Please Help with my Continuing CAC Education. Subject - Proof-like Morgans
pointfivezero
Posts: 1,940 ✭✭✭✭✭
My recent CAC submission on a PCGS Morgan was rejected. I received an unsolicited email explaning that while the coin had beautiful lustre, JA didn't feel the reverse was fully PL. Here is a side by side picture of an NGC PL Morgan which was certified by CAC next to my PCGS Morgan which failed to pass. Keep in mind, the PCGS coin is a MS63 PL while the NGC is a MS66+ PL. I'm looking for advice and comments on the difference in reflectivity:
1
Comments
Very difficult to evaluate PL attributes from pictures! Maybe a video posted at Vimeo would be more helpful.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Yes, apologize for the photo quality. Is there a standardized method for photographing reflectivity?
Pretty coins!
My YouTube Channel
The reflectivity may be just fine and the coin failed to meet CAC's standards for a 63, irrespective of the PL status.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
That's the thing. JA said the reason for denial was a not fully PL reverse. So that is why I am concentrating on this issue.
Here is the coin in question. I think it is one of the better 63's I've seen but be your own judge:
Gotcha ... Unfortunately, I can't help much with PL determinations from an image.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
They are going to look closer at coins like that. The standards are a little stricter for a $5,000 coin, versus a $750 coin. Theoretically, they should not be different, but reality is that when there is more risk for CAC, they are naturally going to be a little more risk adverse. Things really seem to tighten up over a thousand bucks.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
I have no issues with a closer look as long as it is objective. I submitted both of these coins and while the 82-CC had the better reflectivity (up to 4"), they both easily met the PCGS/NGC standard of 2". $5000 or $500, I think CAC should be consistent.
I find it odd that they would reject for PL-ness.
Why? We don’t know what it looks like in hand.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Discuss it in a call to CAC....Perhaps a reconsideration. Cheers, RickO
Based on what’s been posted, he already had a discussion with CAC and was told “... JA said the reason for denial was a not fully PL reverse”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It’s impossible to tell if a coin is proof like or DMPL from an image.
From a practical perspective unless you bought this coin a long time ago the likelihood of this coin not having made a previous trip to New Jersey is pretty low.
I hope the lack of a CAC sticker doesn't ruin your enjoyment of the coin. If so, best to sell it and buy one that has the sticker.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
I'm guessing it was a very close call and with very close calls TPGs will probably give you the benefit of the doubt whereas CAC does the opposite and is part of the reason why stickered coins garner the respect they do. He is also human tho and may change his stance on a second look many have said that's happened in the past. Pics can be deceiving but to me looking at those I'd have guess it's PL reverse.
Yep that’s a bad beat.
Nice CC.
Still might bean on another day.
That is a beautiful coin and one I could only dream of owning. I don't think anyone would question PCGS's grade, obviously PL. Although disappointed with the CAC non-designation, you shouldn't let that impair your enjoyment, you have a great eye and own a great coin.
The question is this coin average for the issue's PL designation, or easily a standout with the eye appeal to be better than average. The 79CC, although rare in MS since so many were melted, are common in PL for those that survived. Unfortunately baggy though. The 79CC had a slightly higher mintage than the 93CC but 50% more dies were used. Per the stats, the 78CC had 3x the mintage but < 1/2 the dies. The 79CC might be the most PL of all the CC's when they left the mint. I think that is what JA was considering when he failed to qualify as an A or B example, IMHO. Is it better than what he's seen.
@ricko - when I received the rejected coin back, I did the comparison with the 82-CC which met the CAC standards. I sent the pictures in this thread to Anna and John and asked if they had a reconsideration policy. Crickets. That's when I decided to go "public" with my discontent.
Not at all. I looked for a 79-CC upgrade for nearly a year and I'm super happy with this find, CAC or not.
While they apparently don’t have a “reconsideration policy”, you’re free to resubmit the coin. Just as you’d be free to resubmit a coin to PCGS.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I thought PL was a designation not a grade. Doesn't CAC judge solely on the merits of the grade? ie, Solid for the grade
While PL is a designation, CAC considers that, as well.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Before I go through the expense of resubmitting, I would like to receive some confirmation they would at least consider a second look. Instead, they chose the non-response route.
Certainly just my opinion, but it is one of the better 63's I've seen in person. Let's compare to a 79-CC which did CAC and sold on Heritage last month. You can be the judge:
You expect them to second guess themselves after just evaluating the coin? And do so after you send pictures? Evaluating PL and DMPL really needs to be done in hand and not via pictures. I suggest waiting awhile if you are wanting them to revisit the coin and thus do so via a resubmit.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
From those pics, and the difficulty judging just from pics, I'd say your coin was as nice as the CAC coin, with the obverse nicer. You obviously were very selective in your purchase, and if I was looking for the grade and designation, would not hesitate to purchase as a fine example of a 63PL, albeit dependent on price.
To circle back to the original post, I am simply hoping to learn from these experiences. In this case, understanding the definition of proof-like. My understanding is PL requires two inches of clear reflectivity. JA was not questioning the quality of the coin, just the PL finish on the reverse. I have no interntion of resubmitting it. Here is what I received from Anna:
Sometimes there are just questionable calls. While CAC does well on a majority of decisions, they do get it wrong occasionally. I've seen a few coins stickered that made me wonder what CAC was seeing and have seen some fail to sticker which were also baffling. Most coins however make sense in regards to the decision.
Your coin looks PQ from the photos and appears to fall into one of those questionable cases. The posters who suggested that CAC is more strict on higher dollar coins could be what happened here.
I think you learned that you disagree with JA on this coin.
Welcome to the club. Many of us have CAC rejects that we believe are better than average and think JA was mistaken. That's okay......really.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Well said. I already knew I disagreed with JA with this coin. I guess I was just looking for validation from the experts on this forum...
As alluded to by others, it’s usually extremely difficult, at best, to make a call regarding PL and DPL from images.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
No allusion. Directly stated.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Understood Mark. Would be happy to send you this Morgan for your in hand opinoin.
I phrased it the way I did, because I was saying something very similar, but not quite the same.😉
If I thought my opinion might make a real difference, I’d take you up on that. But the reality is, my opinion doesn’t matter with respect to CAC’s determination.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
When you compare like coins past and present a problem exists in just that. People grade coins and people have different attitudes different days. Also, the time frame of management orders of this very grading standard might change. If you think every MS63PL coin graded by PCGS and sent to CAC are the exact looking coin, you are confused.
I would ask JA if the haze represented an issue causing the no grade. From your photos, it appears the PCGS coin has a slight amount of haze which could possibly reduce the reflectivity. Look at the NGC coin and how pure black the fields are and how yours has a slight amount of haze. I'm by no means any kind of PL specialist nor even a collector of such, just a forum member with an opinion. Best of luck, great coins, regardless.
JIm
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Thanks to you and all the contributors for the constructive comments. Fully agree there is some haze in the In God We Trust area of the 79-CC but it does not inhibit reflectivity out to three inches. The 82-CC clearly has higher reflectivity, out to four inches or more. But in my humble opinion, this bring the 82-CC closer to DPL and does not diminish the PL factor of the 79-CC.
In these instances, do we conclude that someone got this coin wrong? Either PCGS with the PL deisgnation or JA with the CAC failure?
There’s no reason to conclude that. Coin grading is an opinion, even if a highly expert one (by two companies in this case). And there’s there’s not necessarily a “right” or “wrong”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You just need to learn what CAC (and thus, JA) likes and doesn't like. Grades are an opinion.
At this point, after submitting hundreds of them, I hit on Morgans about 85% of the time with CAC. Once you know what he is looking for, it is one of the easier series to guess a bean on, if not the easiest.
The haze you just mentioned, especially on a PL, in my experience, often stops a bean from being applied. They want unmarred, original surfaces with no haze/cloudiness. Only a select few series will pass muster with any haze, and business strike Morgans are not one. I have a GORGEOUS 01-O in P6 that failed for that exact reason despite the coin being pretty awesome otherwise. I still like it, I still own it, years after the failed bean. C'est la vie.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Thanks @MFeld and @DelawareDoons. Appreciate you the taking time to help with my continuing education.
Tim
I have diligently reminded myself over the years that a coin grade and a CAC sticker are opinions as to the condition and desirability of a given coin, not a definition of exactly what that coin 'is'.
Think of a coin as a steak. All three in my family can agree that a steak is beef, and a sirloin, but I like steaks rare, my son likes them medium, and my wife likes them well done. So depending on how I cook one, only one person will consider that steak to be desirable. Because I am the only one who actually breaks out cash to buy a steak, they get prepared rare. So the steak is both perfect and imperfect at the same time, depending on perspective.
CAC may simply maintain that reflectivity for PL needs to be at the highest level of the range? One thing you can do is take your coin to a show and then view it next to a 63 PL that has a CAC and see if you can tell a difference between the two in hand. I recently did this on a rejected coin and was clearly able to see the difference that JA saw. Having viewed the same two coins individually, but weeks apart, I would have said they looked the same. Just some thoughts. I like the coin for the grade.
Good advice @panexpoguy. Of course, I will have to wait for the shows to reopen and now I'm hungry for a rare steak!
Kinda like the chicken or the egg... what comes first?
Grade or value?
If their opinion determines a premium, then unbiased is wishful thinking.
I would expect PCGS/NGC/CAC gives stricter grades if a coin might disrupt a pop report and value?
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out