When CAC is a "must" for a coin graded Good-4

Gazes · July 25, 2020 7:37AM

Rarely would a cac sticker mean anything on a well worn coin graded G-4. But in the upcoming Heritage auction there is a 1841 liberty quarter eagle graded pcgs PR-4 cac. For me that sticker means alot. There is much dispute whether all 1841s are proof or not. The fact that JA agrees with the proof designation i think is tremendously important. Further, when buying a rarity of this caliber that is heavily worn it is nice to have some assurance that the coin has not been messed with. This will be an expensive coin and the extra set of eyes is a big plus. Normally a CAC sticker on such a low graded coin means nothing to me but on this coin it is crucial.

Smudge · July 25, 2020 7:56AM

4 survivors in all grades, I would think it is pretty important.

roadrunner · July 25, 2020 7:57AM

I don't think CAC is necessarily standing behind this coin being orig of Proof manufacture rather than as an authentic 1841 little princess. Because it probably doesn't matter a ton (at least to me) if it's MS-04 or PR-04. It's a major rarity and therefore doesn't really have a well-defined price guide at any point in time....except following a precise transaction where the price is known. CAC calling this either a GD-04 or PR-04 doesn't really like them in on any particular market pricing.

If this is a PR-04, it apparently still shows up under the circ/MS pop reports as an MS/GD-04. Why so? If this difference were that critical why not put this coin under the Proof population report? Though if one were technically building a business strike set - you need a non-proof. And same if you're building a proof only set.

PCGS shows 2 specimens under the proof reporting and 10 under the circ/MS reporting. At first look one would think that the proofs are 5X scarcer. Yet if this Good-04 is a proof, how many others listed as circs in the MS pop side are also proofs. What's the real split in pops? Interesting topic though.

A CAC sticker on a G04 coin also means a LOT if it's a 1794 or 1796/97 half dollar for example. Or an 1878-s half dollar. There are hundreds if not thousands of great coins out there in G04 condition where a CAC sticker is probably very important in gauging desirability and pricing.

scubafuel · July 25, 2020 7:58AM

Nobody can tell if a G4 coin was struck in proof format. All the proofiness has been removed.

roadrunner · July 25, 2020 8:06AM

@scubafuel said:
Nobody can tell if a G4 coin was struck in proof format. All the proofiness has been removed.

Very sharp and square reeding and denticles (and possibly stars) for the Good grade could give a proof away....assuming those were struck exceptionally sharp and deep to being with. The proof surfaces and interior head and eagle details are mostly gone though. But I wouldn't say all "proofiness" is necessarily gone. All of this debatable though.

The lone low grade circ (Good) 1894-s dime is almost certainly an ex-proof/specimen strike. It doesn't show up on the PCGS proof pop report though. Is that in an NGC holder currently?

coinkat · July 25, 2020 12:58PM

Never

Jimnight · July 25, 2020 1:03PM

Personally ... I think it is a BIG deal.

Gazes · July 25, 2020 1:16PM

@roadrunner said:
I don't think CAC is necessarily standing behind this coin being orig of Proof manufacture rather than as an authentic 1841 little princess. Because it probably doesn't matter a ton (at least to me) if it's MS-04 or PR-04. It's a major rarity and therefore doesn't really have a well-defined price guide at any point in time....except following a precise transaction where the price is known. CAC calling this either a GD-04 or PR-04 doesn't really like them in on any particular market pricing.

If this is a PR-04, it apparently still shows up under the circ/MS pop reports as an MS/GD-04. Why so? If this difference were that critical why not put this coin under the Proof population report? Though if one were technically building a business strike set - you need a non-proof. And same if you're building a proof only set.

PCGS shows 2 specimens under the proof reporting and 10 under the circ/MS reporting. At first look one would think that the proofs are 5X scarcer. Yet if this Good-04 is a proof, how many others listed as circs in the MS pop side are also proofs. What's the real split in pops? Interesting topic though.

A CAC sticker on a G04 coin also means a LOT if it's a 1794 or 1796/97 half dollar for example. Or an 1878-s half dollar. There are hundreds if not thousands of great coins out there in G04 condition where a CAC sticker is probably very important in gauging desirability and pricing.

Curious why you think CAC may not be "standing behind" this coin as proof? CAC stickers coins solid for the grade. The grade is proof 4. I dont know why they would sticker it if CAC did not think it was proof?

abcde12345 · July 25, 2020 1:29PM

@Gazes said:

Curious why you think CAC may not be "standing behind" this coin as proof? CAC stickers coins solid for the grade. The grade is proof 4. I dont know why they would sticker it if CAC did not think it was proof?

They wouldn't. To think otherwise is incredibly naive.

MFeld · July 25, 2020 2:44PM

@abcde12345 said:

@Gazes said:

Curious why you think CAC may not be "standing behind" this coin as proof? CAC stickers coins solid for the grade. The grade is proof 4. I dont know why they would sticker it if CAC did not think it was proof?

They wouldn't. To think otherwise is incredibly naive.

Then you can call me “incredibly naive”. Experts disagree as to whether business strikes were even produced. And it’s unlikely that anyone can determine this particular coin’s method of manufacture. So, under the circumstances, as long as it meets CAC’s standards, I doubt that they’re concerned with the attribution on the grading label.

Gazes · July 25, 2020 3:10PM

@MFeld said:

@abcde12345 said:

@Gazes said:

Curious why you think CAC may not be "standing behind" this coin as proof? CAC stickers coins solid for the grade. The grade is proof 4. I dont know why they would sticker it if CAC did not think it was proof?

They wouldn't. To think otherwise is incredibly naive.

Then you can call me “incredibly naive”. Experts disagree as to whether business strikes were even produced. And it’s unlikely that anyone can determine this particular coin’s method of manufacture. So, under the circumstances, as long as it meets CAC’s standards, I doubt that they’re concerned with the attribution on the grading label.

So that begs the question, assuming you are correct and CAC was unsure if the coin was proof---why give it a sticker? There are 14-18 known 1841 QEs. Only 2 have been stickered with this coin being one of them. If CAC was uncertain whether it was proof or not it could easily have not stickered the coin.

MFeld · July 25, 2020 3:17PM

@Gazes said:

@MFeld said:

@abcde12345 said:

@Gazes said:

Curious why you think CAC may not be "standing behind" this coin as proof? CAC stickers coins solid for the grade. The grade is proof 4. I dont know why they would sticker it if CAC did not think it was proof?

They wouldn't. To think otherwise is incredibly naive.

Then you can call me “incredibly naive”. Experts disagree as to whether business strikes were even produced. And it’s unlikely that anyone can determine this particular coin’s method of manufacture. So, under the circumstances, as long as it meets CAC’s standards, I doubt that they’re concerned with the attribution on the grading label.

So that begs the question, assuming you are correct and CAC was unsure if the coin was proof---why give it a sticker? There are 14-18 known 1841 QEs. Only 2 have been stickered with this coin being one of them. If CAC was uncertain whether it was proof or not it could easily have not stickered the coin.

I’m only guessing here...Perhaps they think (but don’t know whether) it’s a proof and that all things considered, in this case, it doesn’t really make a difference. It’s hard to imagine that anyone could have a problem with the attribution.

abcde12345 · July 25, 2020 4:57PM

@MFeld said:

@Gazes said:

@MFeld said:

@abcde12345 said:

@Gazes said:

I’m only guessing here...Perhaps they think (but don’t know whether) it’s a proof and that all things considered, in this case, it doesn’t really make a difference. It’s hard to imagine that anyone could have a problem with the attribution.

Thank you for admitting you're only guessing. That makes discussing this topic with you easier.
There would be no upside for CAC to simply place a sticker on a coin it isn't sure warrants the attribution or not (proof vs business strike).
I simply don't believe CAC (or PCGS for that matter) is in the business of offering speculation.

MFeld · July 25, 2020 5:03PM

@abcde12345 said:

@MFeld said:

@Gazes said:

@MFeld said:

@abcde12345 said:

@Gazes said:

I’m only guessing here...Perhaps they think (but don’t know whether) it’s a proof and that all things considered, in this case, it doesn’t really make a difference. It’s hard to imagine that anyone could have a problem with the attribution.

Thank you for admitting you're only guessing. That makes discussing this topic with you easier.
There would be no upside for CAC to simply place a sticker on a coin it isn't sure warrants the attribution or not (proof vs business strike).
I simply don't believe CAC (or PCGS for that matter) is in the business of offering speculation.

With respect to this particular coin’s attribution, please explain how PCGS, CAC or anyone else could do anything other than speculate? Should PCGS have opted not to encapsulate it? After all, what would the upside be?

WinLoseWin · July 25, 2020 5:27PM

Maybe CAC's view is that they all were issued as Proofs. But I don't know if that's their view or not.

Even if there were both Proof and business strikes, they were both from the same dies with no way to distinguish the difference at that grade level.

So it seems possible that CAC is just agreeing with the wear level rather than verifying the method of manufacture, which is still "not unanimous among numismatic experts" as stated on PCGS CoinFacts.

Also, I think that style of holder was issued before the policy change by PCGS that occured in 2012 per CoinFacts. So all certified before then would say Proof.

https://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-quarter-eagles/quarter-eagles/1841-2-1-2-pr4-pcgs-cac-jd-1-high-r6-pcgs-7867-/a/1318-3967.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

Zoins · July 25, 2020 5:56PM

Has JA ever made a statement on assessing proof designation?

I wouldn’t assume CAC is making an evaluation on the proof designation unless it’s on the CAC website as saying so. They could just be assessing numerical grade.

MFeld · July 25, 2020 6:08PM

@Zoins said:
Has JA ever made a statement on assessing proof designation?

I wouldn’t assume CAC is making an evaluation on the proof designation unless it’s on the CAC website as saying so. They could just be assessing numerical grade.

If you’re speaking about coins in general, if CAC disagrees with a designation, I’m quite confident that they won’t sticker the coin. Think about all of the coins they bid on/buy. In many cases, it would be extremely costly to sticker coins without regard to their attribution.

Zoins · July 25, 2020 6:11PM

@MFeld said:

@Zoins said:
Has JA ever made a statement on assessing proof designation?

I wouldn’t assume CAC is making an evaluation on the proof designation unless it’s on the CAC website as saying so. They could just be assessing numerical grade.

If you’re speaking about coins in general, if CAC disagrees with a designation, I’m quite confident that they won’t sticker the coin.

Then why wouldn't the OP's assertion that CAC is agreeing with the designation hold?

roadrunner · July 25, 2020 6:14PM

@abcde12345 said:

@MFeld said:

@Gazes said:

@MFeld said:

@abcde12345 said:

@Gazes said:

I’m only guessing here...Perhaps they think (but don’t know whether) it’s a proof and that all things considered, in this case, it doesn’t really make a difference. It’s hard to imagine that anyone could have a problem with the attribution.

Thank you for admitting you're only guessing. That makes discussing this topic with you easier.
There would be no upside for CAC to simply place a sticker on a coin it isn't sure warrants the attribution or not (proof vs business strike).
I simply don't believe CAC (or PCGS for that matter) is in the business of offering speculation.

PCGS is in the business of evaluating/market pricing their coins. CAC is in the business of identifying coins that are properly graded and to be added to their potential "buy" list. As long as they accomplish that, they often "speculate" on the grade. Plenty of coins get misattributed along the way and go back for a revision. They obviously speculate a bit on the grade considering how many coins change grade in a short period of time. In short, CAC stickers a coin they would like to buy or make an offer on.....it often doesn't matter what their current label/sticker says. The particulars of business strike Good 04 vs Proof -04 for this particular coin are sort of secondary.

MFeld · July 25, 2020 6:18PM

@Zoins said:

@MFeld said:

@Zoins said:
Has JA ever made a statement on assessing proof designation?

I wouldn’t assume CAC is making an evaluation on the proof designation unless it’s on the CAC website as saying so. They could just be assessing numerical grade.

If you’re speaking about coins in general, if CAC disagrees with a designation, I’m quite confident that they won’t sticker the coin.

Then why wouldn't the OP's assertion that CAC is agreeing with the designation hold?

It might hold. But if not, it could be because obviously, this coin is an exceptionally rare exception with respect to its undetermined method of manufacture.

MFeld · July 25, 2020 7:21PM

@Zoins said:
Has JA ever made a statement on assessing proof designation?

I wouldn’t assume CAC is making an evaluation on the proof designation unless it’s on the CAC website as saying so. They could just be assessing numerical grade.

The same has been speculated here regarding designations, such as FH on Standing Liberty quarters, full bands on Mercury dimes, etc. And when asked about it, not surprisingly, CAC has stated that they assess designations, in addition to numerical grades.

Zoins · July 25, 2020 7:24PM

@MFeld said:

@Zoins said:
Has JA ever made a statement on assessing proof designation?

I wouldn’t assume CAC is making an evaluation on the proof designation unless it’s on the CAC website as saying so. They could just be assessing numerical grade.

The same has been speculated here regarding designations, such as FH on Standing Liberty quarters, full bands on Mercury dimes, etc. And when asked about it, not surprisingly, CAC has stated that they assess designations, in addition to numerical grades.

If JA has said they assess proof designation, I would assume they assessed the proof designation and it’s good enough for them to agree.

Is the plus and star the only things they don’t assess?

MFeld · July 25, 2020 7:45PM

@Zoins said:

@MFeld said:

@Zoins said:
Has JA ever made a statement on assessing proof designation?

I wouldn’t assume CAC is making an evaluation on the proof designation unless it’s on the CAC website as saying so. They could just be assessing numerical grade.

The same has been speculated here regarding designations, such as FH on Standing Liberty quarters, full bands on Mercury dimes, etc. And when asked about it, not surprisingly, CAC has stated that they assess designations, in addition to numerical grades.

If JA has said they assess proof designation, I would assume they assessed the proof designation and it’s good enough for them to agree.

Is the plus and star the only things they don’t assess?

Off the top of my head, to my knowledge, that’s correct.

TwoSides2aCoin · July 25, 2020 7:47PM

So it's good with a sticker and it's good without one. And for the sake of argument, I'd say it's about good.

Coin Finder · July 25, 2020 10:05PM

Some coin guys sure like to argue.. I like that coin with the sticker, I would feel better about it because another set of eyes, good eyes liked it too.... Not sure I need to deep dive into it...

oreville · July 26, 2020 2:58AM

Why don't we simply ask JA?

He might actually think it is a legitimate thought provoking question?

keets · July 26, 2020 3:30AM

When CAC is a "must" for a coin graded Good-4.

let me be the voice of the contrarian and say that CAC is never a "must" for any coin.

oreville · July 26, 2020 3:36AM

I realized that this is not exactly or even close to what the OP wanted to discuss but his thread brings up another issue regarding CAC stickering policy.

i bought a 1916-D PCGS OGH G-04 mercury dime on the floor of the 2010 Boston ANA show.

It caught my eye as an undergraded wonderful coin for the assigned grade.

After I bought it for a strong but acceptable price, I showed it to a few friends and dealers.

Laura Sperber of Legend Numismatics was spot on when she called it a Gem Good.

I had never heard that phrase before or since.

I submitted it to CAC and it came back with a green sticker not the gold sticker I was expecting.

I immediately appealed to CAC as to the assignment of the green vs the gold sticker.

My argument was that it should be a G-06 grade not a G-04 grade.

JA's position was that he agreed with the G-06 grade but that it was still a Good grade and that it should not have received a gold sticker simply because of a numeric grade differential within the overall Good grade. .

I retorted (nicely) that In Mint State grades MS-60 to MS-69, a numeric grade differential could earn a gold sticker even though the coin is still MS so why not Good?

He thought about it and agreed with my argument.

It received a gold sticker.

It is still the only mercury dime in G-04 to receive a gold sticker and only 1 of 2 1916-D mercury dimes to receive a gold sticker... the other one an AU-50.

My point is......if you have an lower AU graded coin or a lower graded MS coin that you swear should have gotten a gold sticker, it does not hurt to double check with CAC on gold vs green stickering.

Unknown · July 26, 2020 6:00AM

This content has been removed.

oih82w8 · July 26, 2020 8:27AM

Where are the images? I would think that images would be a MUST for a thread of this coin subject!

CoinJunkie · July 26, 2020 8:43AM

@oih82w8 said:
Where are the images? I would think that images would be a MUST for a thread of this coin subject!

There's a Heritage link toward the top of the thread.

Greeniejr · July 26, 2020 12:15PM

For what its worth, there are coins of debatable designation that he will sticker. For instance, PCGS does not recognize Proof 1907 High Relief Saints. NGC Does. CAC will sticker them with the proof designation. PCGS has a very valid reason for not designating them proof. NGC has a valid reason to designate it. It would be an interesting question to JA whether his sticker gives his approval of the designation.

MFeld · July 26, 2020 12:28PM

@Greeniejr said:
For what its worth, there are coins of debatable designation that he will sticker. For instance, PCGS does not recognize Proof 1907 High Relief Saints. NGC Does. CAC will sticker them with the proof designation. PCGS has a very valid reason for not designating them proof. NGC has a valid reason to designate it. It would be an interesting question to JA whether his sticker gives his approval of the designation.

Proof 1907 High Reliefs trade at significant premiums over business strikes. CAC isn’t gong to ignore a Proof designation by NGC, sticker one and then, if prompted to make an offer, offer a non-proof price.

asheland · July 27, 2020 12:16PM

A low grade Chain Cent would benefit from a sticker in my opinion...

Baley · July 27, 2020 3:15PM

Any coin that most of us would be happy to find in G4 is a very rare coin, im my case like R5+ rare in any condition. So while "a sticker" may not be "a must" if the price is right anyway, having CAC would probably allow a collector like me to "stretch" in price a little more, both because it is better looking than the average Good for the scarce issue, and because I'd consider it more likely that I'd get the Premium back someday in a combination of ease of sale and higher price realized.

When CAC is a "must" for a coin graded Good-4

Comments

Leave a Comment

Categories