of the peripheral stars as the metal flow of the die itself began to affect the integrity of the details. What an intriguing piece! CAC approves of the quality, but even without a loupe, a strong series of reed marks can be seen on the upper cheek." https://www.scoins.com/lot.aspx?a=12&l=923 Probably booming luster and orange peel saves it.
As for cac bringing 30-40% more than non, I disagree. It just makes the coins easier to sell.
"Take a grading class taught by a Professional TPGS grader as I suggested."
This is a great suggestion, and I mean it, with one caveat - nobody can teach me to love a coin that I think is downright ugly. I might learn what the marketplace thinks is attractive, but that won't change my taste one iota. I wouldn't own the coin in question because I couldn't take my eyes off the reeding mark. Many collectors feel this way about scratches, fingerprints, etc. and no amount of education by experts can change that. No statistics to back this up, but I expect that there are enough collectors who have similar taste as I that the value/marketability of such a coin is limited to a significant extent, enough to also make it a "bad buy" if one cares at all about liquidity.
I have 0 problem with the OP's coin in ms63. I definitely consider the coin to be PQ. Is it PQ that its borderline ms64? I would say no because the obvious reed marks and album slide marks. Keep in mind that we are looking at a picture that is 50x the size of the actual coin and really brings out the marks.
@JeffMTampa from the pictures alone, I would not sticker your coin as it does not look original to me and dipped out.
I would say that if submitted 100x it would come back at least au58 every single time. But CAC? dont think so
@Insider2 said:
See the way the luster has shadows around the raised parts of the coin? It probably indicates some light hairlining and unoriginality . I think rejection just means JA won't buy it not that the grade is incorrect. Nice coin.
PS I think you should have started you own discussion as now there are different coins in the same discussion.
So light hairlines are a problem, but huge deep scratches are okay? That makes no sense. I think hairlines and scratches are both grounds to deny a sticker.
You are entitled to your opinion and to be as strict a grader as you wish. I don't care what you think and you should not care about what I think either. The ONLY things that matter to me here are having an informative, polite discussion with you plus a few fun barbs thrown in AND to be able to understand how folks much more knowledgeable than you or I grade a particular coin. In my opinion, the coin is an MS-63 all day long and I explained the reasons why I thought the grade was correct.
Now, let me ask you a question, and there is no incorrect answer. Which do you prefer, a gem looking coin like the 1908-S with a trace of "cabinet friction" hidden by a very light buffing so the coin has continuous hairlines over its entire surface (net graded down to AU-58) that only an experienced numismatist can see when the coin is held just right in the light OR a totally original Mint State coin with its obverse cheek showing a large detracting bagmark and a shallow narrow scratch-like line resulting in a lower value than other MS-63's for that reason. Door one or door 2. PCGS liked both of them and "straight" graded them accordingly without any input from you or any regard to your opinion. JA has made a different choice. He rejected the 1908-S. So do I.
@oldabeintx said:
"Take a grading class taught by a Professional TPGS grader as I suggested."
This is a great suggestion, and I mean it, with one caveat - nobody can teach me to love a coin that I think is downright ugly. I might learn what the marketplace thinks is attractive, but that won't change my taste one iota. I wouldn't own the coin in question because I couldn't take my eyes off the reeding mark. Many collectors feel this way about scratches, fingerprints, etc. and no amount of education by experts can change that. No statistics to back this up, but I expect that there are enough collectors who have similar taste as I that the value/marketability of such a coin is limited to a significant extent, enough to also make it a "bad buy" if one cares at all about liquidity.
@Insider2 said:
See the way the luster has shadows around the raised parts of the coin? It probably indicates some light hairlining and unoriginality . I think rejection just means JA won't buy it not that the grade is incorrect. Nice coin.
PS I think you should have started you own discussion as now there are different coins in the same discussion.
So light hairlines are a problem, but huge deep scratches are okay? That makes no sense. I think hairlines and scratches are both grounds to deny a sticker.
You are entitled to your opinion and to be as strict a grader as you wish. I don't care what you think and you should not care about what I think either. The ONLY things that matter to me here are having an informative, polite discussion with you plus a few fun barbs thrown in AND to be able to understand how folks much more knowledgeable than you or I grade a particular coin. In my opinion, the coin is an MS-63 all day long and I explained the reasons why I thought the grade was correct.
Now, let me ask you a question, and there is no incorrect answer. Which do you prefer, a gem looking coin like the 1908-S with a trace of "cabinet friction" hidden by a very light buffing so the coin has continuous hairlines over its entire surface (net graded down to AU-58) that only an experienced numismatist can see when the coin is held just right in the light OR a totally original Mint State coin with its obverse cheek showing a large detracting bagmark and a shallow narrow scratch-like line resulting in a lower value than other MS-63's for that reason. Door one or door 2. PCGS liked both of them and "straight" graded them accordingly without any input from you or any regard to your opinion. JA has made a different choice. He rejected the 1908-S. So do I.
There were no barbs. To answer your question, I would not buy either coin for my collection.
What a strange coin. It appears Ms Liberty has a goiter on her neck. The strike on an Unc. New Orleans Barber Half is far better than average. The reeding is from the mint. The apparent scar on the jaw, probably not. The sticker means that CAC is willing to buy the coin. Nothing more, nothing less. At what price and who will offer more or less for it, I have no idea.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
Technically @Insider2 is correct. But like many infer, it's the buyer that determines whether to buy or pass. We are sometimes swayed by plastic and stickers.
So basically CAC is offering $40 back of what ms64's are selling for for ms63's.
CAC'S bid for ms64's is $920 and that is for 999x pieces if you can find them.
@Insider2 said:
See the way the luster has shadows around the raised parts of the coin? It probably indicates some light hairlining and unoriginality . I think rejection just means JA won't buy it not that the grade is incorrect. Nice coin.
PS I think you should have started you own discussion as now there are different coins in the same discussion.
So light hairlines are a problem, but huge deep scratches are okay? That makes no sense. I think hairlines and scratches are both grounds to deny a sticker.
You are entitled to your opinion and to be as strict a grader as you wish. I don't care what you think and you should not care about what I think either. The ONLY things that matter to me here are having an informative, polite discussion with you plus a few fun barbs thrown in AND to be able to understand how folks much more knowledgeable than you or I grade a particular coin. In my opinion, the coin is an MS-63 all day long and I explained the reasons why I thought the grade was correct.
Now, let me ask you a question, and there is no incorrect answer. Which do you prefer, a gem looking coin like the 1908-S with a trace of "cabinet friction" hidden by a very light buffing so the coin has continuous hairlines over its entire surface (net graded down to AU-58) that only an experienced numismatist can see when the coin is held just right in the light OR a totally original Mint State coin with its obverse cheek showing a large detracting bagmark and a shallow narrow scratch-like line resulting in a lower value than other MS-63's for that reason. Door one or door 2. PCGS liked both of them and "straight" graded them accordingly without any input from you or any regard to your opinion. JA has made a different choice. He rejected the 1908-S. So do I.
There were no barbs. To answer your question, I would not buy either coin for my collection.
The "barbs" were from me ! I guess they were not sharp enough to be noticed. Good.
P.S. Are you implying that the subject coin is original? It looks to have been dipped to me.
???? Nope. Noting was implied at all. The 1907-D is original. The 1908-S is not original. This is what I posted about the 1908-S: "See the way the luster has shadows around the raised parts of the coin? It probably indicates some light hairlining and unoriginality. "
BTW, In most cases, when a professional that knows what they are doing dips a suitable coin PROPERLY, there is no way you or I can tell it was done. All we can do is guess as both of us are doing. You say dipped, I say who cares as it looks natural to me.
One serious problem I find on coin forums that is very distracting and stupid is once the OP puts a coin up for discussion, all the "I got one's" post their example in the thread. Pretty soon, folks are writing about different coins (I've been guilty of this) and missing the point being made.
This is typical!
@amwldcoin said:
I sold this one a couple of years ago.
Here is a clue, I'm here to acquire/share knowledge. I for one don't care what you sold or owned in the past. Sticking an image in the OP's thread without at least telling us its grade and who slabbed it is a big waste of space IMHO. If you are trolling for likes, I gave you one. That's two so far.
@logger7 - How else do you explain Joebb's data if there wasn't a premium for the sticker? Does anyone here really think this coin would have sold for anywhere near that amount without a sticker?
@Insider2 said:
See the way the luster has shadows around the raised parts of the coin? It probably indicates some light hairlining and unoriginality . I think rejection just means JA won't buy it not that the grade is incorrect. Nice coin.
PS I think you should have started you own discussion as now there are different coins in the same discussion.
So light hairlines are a problem, but huge deep scratches are okay? That makes no sense. I think hairlines and scratches are both grounds to deny a sticker.
You are entitled to your opinion and to be as strict a grader as you wish. I don't care what you think and you should not care about what I think either. The ONLY things that matter to me here are having an informative, polite discussion with you plus a few fun barbs thrown in AND to be able to understand how folks much more knowledgeable than you or I grade a particular coin. In my opinion, the coin is an MS-63 all day long and I explained the reasons why I thought the grade was correct.
Now, let me ask you a question, and there is no incorrect answer. Which do you prefer, a gem looking coin like the 1908-S with a trace of "cabinet friction" hidden by a very light buffing so the coin has continuous hairlines over its entire surface (net graded down to AU-58) that only an experienced numismatist can see when the coin is held just right in the light OR a totally original Mint State coin with its obverse cheek showing a large detracting bagmark and a shallow narrow scratch-like line resulting in a lower value than other MS-63's for that reason. Door one or door 2. PCGS liked both of them and "straight" graded them accordingly without any input from you or any regard to your opinion. JA has made a different choice. He rejected the 1908-S. So do I.
There were no barbs. To answer your question, I would not buy either coin for my collection.
The "barbs" were from me ! I guess they were not sharp enough to be noticed. Good.
P.S. Are you implying that the subject coin is original? It looks to have been dipped to me.
???? Nope. Noting was implied at all. The 1907-D is original. The 1908-S is not original. This is what I posted about the 1908-S: "See the way the luster has shadows around the raised parts of the coin? It probably indicates some light hairlining and unoriginality. "
BTW, In most cases, when a professional that knows what they are doing dips a suitable coin PROPERLY, there is no way you or I can tell it was done. All we can do is guess as both of us are doing. You say dipped, I say who cares as it looks natural to me.
One serious problem I find on coin forums that is very distracting and stupid is once the OP puts a coin up for discussion, all the "I got one's" post their example in the thread. Pretty soon, folks are writing about different coins (I've been guilty of this) and missing the point being made.
This is typical!
@amwldcoin said:
I sold this one a couple of years ago.
Here is a clue, I'm here to acquire/share knowledge. I for one don't care what you sold or owned in the past. Sticking an image in the OP's thread without at least telling us its grade and who slabbed it is a big waste of space IMHO. If you are trolling for likes, I gave you one. That's two so far.
@logger7 - How else do you explain Joebb's data if there wasn't a premium for the sticker? Does anyone here really think this coin would have sold for anywhere near that amount without a sticker?
That looks like around a 10% premium for the cac sticker. Plus you have the $13.50 per coin success charge, and at 40% success rate more like a $30 cost for the success. And then you have the auction fee.
LOL! @KollectorKing replied: "who cares what the Fricking grade it is. I LIKE IT a LOT. EVERYTHING ELSE IS MUMBLE JUMBLE that you're spewing here & everywhere."
I'm very sorry you feel that way. Personally, I don't appreciate thread jumpers as they often confuse the discussion. Furthermore, I care about the coin's grade. Otherwise, what is the point. Shall I post an image of the 2017-P cent I received in my change from lunch. You, me, and others might like it a lot!
Thankfully, I have found some members here have made a habit of turning uninformed "mumble jumble" into a free numismatic education for the rest of us.
PS I believe this forum has an "ignore" feature. Perhaps you should use it.
@Insider2 said:
LOL! @KollectorKing replied: "who cares what the Fricking grade it is. I LIKE IT a LOT. EVERYTHING ELSE IS MUMBLE JUMBLE that you're spewing here & everywhere."
I'm very sorry you feel that way. Personally, I don't appreciate thread jumpers as they often confuse the discussion. Furthermore, I care about the coin's grade. Otherwise, what is the point. Shall I post an image of the 2017-P cent I received in my change from lunch. You, me, and others might like it a lot!
Thankfully, I have found some members here have made a habit of turning uninformed "mumble jumble" into a free numismatic education for the rest of us.
PS I believe this forum has an "ignore" feature. Perhaps you should use it.
Dude you have a tendency to bait & trap people & I ain't gonna fall for your crap. "Take grading class, use ignore feature, trolling", etc etc etc is enough stop it. YOU ARE NOT A MODERATOR of CU.
@KollectorKing said:
As far as I know, it is not a violation of cu to post images of coins in any thread. Case close.
Yes, your case is "close." My apologies to the OP and everyone else for "hijacking" a great, and informative discussion to make a point.
I believe this member is correct, it is not a violation of cu to post images of coins in any thread. However, Since joining the Internet forums a year ago I have learned that it may be bad manners to "highjack" a thread. I have also stated that it is my belief - backed up by numerous examples in other discussions - that posting images other than the coin being discussed can be very confusing and lead to misunderstandings.
So, I'm posting this cent I got in change today. I hope you like it. However, IMO, I've just wasted your time with nonsense.
Now, in an effort to show the difference between a "mumble jumble" post or a "vanity" post rather than one that is helpful, let's add this:
IMO, this cent is Mint State "red" with full blazing luster. Unfortunately, there are many tiny carbon spots on the obverse which have an impact on its grade and eye appeal. IMO, a BU copper coin with this many spots (and no contact marks to speak of) will be limited to the MS-64 to MS-65 grade range.
@au58 said:
What about the marks through the second to last leaf in the crown?
@au58 said:
What about the marks through the second to last leaf in the crown?
This is in addition to the reeding marks, in addition to the scratch across the chin, and in addition to the scuff across the cheekbone. This coin is not only not worth 63 money, it is not a 63.
@au58 said:
What about the marks through the second to last leaf in the crown?
@au58 said:
What about the marks through the second to last leaf in the crown?
This is in addition to the reeding marks, in addition to the scratch across the chin, and in addition to the scuff across the cheekbone. This coin is not only not worth 63 money, it is not a 63.
I'll agree with you on one thing, not all MS-63's are worth MS-63 money. Of course this should be very obvious and can be said about coins in any grade. I have some TPGS MS-65's that cost me way below the '65 price. Also consider this: When the market goes up or down any reference to price is meaningless! One year someone my be paying today's MS-65 price for that coin and think they got a bargain. See my point?
As for its grade, you and all of us are certainly entitled to a PERSONAL opinion. I'm very curious about your qualifications. Nevertheless, IMO, you will never get to the "Big Show." Micro-Grading is not tolerated there. I'll value the PCGS opinion over most posters on CU. SUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCK UP. LOL
@Insider2 said:
Micro-Grading is not tolerated there.
The scratch covers a large portion of the coin and jumps out immediately. The reeding mark isn't inconsequential either, nor are the other marks. How is that micro grading? It certainly sounds like macro grading to me.
I’m late to this party, and I haven’t read any replies. But I gotta say I don’t see why that couldn’t 63-green bean. Have you seen the glut of marked up Barbers in 64 and 65 slabs?
Don't be silly, you are a better "foil" than that. Both marks you mention were discussed long ago in this thread. ALL here (that includes me, ikzelf, en ik*) said they were very distracting. That's why the coin is graded MS-63 (distracting marks in prime focal areas). Searching around for tiny hits that are hidden in the design is "micro-grading." It is also something that was done in the true, original "technical grading system" (not the one used at ANA in CO). None of the marks in the leaves have any effect on the commercial grade of this PCGS MS-63 graded coin!
@Insider2 said:
Don't be silly, you are a better "foil" than that. Both marks you mention were discussed long ago in this thread. ALL here (that includes me, ikzelf, en ik*) said they were very distracting. That's why the coin is graded MS-63 (distracting marks in prime focal areas). Searching around for tiny hits that are hidden in the design is "micro-grading." It is also something that was done in the true, original "technical grading system" (not the one used at ANA in CO). None of the marks in the leaves have any effect on the commercial grade of this PCGS MS-63 graded coin!
@Insider2 said:
Don't be silly, you are a better "foil" than that. Both marks you mention were discussed long ago in this thread. ALL here (that includes me, ikzelf, en ik*) said they were very distracting. That's why the coin is graded MS-63 (distracting marks in prime focal areas). Searching around for tiny hits that are hidden in the design is "micro-grading." It is also something that was done in the true, original "technical grading system" (not the one used at ANA in CO). None of the marks in the leaves have any effect on the commercial grade of this PCGS MS-63 graded coin!
@Insider2 said:
Micro-Grading is not tolerated there.
The scratch covers a large portion of the coin and jumps out immediately. The reeding mark isn't inconsequential either, nor are the other marks. How is that micro grading? It certainly sounds like macro grading to me.
Macro-grading implies grading the coin as a gestalt, which means consideration of its virtues and its faults.
The hairline scratch does not cover "a large portion of the coin". The brightness of its disruption is nowhere as distracting as that of the three reeding marks.
I personally find the goiter more distracting, "as made" notwithstanding. An eye appeal rather than technical issue.
The coin has been less-than-optimally dipped and some retoning has taken place.
I grade the coin
1) Marks = 63
2) Lustre = B-
3) Strike = A-
4) Overall appeal = B-
I don't like it very much, and neither would many serious students of the series.
It's not PQ; it's not PU. It's barely OK. It's $700 "market-acceptable", which can be translated into "enough will value it as such for that grade range". Is that cynical? Or just unromantic. AKA realistic.
The '02-S puts it to shame. As a common date, I'd buy/sell at $900/$1050. it's better than a strong majority of the 64's I (and you) see.
Am I going thru Kool-Aid withdrawal?
Nothing meta-symbolic to see here, folks. Just a run-of-the-mill 63 coin decent enough that you are "safe" at the commensurate price level. Acceptable is a continuum, not a discontinuous data point.
Spend 10 minutes in the Heritage Archives with "Barber 50c MS63". A quick comparison of 200 CAC and "all" will help with some perspective.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@cameonut2011 said: "This is what I call a wholesome MS63 (also PCGS + CAC):
Say it is not so! Look at all those hits in the leaves!
Unfortunately, I cannot think of a nice way to reply without sounding condescending.
The coin you posted is a beautiful MS-63. I'll bet if it were posted as a GTG 90% of the replies would have been 64 or 65. It is good that you are a conservative grader as most beginners should be so they stay out of trouble.
Please don't post that I just called you a novice grader as I have no idea if you know what you are doing.
Now, for the real novices here, I learned that within each coin grade there are "steps." In the case of the MS-63 grade, at the low end, there are MS-63's that just make it and sometime will be regraded as MS-62's and at the high end, there are MS-63 graded coins that may slip into the next grade up. IMO, the image posted here is a coin that is close to the top end of the MS-63 grade.
My contention is that the OP's coin is an MS-63. What the coin is worth to anybody is not what we are discussing.
Thankfully, some TPGS professionals well above my skill level agree. That is, I agree with them.
Anyway, the OP's coin is not at the bottom and not at the top of the MS-63 grade. So, your point of adding another different coin to this thread is...?
@Insider2 Instead of mumbling & jumbling us to death about your superior grading skills & observation skills, can you answer this: I wonder how this coin received a green sticker...
@KollectorKing said:
"The '02-S puts it to shame. As a common date I'd value it at $1100. it's better than a strong majority of the 64's"
I'll buy as many 02-S that look like that, in fact all pcgs graded ms63 (pop 10), at that price.
You better check coinfacts next time before you shoot yourself in the foot.
Your attitude does not well behoove you, chimp.
I have 40 years at this and quite a few years All-Pro.
So I don't think your attitude and the authoritative reference to CoinFacts qualify you for the OK Corral.
Dave Akers schooled me long before Steve Duckor and @TahoeDale, and happily both of them have schooled me too. In my 1956 Redbook, it was likely a common date, so your late-breaking news and attendant insights are useful.
By pricing it as a common date, I hoped to illustrate the true value of very PQ material relative to the "acceptable" while using the is a common date 07-O price level.
Makes one wonder whose backyard some other species' SETI probe might land on and what a powerful impact some butterfly's wings (or flapping lips) could have on the landing spot. Oh, the humanity!
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@KollectorKing said:
"The '02-S puts it to shame. As a common date I'd value it at $1100. it's better than a strong majority of the 64's"
I'll buy as many 02-S that look like that, in fact all pcgs graded ms63 (pop 10), at that price.
You better check coinfacts next time before you shoot yourself in the foot.
Your attitude does not well behoove you, chimp.
I have 40 years at this and quite a few years All-Pro.
So I don't think your attitude and the authoritative reference to CoinFacts qualify you for the OK Corral.
Dave Akers schooled me long before Steve Duckor and @TahoeDale, and happily both of them have schooled me too. In my 1956 Redbook, it was likely a common date, so your late-breaking news and attendant insights are useful.
By pricing it as a common date, I hoped to illustrate the true value of very PQ material relative to the "acceptable" while using the is a common date 07-O price level.
Make one wonder whose backyard some other species' SETI probe lands on and what a powerful impact those butterfly's wings could have for (Oh the) humanity!
lol another insider2 type of response...oh well...whatever....
@KollectorKing said:
"The '02-S puts it to shame. As a common date I'd value it at $1100. it's better than a strong majority of the 64's"
I'll buy as many 02-S that look like that, in fact all pcgs graded ms63 (pop 10), at that price.
You better check coinfacts next time before you shoot yourself in the foot.
Your attitude does not well behoove you, chimp.
I have 40 years at this and quite a few years All-Pro.
So I don't think your attitude and the authoritative reference to CoinFacts qualify you for the OK Corral.
Dave Akers schooled me long before Steve Duckor and @TahoeDale, and then happily both of them have schooled me too. In my 1956 Redbook, it was likely a common date, so your late-breaking news and attendant insights are useful.
By pricing it as a common date, I hoped to illustrate the true value of very PQ material relative to the "acceptable" while using the is a common date 07-O price level.
Make one wonder whose backyard some other species' SETI probe lands on and what a powerful impact those butterfly's wings could have for (Oh the) humanity!
lol another insider2 type of response...oh well...whatever....
@Insider2 and myself have, combined, about 80 years of very high level accumulated knowledge and function quite well as nationally-known members of our hobby's institutional memory. As irritated as I might be at your assault on my self-importance, I respond primarily to alert others that your confidence is based on ignorance sufficient to qualify you for the highest of political aspirations.
I checked with some other members of the Illuminati here on the Forum.
I am assured you ain't.
Note to @specialist - let's get together and compare notes on "expressing contempt in a patronizing manner". A couple of CAC queens should be able to come up with something a touch less junior-high than "whatever"
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
Comments
I don't understand CAC at all. I submitted this half last spring to CAC:
It was refused. I thought it was a great looking coin for a 58. I have a lot of learning to do.
See the way the luster has shadows around the raised parts of the coin? It probably indicates some light hairlining and unoriginality . I think rejection just means JA won't buy it not that the grade is incorrect. Nice coin.
PS I think you should have started you own discussion as now there are different coins in the same discussion.
So light hairlines are a problem, but huge deep scratches are okay? That makes no sense. I think hairlines and scratches are both grounds to deny a sticker.
I will say this about the OP coin. I'm not going to debate the grade....but that would be a tough coin to sell for 63 money!
"New Orleans took a pair of aged dies and smacked them together as hard as they could to produce this specimen, which shows significant orange peel luster and fascinating distortion of the peripheral stars as the metal flow of the die itself began to affect the integrity of the details. What an intriguing piece! CAC approves of the quality, but even without a loupe, a strong series of reed marks can be seen on the upper cheek." https://www.scoins.com/lot.aspx?a=12&l=923 Probably booming luster and orange peel saves it.
As for cac bringing 30-40% more than non, I disagree. It just makes the coins easier to sell.
"Take a grading class taught by a Professional TPGS grader as I suggested."
This is a great suggestion, and I mean it, with one caveat - nobody can teach me to love a coin that I think is downright ugly. I might learn what the marketplace thinks is attractive, but that won't change my taste one iota. I wouldn't own the coin in question because I couldn't take my eyes off the reeding mark. Many collectors feel this way about scratches, fingerprints, etc. and no amount of education by experts can change that. No statistics to back this up, but I expect that there are enough collectors who have similar taste as I that the value/marketability of such a coin is limited to a significant extent, enough to also make it a "bad buy" if one cares at all about liquidity.
I have 0 problem with the OP's coin in ms63. I definitely consider the coin to be PQ. Is it PQ that its borderline ms64? I would say no because the obvious reed marks and album slide marks. Keep in mind that we are looking at a picture that is 50x the size of the actual coin and really brings out the marks.
@JeffMTampa from the pictures alone, I would not sticker your coin as it does not look original to me and dipped out.
I would say that if submitted 100x it would come back at least au58 every single time. But CAC? dont think so
You are entitled to your opinion and to be as strict a grader as you wish. I don't care what you think and you should not care about what I think either. The ONLY things that matter to me here are having an informative, polite discussion with you plus a few fun barbs thrown in AND to be able to understand how folks much more knowledgeable than you or I grade a particular coin. In my opinion, the coin is an MS-63 all day long and I explained the reasons why I thought the grade was correct.
Now, let me ask you a question, and there is no incorrect answer. Which do you prefer, a gem looking coin like the 1908-S with a trace of "cabinet friction" hidden by a very light buffing so the coin has continuous hairlines over its entire surface (net graded down to AU-58) that only an experienced numismatist can see when the coin is held just right in the light OR a totally original Mint State coin with its obverse cheek showing a large detracting bagmark and a shallow narrow scratch-like line resulting in a lower value than other MS-63's for that reason. Door one or door 2. PCGS liked both of them and "straight" graded them accordingly without any input from you or any regard to your opinion. JA has made a different choice. He rejected the 1908-S. So do I.
It would be very easy to sell for 63 money, hit JA's bid on Coinplex.
Latin American Collection
BRAVO and well stated - THIS POSTER "GET'S IT!"
There were no barbs. To answer your question, I would not buy either coin for my collection.
@Insider2
P.S. Are you implying that the subject coin is original? It looks to have been dipped to me.
and hot lips too?
What a strange coin. It appears Ms Liberty has a goiter on her neck. The strike on an Unc. New Orleans Barber Half is far better than average. The reeding is from the mint. The apparent scar on the jaw, probably not. The sticker means that CAC is willing to buy the coin. Nothing more, nothing less. At what price and who will offer more or less for it, I have no idea.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
And what would his bid be? If he's a wholesaler then he would be paying less than wholesale for it? Correct???
I sold this one a couple of years ago.
Technically @Insider2 is correct. But like many infer, it's the buyer that determines whether to buy or pass. We are sometimes swayed by plastic and stickers.
Anyone have the CAC wholesale bid for the OP coin @joebb21 maybe?
Latin American Collection
The OP's coin sold for $834 all in.
CAC bid right now is $740 for ms63's (CAC's bid is for 500x coins at $740 each)
Heritage just sold a pcgs ms64 no sticker for $780 https://coins.ha.com/itm/barber-half-dollars/1907-o-50c-ms64-pcgs-pcgs-population-46-21-ngc-census-44-24-cdn-900-whsle-bid-for-problem-free-ngc-pcgs-ms64-m/a/1261-19726.s?type=surl-1261--19726&short=1261*19726
So basically CAC is offering $40 back of what ms64's are selling for for ms63's.
CAC'S bid for ms64's is $920 and that is for 999x pieces if you can find them.
The "barbs" were from me
! I guess they were not sharp enough to be noticed. Good. 
???? Nope. Noting was implied at all. The 1907-D is original. The 1908-S is not original. This is what I posted about the 1908-S: "See the way the luster has shadows around the raised parts of the coin? It probably indicates some light hairlining and unoriginality. "
BTW, In most cases, when a professional that knows what they are doing dips a suitable coin PROPERLY, there is no way you or I can tell it was done. All we can do is guess as both of us are doing. You say dipped, I say who cares as it looks natural to me.
One serious problem I find on coin forums that is very distracting and stupid is once the OP puts a coin up for discussion, all the "I got one's" post their example in the thread. Pretty soon, folks are writing about different coins (I've been guilty of this) and missing the point being made.
This is typical!
Here is a clue, I'm here to acquire/share knowledge. I for one don't care what you sold or owned in the past. Sticking an image in the OP's thread without at least telling us its grade and who slabbed it is a big waste of space IMHO. If you are trolling for likes, I gave you one. That's two so far.
@logger7 - How else do you explain Joebb's data if there wasn't a premium for the sticker? Does anyone here really think this coin would have sold for anywhere near that amount without a sticker?
OK, @KollectorKing
You just gave me a "disagree" (Thank you
). Now, kindly back it up. What is the grade of this coin that was "vanity posted" with no information:
Cheese it guys! The Internet Police has found us!!!
Here ya go! I figure most would know what the grade was!
That looks like around a 10% premium for the cac sticker. Plus you have the $13.50 per coin success charge, and at 40% success rate more like a $30 cost for the success. And then you have the auction fee.
LOL! @KollectorKing replied: "who cares what the Fricking grade it is. I LIKE IT a LOT. EVERYTHING ELSE IS MUMBLE JUMBLE that you're spewing here & everywhere."
I'm very sorry you feel that way. Personally, I don't appreciate thread jumpers as they often confuse the discussion. Furthermore, I care about the coin's grade. Otherwise, what is the point. Shall I post an image of the 2017-P cent I received in my change from lunch. You, me, and others might like it a lot!
Thankfully, I have found some members here have made a habit of turning uninformed "mumble jumble" into a free numismatic education for the rest of us.
PS I believe this forum has an "ignore" feature. Perhaps you should use it.
Dude you have a tendency to bait & trap people & I ain't gonna fall for your crap. "Take grading class, use ignore feature, trolling", etc etc etc is enough stop it. YOU ARE NOT A MODERATOR of CU.
As far as I know, it is not a violation of cu to post images of coins in any thread. Case close.
LOL. I may not even be a "dude."
Bait....me
Yes, your case is "close." My apologies to the OP and everyone else for "hijacking" a great, and informative discussion to make a point.
I believe this member is correct, it is not a violation of cu to post images of coins in any thread. However, Since joining the Internet forums a year ago I have learned that it may be bad manners to "highjack" a thread. I have also stated that it is my belief - backed up by numerous examples in other discussions - that posting images other than the coin being discussed can be very confusing and lead to misunderstandings.
So, I'm posting this cent I got in change today. I hope you like it. However, IMO, I've just wasted your time with nonsense.
Now, in an effort to show the difference between a "mumble jumble" post or a "vanity" post rather than one that is helpful, let's add this:
IMO, this cent is Mint State "red" with full blazing luster. Unfortunately, there are many tiny carbon spots on the obverse which have an impact on its grade and eye appeal. IMO, a BU copper coin with this many spots (and no contact marks to speak of) will be limited to the MS-64 to MS-65 grade range.
See the difference?
I certainly don't like the coin and would not be interested in it. But that is me...I look at the coin and not the sticker.
But what do I know.
Flagged as self-abuse, though I'm not quite sure why.
This is in addition to the reeding marks, in addition to the scratch across the chin, and in addition to the scuff across the cheekbone. This coin is not only not worth 63 money, it is not a 63.
I'll agree with you on one thing, not all MS-63's are worth MS-63 money. Of course this should be very obvious and can be said about coins in any grade. I have some TPGS MS-65's that cost me way below the '65 price. Also consider this: When the market goes up or down any reference to price is meaningless! One year someone my be paying today's MS-65 price for that coin and think they got a bargain. See my point?
As for its grade, you and all of us are certainly entitled to a PERSONAL opinion. I'm very curious about your qualifications. Nevertheless, IMO, you will never get to the "Big Show." Micro-Grading is not tolerated there. I'll value the PCGS opinion over most posters on CU. SUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCK UP. LOL
The scratch covers a large portion of the coin and jumps out immediately. The reeding mark isn't inconsequential either, nor are the other marks. How is that micro grading? It certainly sounds like macro grading to me.
I’m late to this party, and I haven’t read any replies. But I gotta say I don’t see why that couldn’t 63-green bean. Have you seen the glut of marked up Barbers in 64 and 65 slabs?
Don't be silly, you are a better "foil" than that. Both marks you mention were discussed long ago in this thread. ALL here (that includes me, ikzelf, en ik*) said they were very distracting. That's why the coin is graded MS-63 (distracting marks in prime focal areas). Searching around for tiny hits that are hidden in the design is "micro-grading." It is also something that was done in the true, original "technical grading system" (not the one used at ANA in CO). None of the marks in the leaves have any effect on the commercial grade of this PCGS MS-63 graded coin!
This is what I call a wholesome MS63 (also PCGS + CAC):
*The images were borrowed from a dealer listing.
Wow. That 02-S has a hammered strike.
Very nice
Bet if I took a picture of it it would show the same busyiness as the 07-D I posted above!
Edit to add...If not more!
Macro-grading implies grading the coin as a gestalt, which means consideration of its virtues and its faults.
The hairline scratch does not cover "a large portion of the coin". The brightness of its disruption is nowhere as distracting as that of the three reeding marks.
I personally find the goiter more distracting, "as made" notwithstanding. An eye appeal rather than technical issue.
The coin has been less-than-optimally dipped and some retoning has taken place.
I grade the coin
1) Marks = 63
2) Lustre = B-
3) Strike = A-
4) Overall appeal = B-
I don't like it very much, and neither would many serious students of the series.
It's not PQ; it's not PU. It's barely OK. It's $700 "market-acceptable", which can be translated into "enough will value it as such for that grade range". Is that cynical? Or just unromantic. AKA realistic.
The '02-S puts it to shame. As a common date, I'd buy/sell at $900/$1050. it's better than a strong majority of the 64's I (and you) see.
Am I going thru Kool-Aid withdrawal?
Nothing meta-symbolic to see here, folks. Just a run-of-the-mill 63 coin decent enough that you are "safe" at the commensurate price level. Acceptable is a continuum, not a discontinuous data point.
Spend 10 minutes in the Heritage Archives with "Barber 50c MS63". A quick comparison of 200 CAC and "all" will help with some perspective.
"The '02-S puts it to shame. As a common date I'd value it at $1100. it's better than a strong majority of the 64's"
I'll buy as many 02-S that look like that, in fact all pcgs graded ms63 (pop 10), at that price.
You better check coinfacts next time before you shoot yourself in the foot.
@cameonut2011 said: "This is what I call a wholesome MS63 (also PCGS + CAC):
Say it is not so! Look at all those hits in the leaves!
Unfortunately, I cannot think of a nice way to reply without sounding condescending.
The coin you posted is a beautiful MS-63. I'll bet if it were posted as a GTG 90% of the replies would have been 64 or 65. It is good that you are a conservative grader as most beginners should be so they stay out of trouble.
Please don't post that I just called you a novice grader as I have no idea if you know what you are doing.
Now, for the real novices here, I learned that within each coin grade there are "steps." In the case of the MS-63 grade, at the low end, there are MS-63's that just make it and sometime will be regraded as MS-62's and at the high end, there are MS-63 graded coins that may slip into the next grade up. IMO, the image posted here is a coin that is close to the top end of the MS-63 grade.
My contention is that the OP's coin is an MS-63. What the coin is worth to anybody is not what we are discussing.
Thankfully, some TPGS professionals well above my skill level agree. That is, I agree with them.
Anyway, the OP's coin is not at the bottom and not at the top of the MS-63 grade. So, your point of adding another different coin to this thread is...?
@Insider2 Instead of mumbling & jumbling us to death about your superior grading skills & observation skills, can you answer this: I wonder how this coin received a green sticker...
In less than 50 words?
Your attitude does not well behoove you, chimp.
I have 40 years at this and quite a few years All-Pro.
So I don't think your attitude and the authoritative reference to CoinFacts qualify you for the OK Corral.
Dave Akers schooled me long before Steve Duckor and @TahoeDale, and happily both of them have schooled me too. In my 1956 Redbook, it was likely a common date, so your late-breaking news and attendant insights are useful.
By pricing it as a common date, I hoped to illustrate the true value of very PQ material relative to the "acceptable" while using the is a common date 07-O price level.
Makes one wonder whose backyard some other species' SETI probe might land on and what a powerful impact some butterfly's wings (or flapping lips) could have on the landing spot. Oh, the humanity!
lol another insider2 type of response...oh well...whatever....
@Insider2 and myself have, combined, about 80 years of very high level accumulated knowledge and function quite well as nationally-known members of our hobby's institutional memory. As irritated as I might be at your assault on my self-importance, I respond primarily to alert others that your confidence is based on ignorance sufficient to qualify you for the highest of political aspirations.
I checked with some other members of the Illuminati here on the Forum.
I am assured you ain't.
Note to @specialist - let's get together and compare notes on "expressing contempt in a patronizing manner". A couple of CAC queens should be able to come up with something a touch less junior-high than "whatever"