Options
Guess the grade and CAC status.
Lucanus
Posts: 424 ✭✭✭
3
Lucanus
Posts: 424 ✭✭✭
Comments
Ms-67 and cac
Ms-66 cac
67
I'll be a bit different...
MS-65 Gold CAC (and well deserving of the Gold)
66 CAC
Must be feeling conservative, after looking at the other answers. Or maybe I just cant grade Washies worth a darn!
My Guess 66 no CAC
I see your trick question.....the grade would determine the likely CAC status. 🙂
AU58 stickered?
MS65.... CAC... Cheers, RickO
I agree with Broadstruck, looks like rub on the high points so 58. As to CAC, depends on the grade and alot of other factors that are hard to tell from the images, best to see in hand.
Best, SH
66 and gold.
63 and green cac
or
64 and no cac
Yes, this was my other guess(that I did not go with)
First impression was 58 or 58+ with a CAC.
Tom
Here is a tip which can (sometimes) be helpful, when trying to determine if a coin which looks as if it might have a trace of rub is actually an AU or an unc. example...Look at other areas of the coin, such as the rims and fields, to see if they also offer hints of circulation. Look for hairlines, circulation(?) marks, interruptions of luster in the fields, etc.
Even though I can understand the basis of the AU guesses, my guess is that the coin in this thread grades approximately MS66. It looks super clean and I’m guessing the luster is better in hand. Additionally, it lacks the other telltale signs of circulation which I mentioned above. My tip is by no means, foolproof, but I believe it can assist in many instances. And that’s regardless of what the assigned grade turns out to be for this coin.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Looks like a 65 to me. No guess on cac.
66 CAC.
MS66... to CAC or not to CAC... that is the question
I was going to say 67 but I’m guessing 66 CAC gold
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-major-sets/washington-quarters-date-set-circulation-strikes-1932-present/publishedset/209923
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-major-sets/washington-quarters-date-set-circulation-strikes-1932-present/album/209923
66
65
no bean.
MS65 CAC
My YouTube Channel
Eagles breast and hair are a bit smooth. 63+ gold cac
[Ebay Store - Come Visit]
Roosevelt Registry
transactions with cucamongacoin, FHC, mtinis, bigjpst, Rob41281, toyz4geo, erwindoc, add your name here!!!
I'm not convinced the Eagles legs don't show circulation. I'd go AU 58 with a CAC green bean.
Quite a wide range of guesses from AU58-MS67! I thought this would be interesting.
This coin reminds me of David Ferrie's line in the movie JFK, "It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma."
Kudos to jtlee321 for the only correct guess. Also, my compliments to washingtonrainbows for his astute observations
concerning PCGS vs CAC consistency for evaluating Washington quarters.
When I purchased this coin from NE Numismatics in May 2015, I thought the coin was under-graded as MS65. The coin
has remarkably clean surfaces, and looked nicer than most of the MS66 Washington quarters in my collection. I subsequently sent the coin to CAC where it didn't pass. Recently I cracked out the coin, dipped it, and sent it back to
PCGS for another look. Unbelievably, it was again graded MS65! Amazed at their conservative consistency, I sent the
coin back to CAC for another look. The coin is now MS65 gold CAC!?!?
Doug
I also think it should 66.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
If I understand your post correctly, I think the posters who guessed 65 non-CAC were the ones who guessed correctly. After all, guesses were made based upon the images of the coin before it was dipped, resubmitted and sent back to CAC.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Nice looking coin but IMO, it's a good example of gradeflation. Appears CAC isn't immune either.
Apparently, PCGS thought that the coin deserved a 65, both before and after it was dipped. And CAC felt that it deserved a higher grade after it was dipped. I don’t see how that says anything about the consistency (or lack thereof) of either company.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Wow!!
A) I cannot imagine that dipping that coin changed its appearance very much other than perhaps artificially brightening it up a bit, so the the coin receiving the same grade upon resubmission to PCGS again isn't overly surprising.
c) Didn't I just read in a recently deleted CAC thread where tradedollarnut offered the advice that if your coin failed at CAC that you should seriously ask yourself if that's a coin you really want to keep in your collection? Well apparently the answer would be.....yes!! Just dip and resubmit, as anything can happen!
d) IMO it's examples like this and many, many, many, many, many others that clearly show that CAC nor any other service that offers their 'opinion' for a fee is the last word on anything, and that opinions can and do change like the weather in this hobby. This is another good thread for those who incorrectly believe or fall for the hype that the opinion of any one individual is the last word on any coins grade or value.
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
I was thinking MS65 CAC, but not gold CAC. It's an interesting scenario that proves you never know, and that you can send a coin to CAC more than once with different outcomes on different days.
1TwoBits
I would want to see what the coin looked like in hand, both pre-dip and post-dip, before reaching any conclusions regarding the consistency of those who assessed it. And even then, I’d just be offering one additional opinion.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Your level of ‘sour grapes’ is a bit ridiculous. You know we’re talking about a voluntary, luxury hobby, right?
Please don't confuse stating facts and showing things for what they are as sour grapes, as I have no bones to pick with that company and wouldn't know anyone at cac if they were standing right next to me.. I actually find those who seem to worship the cac service as well as those who would have us believe any coin that doesn't meet their standards is basically low end or doctored junk a bit ridiculous.
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
i didn't read the whole thread, but i think that is a nice looking quarter!
Are there post-dip pics for comparison?
Here are the post-dip photos.
I actually liked the originality of the coin before dipping. Just thought I'd experiment with this coin because I felt it
was under-graded.
Doug
>
Facts or opinions? Every grading company makes mistakes or seemingly questionable determinations. CAC is not unique with that regard. Do you really believe you have found the smoking gun examples from CAC graded coins that will support your apparent agenda and will somehow contradict a nearly decade long market influencing business? You write ‘oh but nothing personal’ on the heels of ‘...waiting to kiss JA’s pinky ring’. That sounds pretty personal to me.
Why the attack on someone you said you don’t know (JA) or to collectors who subscribe to the value of CAC?
Based on the post-dip images, I reiterate my previous comment:
“Apparently, PCGS thought that the coin deserved a 65, both before and after it was dipped. And CAC felt that it deserved a higher grade after it was dipped. I don’t see how that says anything about the consistency (or lack thereof) of either company.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I personally like the post-dipped look of this Washington Quarter. It's luster is really popping now. I agree that it was undergraded the first time and is still undergraded as an MS-65. I see nothing in the images before or after that would cause me to agree with MS-65. I agree with CAC as I mentioned in my first post with regards to the Gold CAC. I'm not sure what they saw the first time around to prevent even a green CAC other than possible PVC residue that we could not detect from the images (which would fail a coin instantly at CAC). This time around it received what it deserved, at least from CAC. I believe it's a 67 and should have graded that way.
If you're seeking out those with an agenda you're barking up the wrong tree with me I'm afraid. Look to those here on the forum who are consistently pushing their cac nonsense and trying to instill on others and plant the seeds of insecurity and doubt again and again that any coin that doesn't 'pass muster' at cac is somehow undesirable, a problem coin, low end for the grade, or otherwise inferior to a coin with a sticker, and I've seen so many examples of inconsistency at cac over the years that I believe NOTHING could be further from the truth IMO.
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
What part of "the coin was dipped then re-submitted to PCGS and then again to CAC " did you miss. It's like sending in a whole new coin.
I don't know about Washington Quarters, but I definitely agree that CAC does some series better/different than others.
What part of: basically the same untoned quarter that graded the exact same MS65 at PCGS went fron no sticker to gold sticker at CAC did you miss?
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.