@Walkerlover said:
Coin looks cloudy or hazy. Maybe that’s why the details grade
Coin is neither cloudy or hazy…. ineptitude is the reason for the details grade.
Honestly, having a gtg with a details coin is a questionable practice to begin with. Most of us guessing are going to assert a straight grade as we normally do, but apparently cacg saw an issue in the coin and we didn’t have the luxury of seeing it in hand like they did.
With that said, the more I look at the coin, and the additional photos on cacg site, it looks burnt and overdipped and ugly. I cant say that my personal grade would be unc details, but the coin looks entirely too white, the luster is terrible, and there’s halos around the devices with no trace of originality. I guessed ms66 because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but guessing a grade form a 2-d image is difficult enough to begin with, and you decided to throw a curveball to try to perpetuate your beliefs:
I assumed the coin was overexposed in the original photos but then you post completely different cacg photos for the reveal. I think it could have gone anywhere from ms63-65 , but after seeing the other set of photos I agree that the coin has a luster/originality issue and there’s a reason it didn’t cac as a p 66, or later as a NGC 67. You did what you did to meet your client’s expectations, and I respect that, but you shouldn’t be perpetuating that CACG is inept at grading because your bonehead client insisted on a raw submission as opposed to a regrade or recon where the risk is mitigated.
@braddick said:
I am curious if/when this Morgan gets back into an MS67 NGC slab if the seller will disclose its 'slab history'.
And if not, is that ethical? And if so, will that hurt the selling price?
Well…. I think I pretty much did all that here. 😂
This is why we(smart dealers/collectors) always say “buy the COIN and not the holder/label. In my professional opinion, this coin is a rock solid 66+….. and I had no beef with NGC calling it a 67. What’s it’s NOT, is anything remotely ‘Details’; it hasn’t been Cleaned nor in any way are the surfaces’ Questionable’. This coin will be just fine.
I posted this coin to show that even the perceived best graders/finalizers from the most reputable grading services are, on occasion, fallible.
Gene Henry? I bought several coins from him in my youth - all doctored. He had the rep of being a huge coin doc. Maybe instead of dragging CACG through the muck you could ask JA what you and the other two services are missing on the coin.
How about the Norweb 1893-S? It has been in various NGC and PCGS high grade holders and I’m pretty certain that JA would assign this exact same grade …because it deserves it.
@Walkerlover said:
Coin looks cloudy or hazy. Maybe that’s why the details grade
Coin is neither cloudy or hazy…. ineptitude is the reason for the details grade.
Just because YOU can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there. Rejected twice infers a problem. I suspect Gene Henry + Morgan with a face ding = thumbed or puttied. If you don’t believe me, then take before and after pics after a good acetone, soak and post them here to prove CAC and me wrong.
Norweb 1885 trade dollar - it’s been straight graded by both services. It has also been notoriously cigar smoked to cover the hairlines. So if JA rejects the coin but you can’t see the problem does that make HIM wrong? Or YOU?
@Walkerlover said:
Coin looks cloudy or hazy. Maybe that’s why the details grade
Coin is neither cloudy or hazy…. ineptitude is the reason for the details grade.
Honestly, having a gtg with a details coin is a questionable practice to begin with. Most of us guessing are going to assert a straight grade as we normally do, but apparently cacg saw an issue in the coin and we didn’t have the luxury of seeing it in hand like they did.
With that said, the more I look at the coin, and the additional photos on cacg site, it looks burnt and overdipped and ugly. I cant say that my personal grade would be unc details, but the coin looks entirely too white, the luster is terrible, and there’s halos around the devices with no trace of originality. I guessed ms66 because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but guessing a grade form a 2-d image is difficult enough to begin with, and you decided to throw a curveball to try to perpetuate your beliefs:
I assumed the coin was overexposed in the original photos but then you post completely different cacg photos for the reveal. I think it could have gone anywhere from ms63-65 , but after seeing the other set of photos I agree that the coin has a luster/originality issue and there’s a reason it didn’t cac as a p 66, or later as a NGC 67. You did what you did to meet your client’s expectations, and I respect that, but you shouldn’t be perpetuating that CACG is inept at grading because your bonehead client insisted on a raw submission as opposed to a regrade or recon where the risk is mitigated.
@braddick said:
I am curious if/when this Morgan gets back into an MS67 NGC slab if the seller will disclose its 'slab history'.
And if not, is that ethical? And if so, will that hurt the selling price?
Well…. I think I pretty much did all that here. 😂
This is why we(smart dealers/collectors) always say “buy the COIN and not the holder/label. In my professional opinion, this coin is a rock solid 66+….. and I had no beef with NGC calling it a 67. What’s it’s NOT, is anything remotely ‘Details’; it hasn’t been Cleaned nor in any way are the surfaces’ Questionable’. This coin will be just fine.
I posted this coin to show that even the perceived best graders/finalizers from the most reputable grading services are, on occasion, fallible.
Gene Henry? I bought several coins from him in my youth - all doctored. He had the rep of being a huge coin doc. Maybe instead of dragging CACG through the muck you could ask JA what you and the other two services are missing on the coin.
Who’s dragging who through the muck….? Am I being critical of a TPGS…. Absolutely, and IMO deservedly so in this particular case. It’s ok to disagree with me, that’s part of this exercise. But going after the deceased…!? C’mon. To a lot of us, Gene Henry is a legend in this business and was as honest as the day is long…. He had a no-questions asked refund policy on anything purchased from him.
If you’re going to accuse Gene of ‘coin doctoring’ then you better throw David Hall in the mix, who many over the years(including myself) were witness to his ‘restroom restoration’ techniques(dipping a coin to remove unsightly toning with e-z-est). Or what about the major auction houses and TPG’s that offer this as a service under the guise of ‘Conservation and/or Restoration’. Dave is no more a ‘coin doc’ than Gene was. Although I choose not to do it, dipping was/is widely practiced and has long been accepted by TPG’s and the coin community as a whole. None of these guys were doing anything wrong so spare me the pseudo-sanctimony.
Now I think the world of JA and CAC. I think his stickering service has become a vital part of coin grading and it has positively changed the coin business forever. But that doesn’t mean that they’re not going to make mistakes and it’s ok to call them out for it. We routinely do it to PCGS and NGC(mostly to NGC)…. Why should CACG be any different? And if you think I’m being hard on them, you’re in for a brutal awakening. To put it mildly, there are a lot of concerned folks out there; dealers and collectors alike, re: the grading standards of CACG. I personally think they’re going to be fine… but out of the gate, it’s been a bit rocky. Time will tell.
If PCGS and NGC had called the coin questionable and/or cleaned and this Morgan was sent to CACG where it received even an MS65 grade who then would be 'wrong'?
@ChrisH821 said:
The cell phone photos give me the impression that it has been aggressively dipped.
This coin has most certainly been dipped at some point. While my phone pics aren’t doing it any favors, in-hand it still has plenty of luster and it doesn’t display that ‘burnt’ or washed out look that some are describing here.
This coin imo, would never receive a sticker, but it should’ve had no problem receiving a straight grade… again, IMO.
There are lots of legends in the coin biz who were coin doctors. Doesn’t change anything that I said one bit. Brilliant marketing to have a refund policy for those who figured out they got screwed - keeps the lid on all the noise about what you’re up to so the neophytes remain in ignorance.
I got no problem with calling out mistakes. I do have a problem with those lacking the knowledge to adequately assess who is actually making the mistake.
None of these guys were doing anything wrong so spare me the pseudo-sanctimony.
Gene sold me a coin with moved metal repairs as problem free. Has nothing to do with the grey area of dipping and everything to do with pure unethical behavior on his part.
@tradedollarnut said:
There are lots of legends in the coin biz who were coin doctors. Doesn’t change anything that I said one bit. Brilliant marketing to have a refund policy for those who figured out they got screwed - keeps the lid on all the noise about what you’re up to so the neophytes remain in ignorance.
I got no problem with calling out mistakes. I do have a problem with those lacking the knowledge to adequately assess who is actually making the mistake.
Truth is the harbinger of hurt feelings…. Lighten up Francis. 😂😉
@tradedollarnut said:
There are lots of legends in the coin biz who were coin doctors. Doesn’t change anything that I said one bit. Brilliant marketing to have a refund policy for those who figured out they got screwed - keeps the lid on all the noise about what you’re up to so the neophytes remain in ignorance.
I got no problem with calling out mistakes. I do have a problem with those lacking the knowledge to adequately assess who is actually making the mistake.
Truth is the harbinger of hurt feelings…. Lighten up Francis. 😂😉
I’m not the one who just lost a client because I can’t identify problem coins, now am I, Francis?
@tradedollarnut said: None of these guys were doing anything wrong so spare me the pseudo-sanctimony.
Gene sold me a coin with moved metal repairs as problem free. Has nothing to do with the grey area of dipping and everything to do with pure unethical behavior on his part.
That’s an easy thing to just blurt out…. Gene’s sadly no longer here to challenge it. We have no choice but to take your word for it. And if that was the case, why didn’t you take the coin back to him….??
That wasn’t my experience with Gene and I did hundreds of thousands of $$ business with him over the years. One thing for sure, he would’ve had little to no tolerance for the modern Millennial/Gen Z whinging.
@tradedollarnut said: None of these guys were doing anything wrong so spare me the pseudo-sanctimony.
Gene sold me a coin with moved metal repairs as problem free. Has nothing to do with the grey area of dipping and everything to do with pure unethical behavior on his part.
That’s an easy thing to just blurt out…. Gene’s sadly no longer here to challenge it. We have no choice but to take your word for it. And if that was the case, why didn’t you take the coin back to him….??
That wasn’t my experience with Gene and I did hundreds of thousands of $$ business with him over the years. One thing for sure, he would’ve had little to no tolerance for the modern Millennial/Gen Z whinging.
Assertion: Gene was a coin doc
Response: I never had ANY issues with ANY coins he sold me.
Side fact: cac has twice told you this coin has a problem that you cannot identify. Yet it’s cac’s fault in your opinion
Possible logical conclusion: you couldn’t identify the problem with any of those coins that you so happily traded in and now - faced with yet another problem that you can’t identify- are vilifying the messenger rather than the root of the problem
@tradedollarnut said: None of these guys were doing anything wrong so spare me the pseudo-sanctimony.
Gene sold me a coin with moved metal repairs as problem free. Has nothing to do with the grey area of dipping and everything to do with pure unethical behavior on his part.
That’s an easy thing to just blurt out…. Gene’s sadly no longer here to challenge it. We have no choice but to take your word for it. And if that was the case, why didn’t you take the coin back to him….??
That wasn’t my experience with Gene and I did hundreds of thousands of $$ business with him over the years. One thing for sure, he would’ve had little to no tolerance for the modern Millennial/Gen Z whinging.
Yup, a very easy thing to blurt out since I vividly remember the transaction in his Seattle office while I was in college. So it came as NO surprise when later I was warned by a major dealer to avoid him like the plague.
@tradedollarnut said:
There are lots of legends in the coin biz who were coin doctors. Doesn’t change anything that I said one bit. Brilliant marketing to have a refund policy for those who figured out they got screwed - keeps the lid on all the noise about what you’re up to so the neophytes remain in ignorance.
I got no problem with calling out mistakes. I do have a problem with those lacking the knowledge to adequately assess who is actually making the mistake.
Truth is the harbinger of hurt feelings…. Lighten up Francis. 😂😉
I’m not the one who just lost a client because I can’t identify problem coins, now am I, Francis?
Send the coin at my expense to JA direct - he will personally review and let you know exactly what the issue is. You will learn something or he will admit error.
@tradedollarnut said:
There are lots of legends in the coin biz who were coin doctors. Doesn’t change anything that I said one bit. Brilliant marketing to have a refund policy for those who figured out they got screwed - keeps the lid on all the noise about what you’re up to so the neophytes remain in ignorance.
I got no problem with calling out mistakes. I do have a problem with those lacking the knowledge to adequately assess who is actually making the mistake.
Truth is the harbinger of hurt feelings…. Lighten up Francis. 😂😉
I’m not the one who just lost a client because I can’t identify problem coins, now am I, Francis?
😂 What client did I lose….?
Apparently your thread blaming the messenger worked! Congratulations
@tradedollarnut said: None of these guys were doing anything wrong so spare me the pseudo-sanctimony.
Gene sold me a coin with moved metal repairs as problem free. Has nothing to do with the grey area of dipping and everything to do with pure unethical behavior on his part.
That’s an easy thing to just blurt out…. Gene’s sadly no longer here to challenge it. We have no choice but to take your word for it. And if that was the case, why didn’t you take the coin back to him….??
That wasn’t my experience with Gene and I did hundreds of thousands of $$ business with him over the years. One thing for sure, he would’ve had little to no tolerance for the modern Millennial/Gen Z whinging.
Assertion: Gene was a coin doc
Response: I never had ANY issues with ANY coins he sold me.
Side fact: cac has twice told you this coin has a problem that you cannot identify. Yet it’s cac’s fault in your opinion
Possible logical conclusion: you couldn’t identify the problem with any of those coins that you so happily traded in and now - faced with yet another problem that you can’t identify- are vilifying the messenger rather than the root of the problem
So let’s clear up your confusion here….
I originally submitted the coin(in its PS66 OGH holder) on behalf of a client…. It was his choice. I knew full well that that the coin stood little chance of stickering as it was simply too ‘white’ imo. But it wasn’t going to hurt to try… I have several CAC’d coins that are blast white dippers that should never have passed. If you recall, the assessment by JA indicated that the coin was accurately graded, but he thought it was simply too white to pass for a sticker… something that you’re conveniently avoiding in your nonsensical rant. You following me so far….?
Possible logical conclusion: You’re just a bit out of your element here and that’s ok! We all have to start somewhere. Just try not to be so naively abrasive. You’ll get there! 😉
@tradedollarnut said: None of these guys were doing anything wrong so spare me the pseudo-sanctimony.
Gene sold me a coin with moved metal repairs as problem free. Has nothing to do with the grey area of dipping and everything to do with pure unethical behavior on his part.
That’s an easy thing to just blurt out…. Gene’s sadly no longer here to challenge it. We have no choice but to take your word for it. And if that was the case, why didn’t you take the coin back to him….??
That wasn’t my experience with Gene and I did hundreds of thousands of $$ business with him over the years. One thing for sure, he would’ve had little to no tolerance for the modern Millennial/Gen Z whinging.
Yup, a very easy thing to blurt out since I vividly remember the transaction in his Seattle office while I was in college. So it came as NO surprise when later I was warned by a major dealer to avoid him like the plague.
You went to college…?
So what was the coin in question and who was the major dealer who supposedly warned you….?
Send the coin at my expense to JA direct - he will personally review and let you know exactly what the issue is. You will learn something or he will admit error.
I suspect the former.
It’s already in motion kid. I’ll happily post the results when the coin returns. 👍🏻
@tradedollarnut said: None of these guys were doing anything wrong so spare me the pseudo-sanctimony.
Gene sold me a coin with moved metal repairs as problem free. Has nothing to do with the grey area of dipping and everything to do with pure unethical behavior on his part.
That’s an easy thing to just blurt out…. Gene’s sadly no longer here to challenge it. We have no choice but to take your word for it. And if that was the case, why didn’t you take the coin back to him….??
That wasn’t my experience with Gene and I did hundreds of thousands of $$ business with him over the years. One thing for sure, he would’ve had little to no tolerance for the modern Millennial/Gen Z whinging.
Assertion: Gene was a coin doc
Response: I never had ANY issues with ANY coins he sold me.
Side fact: cac has twice told you this coin has a problem that you cannot identify. Yet it’s cac’s fault in your opinion
Possible logical conclusion: you couldn’t identify the problem with any of those coins that you so happily traded in and now - faced with yet another problem that you can’t identify- are vilifying the messenger rather than the root of the problem
So let’s clear up your confusion here….
I originally submitted the coin(in its PS66 OGH holder) on behalf of a client…. It was his choice. I knew full well that that the coin stood little chance of stickering as it was simply too ‘white’ imo. But it wasn’t going to hurt to try… I have several CAC’d coins that are blast white dippers that should never have passed. If you recall, the assessment by JA indicated that the coin was accurately graded, but he thought it was simply too white to pass for a sticker… something that you’re conveniently avoiding in your nonsensical rant. You following me so far….?
Possible logical conclusion: You’re just a bit out of your element here and that’s ok! We all have to start somewhere. Just try not to be so naively abrasive. You’ll get there! 😉
So…you knew the coin was going to be bodybagged and yet you still chose to create a thread calling out cac and accusing them of being inept.
@DeplorableDan said:
I’ll go 66+ but that CACG photo really is god awful, sheesh.
That’s what they provided…. apparently it’s their version of True-View…. 🤷🏻♂️
I know, most of them look great but that one is horrible. Most of you probably think i'm a CAC booster in all aspects, but I will call it how I see it and I would be very dissapointed if that were my coin.
Sorry, but the CAC image you posted, is not the one that was provided. I would suggest that if you post professionally photographed images, wether they are from PCGS, NGC or CAC, that you don't mess with them. Scribbling out the cert number is fine, but don't blow them out with whatever image editing software you are using. It appears that you tried to brighten the image to "Enhance" the luster.
Here are comparisons of the OP's images compared to the original. I'm sorry, but I have a dog in the fight on this one.
@DeplorableDan said:
I’ll go 66+ but that CACG photo really is god awful, sheesh.
That’s what they provided…. apparently it’s their version of True-View…. 🤷🏻♂️
I know, most of them look great but that one is horrible. Most of you probably think i'm a CAC booster in all aspects, but I will call it how I see it and I would be very dissapointed if that were my coin.
Sorry, but the CAC image you posted, is not the one that was provided. I would suggest that if you post professionally photographed images, wether they are from PCGS, NGC or CAC, that you don't mess with them. Scribbling out the cert number is fine, but don't blow them out with whatever image editing software you are using. It appears that you tried to brighten the image to "Enhance" the luster.
Here are comparisons of the OP's images compared to the original. I'm sorry, but I have a dog in the fight on this one.
OP's posted image...
CAC's image...
Yep that’s fair. I did indeed brighten the image because I thought it was too dark, but clearly the unenhanced image is far superior. If anything I did the coin a disservice. Lesson learned.
@DeplorableDan said:
I’ll go 66+ but that CACG photo really is god awful, sheesh.
That’s what they provided…. apparently it’s their version of True-View…. 🤷🏻♂️
I know, most of them look great but that one is horrible. Most of you probably think i'm a CAC booster in all aspects, but I will call it how I see it and I would be very dissapointed if that were my coin.
Sorry, but the CAC image you posted, is not the one that was provided. I would suggest that if you post professionally photographed images, wether they are from PCGS, NGC or CAC, that you don't mess with them. Scribbling out the cert number is fine, but don't blow them out with whatever image editing software you are using. It appears that you tried to brighten the image to "Enhance" the luster.
Here are comparisons of the OP's images compared to the original. I'm sorry, but I have a dog in the fight on this one.
OP's posted image...
CAC's image...
The only thing I will ad to this thread is that the reverse is amaizing for an O mint Morgan for that year.
You can see the individual feather on the breast..
Really nice coin .Thanks for the unedited CAC pics. I bet shes a stunner in hand.
To be completely fair here, @DeplorableDan previously pointed this out…. I should’ve disclosed that the image was a screenshot and I had brightened it…. Not to enhance luster(which brightening does not do), but because I thought the image was too dark. The unenhanced image actually makes the coin look nicer and I honestly was not trying to be deceptive but was simply trying to provide the best possible image for the guessing game… which sadly later devolved into where it’s at now, largely because of my ineptitude. Hard lessons learned for me and moving forward I will not enhance an image! 🤦🏻♂️
@tradedollarnut said: None of these guys were doing anything wrong so spare me the pseudo-sanctimony.
Gene sold me a coin with moved metal repairs as problem free. Has nothing to do with the grey area of dipping and everything to do with pure unethical behavior on his part.
That’s an easy thing to just blurt out…. Gene’s sadly no longer here to challenge it. We have no choice but to take your word for it. And if that was the case, why didn’t you take the coin back to him….??
That wasn’t my experience with Gene and I did hundreds of thousands of $$ business with him over the years. One thing for sure, he would’ve had little to no tolerance for the modern Millennial/Gen Z whinging.
Assertion: Gene was a coin doc
Response: I never had ANY issues with ANY coins he sold me.
Side fact: cac has twice told you this coin has a problem that you cannot identify. Yet it’s cac’s fault in your opinion
Possible logical conclusion: you couldn’t identify the problem with any of those coins that you so happily traded in and now - faced with yet another problem that you can’t identify- are vilifying the messenger rather than the root of the problem
So let’s clear up your confusion here….
I originally submitted the coin(in its PS66 OGH holder) on behalf of a client…. It was his choice. I knew full well that that the coin stood little chance of stickering as it was simply too ‘white’ imo. But it wasn’t going to hurt to try… I have several CAC’d coins that are blast white dippers that should never have passed. If you recall, the assessment by JA indicated that the coin was accurately graded, but he thought it was simply too white to pass for a sticker… something that you’re conveniently avoiding in your nonsensical rant. You following me so far….?
Possible logical conclusion: You’re just a bit out of your element here and that’s ok! We all have to start somewhere. Just try not to be so naively abrasive. You’ll get there! 😉
So…you knew the coin was going to be bodybagged and yet you still chose to create a thread calling out cac and accusing them of being inept. What an ass.
I think you are misinterpreting the situation here. Badabling is saying the details grade was way too harsh. Just because JA didn’t sticker the coin doesn’t mean it deserves a detail grade. It could be that CAC thinks it’s overgraded as a 66 for the luster exhibited by this coin or as being overdipped, and not to their standards, a C coin as we call it. I think CACG should have assigned it a lower numerical grade perhaps instead of details.
Yeah, you don't want to be messing with professional photos, particularly when a brand is applied to those photos.
As a photographer myself, I hate that. It reflects bad on the photographer for someone else's mistake and thinking they can make your photos "better". Just don't do it.
@FlyingAl said:
Yeah, you don't want to be messing with professional photos, particularly when a brand is applied to those photos.
As a photographer myself, I hate that. It reflects bad on the photographer for someone else's mistake and thinking they can make your photos "better". Just don't do it.
Lol, poor Justin had to jump in to clear his name. At least op recognizes that was a mistake.
I was actually somewhat inebriated last night when I typed that long message, but hearing the word “inept” prompted me to dig in a little bit. The coin isn’t god awful but I certainly don’t like it. I don’t really know what the protocol is for coins that have been dipped out like that, but we know that JA is not a fan of market grading or net grading so it wasn’t a huge surprise to me to see it go deets.
@FlyingAl said:
Yeah, you don't want to be messing with professional photos, particularly when a brand is applied to those photos.
As a photographer myself, I hate that. It reflects bad on the photographer for someone else's mistake and thinking they can make your photos "better". Just don't do it.
Lol, poor Justin had to jump in to clear his name. At least op recognizes that was a mistake.
I was actually somewhat inebriated last night when I typed that long message, but hearing the word “inept” prompted me to dig in a little bit. The coin isn’t god awful but I certainly don’t like it. I don’t really know what the protocol is for coins that have been dipped out like that, but we know that JA is not a fan of market grading or net grading so it wasn’t a huge surprise to me to see it go deets.
Yes…. It was a colossal mistake on my part. One that I will not make again. Once again, my bad. And I have zero issues with fair criticism or having a differing opinion than mine. I feel terrible for causing such a mess when it was so easily avoidable. 🙏🏻
@BadaBling said:
***(Reveal Fri Oct 27 @ 11:18am MT) Was PCGS 66 OGH, then NGC 67 and now CACG ‘MS Details Questionable Surfaces’
It was originally housed in a PCGS MS66 early gen. OGH. I had later submitted it to CAC where JA rejected it but later explained, saying he thought the coin was very well struck and could end up in a 67 holder, but that he thought it was a little too ‘white’ for his liking.
>
I think the important lesson here is not to crack out a coin that did not CAC and then submit it to CACG. A DETAILS label or a PVC body bag is worse than a coin without a sticker. Also, remember CAC does not sticker DETAILS coins.
The Cacg image makes the coins overall appearance nicer IMO but it also makes what looks like a spot under the eagles right wing on the reverse stand out. Almost like a spot removal. Other areas on the reverse look a bit off in the CACG image. Mostly between the arrows and eagle. Luster is muted. Doesn’t look like the whole coin was affected.
But of course I’m only picking it apart looking for a reason CACG detailed it. I was thinking it was a 66+ based on the original GtG.
Comments
Honestly, having a gtg with a details coin is a questionable practice to begin with. Most of us guessing are going to assert a straight grade as we normally do, but apparently cacg saw an issue in the coin and we didn’t have the luxury of seeing it in hand like they did.
With that said, the more I look at the coin, and the additional photos on cacg site, it looks burnt and overdipped and ugly. I cant say that my personal grade would be unc details, but the coin looks entirely too white, the luster is terrible, and there’s halos around the devices with no trace of originality. I guessed ms66 because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but guessing a grade form a 2-d image is difficult enough to begin with, and you decided to throw a curveball to try to perpetuate your beliefs:
I assumed the coin was overexposed in the original photos but then you post completely different cacg photos for the reveal. I think it could have gone anywhere from ms63-65 , but after seeing the other set of photos I agree that the coin has a luster/originality issue and there’s a reason it didn’t cac as a p 66, or later as a NGC 67. You did what you did to meet your client’s expectations, and I respect that, but you shouldn’t be perpetuating that CACG is inept at grading because your bonehead client insisted on a raw submission as opposed to a regrade or recon where the risk is mitigated.
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
Send it than back for review with your comments to CACG
Gene Henry? I bought several coins from him in my youth - all doctored. He had the rep of being a huge coin doc. Maybe instead of dragging CACG through the muck you could ask JA what you and the other two services are missing on the coin.
How about the Norweb 1893-S? It has been in various NGC and PCGS high grade holders and I’m pretty certain that JA would assign this exact same grade …because it deserves it.
Just because YOU can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there. Rejected twice infers a problem. I suspect Gene Henry + Morgan with a face ding = thumbed or puttied. If you don’t believe me, then take before and after pics after a good acetone, soak and post them here to prove CAC and me wrong.
Norweb 1885 trade dollar - it’s been straight graded by both services. It has also been notoriously cigar smoked to cover the hairlines. So if JA rejects the coin but you can’t see the problem does that make HIM wrong? Or YOU?
The cell phone photos give me the impression that it has been aggressively dipped.
Collector, occasional seller
🤦🏻♂️😂 Oh boy….
Who’s dragging who through the muck….? Am I being critical of a TPGS…. Absolutely, and IMO deservedly so in this particular case. It’s ok to disagree with me, that’s part of this exercise. But going after the deceased…!? C’mon. To a lot of us, Gene Henry is a legend in this business and was as honest as the day is long…. He had a no-questions asked refund policy on anything purchased from him.
If you’re going to accuse Gene of ‘coin doctoring’ then you better throw David Hall in the mix, who many over the years(including myself) were witness to his ‘restroom restoration’ techniques(dipping a coin to remove unsightly toning with e-z-est). Or what about the major auction houses and TPG’s that offer this as a service under the guise of ‘Conservation and/or Restoration’. Dave is no more a ‘coin doc’ than Gene was. Although I choose not to do it, dipping was/is widely practiced and has long been accepted by TPG’s and the coin community as a whole. None of these guys were doing anything wrong so spare me the pseudo-sanctimony.
Now I think the world of JA and CAC. I think his stickering service has become a vital part of coin grading and it has positively changed the coin business forever. But that doesn’t mean that they’re not going to make mistakes and it’s ok to call them out for it. We routinely do it to PCGS and NGC(mostly to NGC)…. Why should CACG be any different? And if you think I’m being hard on them, you’re in for a brutal awakening. To put it mildly, there are a lot of concerned folks out there; dealers and collectors alike, re: the grading standards of CACG. I personally think they’re going to be fine… but out of the gate, it’s been a bit rocky. Time will tell.
If PCGS and NGC had called the coin questionable and/or cleaned and this Morgan was sent to CACG where it received even an MS65 grade who then would be 'wrong'?
peacockcoins
This coin has most certainly been dipped at some point. While my phone pics aren’t doing it any favors, in-hand it still has plenty of luster and it doesn’t display that ‘burnt’ or washed out look that some are describing here.
This coin imo, would never receive a sticker, but it should’ve had no problem receiving a straight grade… again, IMO.
There are lots of legends in the coin biz who were coin doctors. Doesn’t change anything that I said one bit. Brilliant marketing to have a refund policy for those who figured out they got screwed - keeps the lid on all the noise about what you’re up to so the neophytes remain in ignorance.
I got no problem with calling out mistakes. I do have a problem with those lacking the knowledge to adequately assess who is actually making the mistake.
None of these guys were doing anything wrong so spare me the pseudo-sanctimony.
Gene sold me a coin with moved metal repairs as problem free. Has nothing to do with the grey area of dipping and everything to do with pure unethical behavior on his part.
Truth is the harbinger of hurt feelings…. Lighten up Francis. 😂😉
I’m not the one who just lost a client because I can’t identify problem coins, now am I, Francis?
That’s an easy thing to just blurt out…. Gene’s sadly no longer here to challenge it. We have no choice but to take your word for it. And if that was the case, why didn’t you take the coin back to him….??
That wasn’t my experience with Gene and I did hundreds of thousands of $$ business with him over the years. One thing for sure, he would’ve had little to no tolerance for the modern Millennial/Gen Z whinging.
Assertion: Gene was a coin doc
Response: I never had ANY issues with ANY coins he sold me.
Side fact: cac has twice told you this coin has a problem that you cannot identify. Yet it’s cac’s fault in your opinion
Possible logical conclusion: you couldn’t identify the problem with any of those coins that you so happily traded in and now - faced with yet another problem that you can’t identify- are vilifying the messenger rather than the root of the problem
Yup, a very easy thing to blurt out since I vividly remember the transaction in his Seattle office while I was in college. So it came as NO surprise when later I was warned by a major dealer to avoid him like the plague.
😂 What client did I lose….?
Very simple solution:
Send the coin at my expense to JA direct - he will personally review and let you know exactly what the issue is. You will learn something or he will admit error.
I suspect the former.
Apparently your thread blaming the messenger worked! Congratulations
So let’s clear up your confusion here….
I originally submitted the coin(in its PS66 OGH holder) on behalf of a client…. It was his choice. I knew full well that that the coin stood little chance of stickering as it was simply too ‘white’ imo. But it wasn’t going to hurt to try… I have several CAC’d coins that are blast white dippers that should never have passed. If you recall, the assessment by JA indicated that the coin was accurately graded, but he thought it was simply too white to pass for a sticker… something that you’re conveniently avoiding in your nonsensical rant. You following me so far….?
Possible logical conclusion: You’re just a bit out of your element here and that’s ok! We all have to start somewhere. Just try not to be so naively abrasive. You’ll get there! 😉
You went to college…?
So what was the coin in question and who was the major dealer who supposedly warned you….?
It’s already in motion kid. I’ll happily post the results when the coin returns. 👍🏻
So…you knew the coin was going to be bodybagged and yet you still chose to create a thread calling out cac and accusing them of being inept.
Sorry, but the CAC image you posted, is not the one that was provided. I would suggest that if you post professionally photographed images, wether they are from PCGS, NGC or CAC, that you don't mess with them. Scribbling out the cert number is fine, but don't blow them out with whatever image editing software you are using. It appears that you tried to brighten the image to "Enhance" the luster.
Here are comparisons of the OP's images compared to the original. I'm sorry, but I have a dog in the fight on this one.
OP's posted image...
CAC's image...
Yep that’s fair. I did indeed brighten the image because I thought it was too dark, but clearly the unenhanced image is far superior. If anything I did the coin a disservice. Lesson learned.
Interesting Thread no doubt.
My YouTube Channel
The only thing I will ad to this thread is that the reverse is amaizing for an O mint Morgan for that year.
You can see the individual feather on the breast..
Really nice coin .Thanks for the unedited CAC pics. I bet shes a stunner in hand.
To be completely fair here, @DeplorableDan previously pointed this out…. I should’ve disclosed that the image was a screenshot and I had brightened it…. Not to enhance luster(which brightening does not do), but because I thought the image was too dark. The unenhanced image actually makes the coin look nicer and I honestly was not trying to be deceptive but was simply trying to provide the best possible image for the guessing game… which sadly later devolved into where it’s at now, largely because of my ineptitude. Hard lessons learned for me and moving forward I will not enhance an image! 🤦🏻♂️
I think you are misinterpreting the situation here. Badabling is saying the details grade was way too harsh. Just because JA didn’t sticker the coin doesn’t mean it deserves a detail grade. It could be that CAC thinks it’s overgraded as a 66 for the luster exhibited by this coin or as being overdipped, and not to their standards, a C coin as we call it. I think CACG should have assigned it a lower numerical grade perhaps instead of details.
Yeah, you don't want to be messing with professional photos, particularly when a brand is applied to those photos.
As a photographer myself, I hate that. It reflects bad on the photographer for someone else's mistake and thinking they can make your photos "better". Just don't do it.
Young Numismatist, Coin Photographer.
Lol, poor Justin had to jump in to clear his name. At least op recognizes that was a mistake.
I was actually somewhat inebriated last night when I typed that long message, but hearing the word “inept” prompted me to dig in a little bit. The coin isn’t god awful but I certainly don’t like it. I don’t really know what the protocol is for coins that have been dipped out like that, but we know that JA is not a fan of market grading or net grading so it wasn’t a huge surprise to me to see it go deets.
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
Yes…. It was a colossal mistake on my part. One that I will not make again. Once again, my bad. And I have zero issues with fair criticism or having a differing opinion than mine. I feel terrible for causing such a mess when it was so easily avoidable. 🙏🏻
@BadaBling not a good way to begin your reputation on the board. Deceptive.
Unedited CAC images look correct and much better. Agree you did a disservice to the actual coin.
Either way you have the result. If you don’t like it, try again or learn and move on. Such is life.
It was originally housed in a PCGS MS66 early gen. OGH. I had later submitted it to CAC where JA rejected it but later explained, saying he thought the coin was very well struck and could end up in a 67 holder, but that he thought it was a little too ‘white’ for his liking.
>
I think the important lesson here is not to crack out a coin that did not CAC and then submit it to CACG. A DETAILS label or a PVC body bag is worse than a coin without a sticker. Also, remember CAC does not sticker DETAILS coins.
There was nothing intentionally deceptive about it. Regardless, it was indeed a mistake. My reputation is going to be just fine. 👍🏻
The Cacg image makes the coins overall appearance nicer IMO but it also makes what looks like a spot under the eagles right wing on the reverse stand out. Almost like a spot removal. Other areas on the reverse look a bit off in the CACG image. Mostly between the arrows and eagle. Luster is muted. Doesn’t look like the whole coin was affected.
But of course I’m only picking it apart looking for a reason CACG detailed it. I was thinking it was a 66+ based on the original GtG.
My Ebay Store