@TrickleCharge said:
Solid for the grade, a miss by CAC, or a case of leniency when it comes to a less common coin?
Based on the images, I don’t see leniency or a miss by CAC. I don’t expect Proof (62) coins to look particularly appealing. And even if rarities are graded more liberally, Proof 1877 20c pieces don’t strike me as being rare enough to catch a break.
Fair assessment, a proof at this grade isn't going to be without at least some issues. You would agree then with CAC that this coin is not just an average PR62, but premium for the grade?
It’s often nearly impossible to assess Proof coins adequately from images. But I don’t see anything in the ones provided that makes me question the appropriateness of a CAC sticker (for solid-for-the-grade quality).
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@TrickleCharge said:
Solid for the grade, a miss by CAC, or a case of leniency when it comes to a less common coin?
Based on the images, I don’t see leniency or a miss by CAC. I don’t expect Proof (62) coins to look particularly appealing. And even if rarities are graded more liberally, Proof 1877 20c pieces don’t strike me as being rare enough to catch a break.
Fair assessment, a proof at this grade isn't going to be without at least some issues. You would agree then with CAC that this coin is not just an average PR62, but premium for the grade?
It’s often nearly impossible to assess Proof coins adequately from images. But I don’t see anything in the ones provided that makes me question the appropriateness of a CAC sticker (for solid-for-the-grade quality).
Thank you, I appreciate that assessment. Perhaps I was being too hard on it as I had it at 60 or 61 with the hairlines and marks.
@TrickleCharge said:
Solid for the grade, a miss by CAC, or a case of leniency when it comes to a less common coin?
Based on the images, I don’t see leniency or a miss by CAC. I don’t expect Proof (62) coins to look particularly appealing. And even if rarities are graded more liberally, Proof 1877 20c pieces don’t strike me as being rare enough to catch a break.
Fair assessment, a proof at this grade isn't going to be without at least some issues. You would agree then with CAC that this coin is not just an average PR62, but premium for the grade?
It’s often nearly impossible to assess Proof coins adequately from images. But I don’t see anything in the ones provided that makes me question the appropriateness of a CAC sticker (for solid-for-the-grade quality).
Thank you, I appreciate that assessment. Perhaps I was being too hard on it as I had it at 60 or 61 with the hairlines and marks.
You’re most welcome. Often, coins graded Proof 60 and 61 (and sometimes even 62) look rather terrible with heavy hairlining. And in many cases, the harlining is due to obvious cleaning.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Great topic, OP. I've wondered about this 1795 $10 MS65+ CAC for a while. If that's a partial hole below the eagle, I don't think this coin should have been straight graded or stickered but maybe it's a mint flaw.
.
.
Thought that dot might be a characteristic of a die variety. It isn't. Recalled seeing that one listed in an auction catalog before. The lot description verifies that it is a mark on the coin. They called it a pinpoint nick.
With that said, I can't automatically say that I disagree with PCGS or CAC. If I were to see the coin in person there is a possibility that I might still consider it an MS-65 in spite of the mark, or maybe not. Still photos may not convey enough of the true appearance both to the good or bad side.
Perhaps someone who has seen it can add their thoughts.
As far as the coin in the original post, I am suprised it would CAC. Have seen a few coins much more common than the 1870-CC graded with similar problems though non-CAC. Whether it was considered allowable or simply missed is not clear.
.
.
This lot description is from Auction '84 in July 1984. It brought $55,000 which was exactly Greysheet MS-65 bid at the time. Not sure if it has ever been offered at auction since then.
I sent in a 1912-s 5c Nickel graded by NGC in the fine range with an old scratch with some others and was a little surprised they did sticker it. JA really wants to do everything he can to support the hobby of numismatics while maintaining reasonable and strict standards. Sometimes I think he's trying to do his maximum to help submitters out.
@logger7 said:
I sent in a 1912-s 5c Nickel graded by NGC in the fine range with an old scratch with some others and was a little surprised they did sticker it. JA really wants to do everything he can to support the hobby of numismatics while maintaining reasonable and strict standards. Sometimes I think he's trying to do his maximum to help submitters out.
Your last two sentences look as if they could be contradictory.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Within just about any series, the quality of the specific date/mint product matters… one cannot look at a 1926-S and a 1938-D Buffalo and compare them with the same yardstick.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@breakdown said:
Mark knows far more about grading than I do. I will say, however, that when I collected Buffalos, I saw a lot of overgraded mint state 26-S’s, which I perceived as rare coin leniency.
I had a difficult time finding an acceptable coin for my set that I thought was accurately graded.
It’s certainly possible that the 1926-S nickels you thought were overgraded had been given some leniency. Perhaps I’ve been guilty of focusing on the ultra rarities and largely ignoring how the same grading practice might pertain to lesser value coins.
It's also possible they were weakly struck (see other thread)
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
I’m not seeing a CAC sticker on that Pogue dollar.
It wasn’t when it sold in 2017, nor does the cert show that it is now 🤷♂️.
IMO, just like anything else, CAC uses some of the same reasons for clemency, but do a lesser degree. Does CAC cut slack for rarity? Sure, but to a lesser degree. Do they allow color bumps? Sure, but to a lesser degree. Does CAC approve coins that have been lightly cleaned or dipped in the past? Sure, but to a lesser degree….
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
I’m not seeing a CAC sticker on that Pogue dollar.
It wasn’t when it sold in 2017, nor does the cert show that it is now 🤷♂️.
IMO, just like anything else, CAC uses some of the same reasons for clemency, but do a lesser degree. Does CAC cut slack for rarity? Sure, but to a lesser degree. Do they allow color bumps? Sure, but to a lesser degree. Does CAC approve coins that have been lightly cleaned or dipped in the past? Sure, but to a lesser degree….
Last I checked, CAC had not stickered any of the 1804 dollars.
As for 26-S Buffs, yes many were poorly struck. Also many have subdued luster. Those aren’t reasons to use a “different yardstick” than for other Buffalos. After all, yardsticks becomes less useful if they measure differently depending on the item being measured. They are supposed to be 36 inches for all situations, not 32 for some and 38 for others.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
So I could have an 1858 quarter in the same exact condition with the scratch and it is going to be in a details holder? That makes zero sense. Grade the coin and not the date and MM. End of story. My opinion is that everyone missed the scratch around liberty. It shouldn’t have been CAC’d or straight graded. It happens. Buy the coin, not the holder.
Holders and stickers matter but I would call it an anomaly and just leave it at that, it doesn't change anything in the marketplace overall. Good catch though.
Within just about any series, the quality of the specific date/mint product matters… one cannot look at a 1926-S and a 1938-D Buffalo and compare them with the same yardstick.
I meant what I wrote and wrote what I meant.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@coinkat said:
Within just about any series, the quality of the specific date/mint product matters… one cannot look at a 1926-S and a 1938-D Buffalo and compare them with the same yardstick.
And those different yardsticks leads to coins like this getting graded MS64:
jpg
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
@coinkat said:
Within just about any series, the quality of the specific date/mint product matters… one cannot look at a 1926-S and a 1938-D Buffalo and compare them with the same yardstick.
And those different yardsticks leads to coins like this getting graded MS64:
jpg
It’s not a different yardstick, strike just isn’t a significant factor in grade. The yardstick that’s the same is surface condition.
Then PCGS decided to cross it with a straight grade:
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
@Proofmorgan said:
I think this coin being 65 CAC says it all.
I don't think it says anything at all....there's one example to collect. The coin looks like a 65 anyway, maybe another date would net to 64 because of the knee but its overall appearance is full gem. The coin is worth the same amount either way, but I have seen way worse in 65 holders , and Imo holding CAC in contempt for possibly cutting some slack to advertise on the most renowned (one of one) coin in the world Is silly. I would give much more weight to 1804 dollars 1796 no stars QE's or something with multiple examples, a sticker on a unique coin has the least amount of implications to me, and really has no relevance market wise.
@Proofmorgan said:
I think this coin being 65 CAC says it all.
I don't think it says anything at all....there's one example to collect. The coin looks like a 65 anyway, maybe another date would net to 64 because of the knee but its overall appearance is full gem. The coin is worth the same amount either way, but I have seen way worse in 65 holders , and Imo holding CAC in contempt for possibly cutting some slack to advertise on the most renowned (one of one) coin in the world Is silly. I would give much more weight to 1804 dollars 1796 no stars QE's or something with multiple examples, a sticker on a unique coin has the least amount of implications to me, and really has no relevance market wise.
As usual you are correct.
I'll try again (as in many, many similar threads) to slightly rephrase this so maybe it sinks in with some collectors who misunderstand the sticker process for whatever reason (although I don't have much hope of making a difference).
If a coin has a green sticker it means that John Albanese would be satisfied upon seeing the coin if he bought it sight unseen. That's it.
There are all sorts of implications and innuendo based on his grading criteria, the market, etc.
So, for the 1933 $20, JA is saying he would buy it sight unseen in its current PCGS MS65 holder. I bet he would!
@Proofmorgan said:
I think this coin being 65 CAC says it all.
It might say something but it sure doesn’t say it all. The lack of a CAC sticker on any 1804 dollar says quite a bit.
Putting a CAC sticker on an 1804 silver dollar would be like putting a bumper sticker on a Ferrari.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@Elcontador said:
As long as people are grading / evaluating coins, errors will be made. If it's a one off, I don't think this is a big deal. If you see a pattern, that's another matter.
I think that is the point of this discussion. Apparently, this sort of thing happens more than many of us would like. Unfortunately, it is what it is.
I don't submit enough to know on a large scale. I do know that it is very tough to get a CAC sticker on Heraldic Eagle and Flowing Hair Dollars, as I've seen enough of them to have an idea.
I buy the coin I like in the holder that works for me, with or without the rest of it. I don't try to send coins in for stickers or upgrades anymore due to what I have seen to be inconsistencies from the powers that be.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
@coinkat said:
Within just about any series, the quality of the specific date/mint product matters… one cannot look at a 1926-S and a 1938-D Buffalo and compare them with the same yardstick.
And those different yardsticks leads to coins like this getting graded MS64:
jpg
It’s not a different yardstick, strike just isn’t a significant factor in grade. The yardstick that’s the same is surface condition.
I think as a practice at PC and NGC, you are correct. I don’t agree that strike for Buffalos is such an irrelevancy and it had at least some importance to me when I collected Buffalos. In PCGS grading standards, MS64 is “Average or better strike with scattered marks or hairlines, though none severe.”
The definition (one short sentence) begins with strike and states that it should be average or better. The obverse on the coin I show is not even close to that.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
@Proofmorgan said:
I think this coin being 65 CAC says it all.
It might say something but it sure doesn’t say it all. The lack of a CAC sticker on any 1804 dollar says quite a bit.
Putting a CAC sticker on an 1804 silver dollar would be like putting a bumper sticker on a Ferrari.
I might do that.
God comes first in everything I do. I’m dedicated to serving Him with my whole life. Coin collecting is just a hobby—but even in that, I seek to honor Him. ✝️
@ProofCollection said:
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@ProofCollection said:
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
“Customer agrees to TPG dispute arbitration at the headquarters of said TPG, to be solely determined by TPG retained arbiters”
The 26-s Buff posted here is about as good as it gets for the majority of collectors. When the quality of the strike is discussed, it really needs context. How does this 26-s compare to others graded at the same level? How about even at a lower grade level at 63? There are MS examples of this date as well as the25-D and 25-s that just lack significant detail with some not even having a full horn.
I have no problem with the 64 grade and it was graded 64 for all the right reasons.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@ProofCollection said:
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
By that logic the TPGs then never pay out on guarantees for getting the grade wrong, but we know they do make such payments routinely.
@ProofCollection said:
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
By that logic the TPGs then never pay out on guarantees for getting the grade wrong, but we know they do make such payments routinely.
That logic doesn’t need to lead to a complete lack of guarantee payouts. But it can certainly aid in the affordable management of them.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@ProofCollection said:
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
By that logic the TPGs then never pay out on guarantees for getting the grade wrong, but we know they do make such payments routinely.
Routinely?
Not by a LONG shot. Try fighting for months to get a penny out of them (for anything, not just grade guarantee), even when they have already acknowledged an error.
@ProofCollection said:
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
By that logic the TPGs then never pay out on guarantees for getting the grade wrong, but we know they do make such payments routinely.
Routinely?
Not by a LONG shot. Try fighting for months to get a penny out of them (for anything, not just grade guarantee), even when they have already acknowledged an error.
Yes routinely. I have no doubt that they cut checks every week. That has nothing to do with how hard it is to get through the process, but with millions of coins graded and having received a few checks myself, I have no doubt that more than 52 checks are being written every year making it a weekly routine.
IMHO, grading 1926-S nickels is like grading 1922-D cents struck from the worser dies. You take into consideration what the coin looked like when it was new, and calculate how much is gone from that.
I own the finest known 1922 “No D, Weak Reverse” cent from Die Pair #4B. (There are of course nicer coins from Die Pairs #1 and #3.) Lots of original Red Brown. Take away that Red Brown and it is barely Good. It is in a major TPG AU-55 slab. I think it is Mint State but net graded.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@ProofCollection said:
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
By that logic the TPGs then never pay out on guarantees for getting the grade wrong, but we know they do make such payments routinely.
Routinely?
Not by a LONG shot. Try fighting for months to get a penny out of them (for anything, not just grade guarantee), even when they have already acknowledged an error.
Yes routinely. I have no doubt that they cut checks every week. That has nothing to do with how hard it is to get through the process, but with millions of coins graded and having received a few checks myself, I have no doubt that more than 52 checks are being written every year making it a weekly routine.
The matter of something being "routine" doesn't necessarily make it acceptable though.
As a Heritage client, I remember when that 1913 type 2 Buffalo Nickel struck on a $5 gold planchet came to auction. I think it is a fake, intentionally made to pass as an extremely rare error coin and to sell at a steep profit above the value of its gold bullion -- which it did -- it sold for $78,000 at Heritage in January 2021.
I am not a professional grader nor do I work for a TPG company, but I have seen many Buffalo nickels and U.S. gold coins, and the look of this coin does not add up to being what it is claimed to be nor having been produced by the U.S. mint.
Here is my evidence, but you be the judge:
1. The color of the surfaces of the coin look fresh and new, not 107 years old, as it was when it was "found" and encapsulated. In fact, the color of the surfaces look the same as the the gold in the test cut mark on its rim. There is no old skin tone on this coin.
2. The metal flow caused from long-in-use, old dies matches the metal flow of a 25% nickel/75% copper five cent piece, but it does not match the metal flow of any 90% gold/10% copper gold piece that I've ever seen.
3. The die clash from the chin, under the E Pluribus Unum, on the reverse matches the soft, rounded die clash of many Buffalo nickels struck on a 25% nickel/75% copper planchet, but it does not match the usually sharp-edged die clashes seen on any gold coins.
4. The auction description itself casts a few doubts: why old worn dies would have been used, and the unknown history of the piece that just happened to appear out of nowhere after 107 years.
My theory is that the coin was struck from dies that were made from a cast of a mold of a 1913 nickel -- and a worn, poorly struck one at that. This would explain the metal flow and the AU wear look.
I look forward to reading what others have to think.
@bammbamm said:
As a Heritage client, I remember when that 1913 type 2 Buffalo Nickel struck on a $5 gold planchet came to auction. I think it is a fake, intentionally made to pass as an extremely rare error coin and to sell at a steep profit above the value of its gold bullion -- which it did -- it sold for $78,000 at Heritage in January 2021.
I am not a professional grader nor do I work for a TPG company, but I have seen many Buffalo nickels and U.S. gold coins, and the look of this coin does not add up to being what it is claimed to be nor having been produced by the U.S. mint.
Here is my evidence, but you be the judge:
1. The color of the surfaces of the coin look fresh and new, not 107 years old, as it was when it was "found" and encapsulated. In fact, the color of the surfaces look the same as the the gold in the test cut mark on its rim. There is no old skin tone on this coin.
2. The metal flow caused from long-in-use, old dies matches the metal flow of a 25% nickel/75% copper five cent piece, but it does not match the metal flow of any 90% gold/10% copper gold piece that I've ever seen.
3. The die clash from the chin, under the E Pluribus Unum, on the reverse matches the soft, rounded die clash of many Buffalo nickels struck on a 25% nickel/75% copper planchet, but it does not match the usually sharp-edged die clashes seen on any gold coins.
4. The auction description itself casts a few doubts: why old worn dies would have been used, and the unknown history of the piece that just happened to appear out of nowhere after 107 years.
My theory is that the coin was struck from dies that were made from a cast of a mold of a 1913 nickel -- and a worn, poorly struck one at that. This would explain the metal flow and the AU wear look.
I look forward to reading what others have to think.
I'm reasonably sure late night shenanigans were involved. I see no reason to think it is a counterfeit.
Absence of toning on a gold coin is evidence of nothing. Gold does not tone easily. It also could easily have been dipped.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@coinkat said:
Within just about any series, the quality of the specific date/mint product matters… one cannot look at a 1926-S and a 1938-D Buffalo and compare them with the same yardstick.
And those different yardsticks leads to coins like this getting graded MS64:
jpg
It’s not a different yardstick, strike just isn’t a significant factor in grade. The yardstick that’s the same is surface condition.
JA told me that CAC doesn't sticker coins with weak strikes, about 10 years ago.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
@ProofCollection said:
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
By that logic the TPGs then never pay out on guarantees for getting the grade wrong, but we know they do make such payments routinely.
Routinely?
Not by a LONG shot. Try fighting for months to get a penny out of them (for anything, not just grade guarantee), even when they have already acknowledged an error.
Yes routinely. I have no doubt that they cut checks every week. That has nothing to do with how hard it is to get through the process, but with millions of coins graded and having received a few checks myself, I have no doubt that more than 52 checks are being written every year making it a weekly routine.
I have a ton of doubt that they cut at least 52 checks/yr for grade guarantees. I don't know where or how to find this information but I would happily bet the under.
@coinkat said:
Within just about any series, the quality of the specific date/mint product matters… one cannot look at a 1926-S and a 1938-D Buffalo and compare them with the same yardstick.
And those different yardsticks leads to coins like this getting graded MS64:
jpg
It’s not a different yardstick, strike just isn’t a significant factor in grade. The yardstick that’s the same is surface condition.
JA told me that CAC doesn't sticker coins with weak strikes, about 10 years ago.
He doesn't sticker coins with weak strikes depending on the grade. I have seen plenty of coins (and own a couple) with weak strikes and green beans.
Comments
It's certainly a tough coin in the series with a rarity in all grades that is probably similar to the OP 1870 CC 25C.
It’s often nearly impossible to assess Proof coins adequately from images. But I don’t see anything in the ones provided that makes me question the appropriateness of a CAC sticker (for solid-for-the-grade quality).
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thank you, I appreciate that assessment. Perhaps I was being too hard on it as I had it at 60 or 61 with the hairlines and marks.
You’re most welcome. Often, coins graded Proof 60 and 61 (and sometimes even 62) look rather terrible with heavy hairlining. And in many cases, the harlining is due to obvious cleaning.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
.
.
Thought that dot might be a characteristic of a die variety. It isn't. Recalled seeing that one listed in an auction catalog before. The lot description verifies that it is a mark on the coin. They called it a pinpoint nick.
With that said, I can't automatically say that I disagree with PCGS or CAC. If I were to see the coin in person there is a possibility that I might still consider it an MS-65 in spite of the mark, or maybe not. Still photos may not convey enough of the true appearance both to the good or bad side.
Perhaps someone who has seen it can add their thoughts.
As far as the coin in the original post, I am suprised it would CAC. Have seen a few coins much more common than the 1870-CC graded with similar problems though non-CAC. Whether it was considered allowable or simply missed is not clear.
.
.
This lot description is from Auction '84 in July 1984. It brought $55,000 which was exactly Greysheet MS-65 bid at the time. Not sure if it has ever been offered at auction since then.
https://archive.org/details/auction84featuri1984stac/page/422/mode/1up
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
I sent in a 1912-s 5c Nickel graded by NGC in the fine range with an old scratch with some others and was a little surprised they did sticker it. JA really wants to do everything he can to support the hobby of numismatics while maintaining reasonable and strict standards. Sometimes I think he's trying to do his maximum to help submitters out.
Your last two sentences look as if they could be contradictory.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Within just about any series, the quality of the specific date/mint product matters… one cannot look at a 1926-S and a 1938-D Buffalo and compare them with the same yardstick.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
It's also possible they were weakly struck (see other thread)
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
I’m not seeing a CAC sticker on that Pogue dollar.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
It wasn’t when it sold in 2017, nor does the cert show that it is now 🤷♂️.
IMO, just like anything else, CAC uses some of the same reasons for clemency, but do a lesser degree. Does CAC cut slack for rarity? Sure, but to a lesser degree. Do they allow color bumps? Sure, but to a lesser degree. Does CAC approve coins that have been lightly cleaned or dipped in the past? Sure, but to a lesser degree….
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Last I checked, CAC had not stickered any of the 1804 dollars.
As for 26-S Buffs, yes many were poorly struck. Also many have subdued luster. Those aren’t reasons to use a “different yardstick” than for other Buffalos. After all, yardsticks becomes less useful if they measure differently depending on the item being measured. They are supposed to be 36 inches for all situations, not 32 for some and 38 for others.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
So I could have an 1858 quarter in the same exact condition with the scratch and it is going to be in a details holder? That makes zero sense. Grade the coin and not the date and MM. End of story. My opinion is that everyone missed the scratch around liberty. It shouldn’t have been CAC’d or straight graded. It happens. Buy the coin, not the holder.
...and yet that's 8 out of 10 of the last posts on this thread.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Holders and stickers matter but I would call it an anomaly and just leave it at that, it doesn't change anything in the marketplace overall. Good catch though.
Within just about any series, the quality of the specific date/mint product matters… one cannot look at a 1926-S and a 1938-D Buffalo and compare them with the same yardstick.
I meant what I wrote and wrote what I meant.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
And those different yardsticks leads to coins like this getting graded MS64:
jpg
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
It’s not a different yardstick, strike just isn’t a significant factor in grade. The yardstick that’s the same is surface condition.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
First it was net graded by PCGS:
Then it was straight graded by NGC:
Then PCGS decided to cross it with a straight grade:
I think this coin being 65 CAC says it all.
It might say something but it sure doesn’t say it all. The lack of a CAC sticker on any 1804 dollar says quite a bit.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I don't think it says anything at all....there's one example to collect. The coin looks like a 65 anyway, maybe another date would net to 64 because of the knee but its overall appearance is full gem. The coin is worth the same amount either way, but I have seen way worse in 65 holders , and Imo holding CAC in contempt for possibly cutting some slack to advertise on the most renowned (one of one) coin in the world Is silly. I would give much more weight to 1804 dollars 1796 no stars QE's or something with multiple examples, a sticker on a unique coin has the least amount of implications to me, and really has no relevance market wise.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
As usual you are correct.
I'll try again (as in many, many similar threads) to slightly rephrase this so maybe it sinks in with some collectors who misunderstand the sticker process for whatever reason (although I don't have much hope of making a difference).
If a coin has a green sticker it means that John Albanese would be satisfied upon seeing the coin if he bought it sight unseen. That's it.
There are all sorts of implications and innuendo based on his grading criteria, the market, etc.
So, for the 1933 $20, JA is saying he would buy it sight unseen in its current PCGS MS65 holder. I bet he would!
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Putting a CAC sticker on an 1804 silver dollar would be like putting a bumper sticker on a Ferrari.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Fair enough. But what about putting a sticker on an NGC or PCGS holder in which an 1804 dollar is encapsulated?😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I bet if his Ferrari won the classic car gold medal he'd hang it in the wall in the Ferrari's garage.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
I don't submit enough to know on a large scale. I do know that it is very tough to get a CAC sticker on Heraldic Eagle and Flowing Hair Dollars, as I've seen enough of them to have an idea.
I buy the coin I like in the holder that works for me, with or without the rest of it. I don't try to send coins in for stickers or upgrades anymore due to what I have seen to be inconsistencies from the powers that be.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
I think as a practice at PC and NGC, you are correct. I don’t agree that strike for Buffalos is such an irrelevancy and it had at least some importance to me when I collected Buffalos. In PCGS grading standards, MS64 is “Average or better strike with scattered marks or hairlines, though none severe.”
The definition (one short sentence) begins with strike and states that it should be average or better. The obverse on the coin I show is not even close to that.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
How about the 6 point scratch on the right elbow. That is not a pocket scratch
Lafayette Grading Set
Agreed.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
It would be interesting to ask JA whether anyone has ever submitted an 1804 for stickering.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
http://ProofCollection.Net
I might do that.
God comes first in everything I do. I’m dedicated to serving Him with my whole life. Coin collecting is just a hobby—but even in that, I seek to honor Him. ✝️
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
“Customer agrees to TPG dispute arbitration at the headquarters of said TPG, to be solely determined by TPG retained arbiters”
😉
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
The 26-s Buff posted here is about as good as it gets for the majority of collectors. When the quality of the strike is discussed, it really needs context. How does this 26-s compare to others graded at the same level? How about even at a lower grade level at 63? There are MS examples of this date as well as the25-D and 25-s that just lack significant detail with some not even having a full horn.
I have no problem with the 64 grade and it was graded 64 for all the right reasons.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
By that logic the TPGs then never pay out on guarantees for getting the grade wrong, but we know they do make such payments routinely.
http://ProofCollection.Net
That logic doesn’t need to lead to a complete lack of guarantee payouts. But it can certainly aid in the affordable management of them.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Routinely?
Not by a LONG shot. Try fighting for months to get a penny out of them (for anything, not just grade guarantee), even when they have already acknowledged an error.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Yes routinely. I have no doubt that they cut checks every week. That has nothing to do with how hard it is to get through the process, but with millions of coins graded and having received a few checks myself, I have no doubt that more than 52 checks are being written every year making it a weekly routine.
http://ProofCollection.Net
Apropos grading 1926-S nickels:
IMHO, grading 1926-S nickels is like grading 1922-D cents struck from the worser dies. You take into consideration what the coin looked like when it was new, and calculate how much is gone from that.
I own the finest known 1922 “No D, Weak Reverse” cent from Die Pair #4B. (There are of course nicer coins from Die Pairs #1 and #3.) Lots of original Red Brown. Take away that Red Brown and it is barely Good. It is in a major TPG AU-55 slab. I think it is Mint State but net graded.
TD
The matter of something being "routine" doesn't necessarily make it acceptable though.
As a Heritage client, I remember when that 1913 type 2 Buffalo Nickel struck on a $5 gold planchet came to auction. I think it is a fake, intentionally made to pass as an extremely rare error coin and to sell at a steep profit above the value of its gold bullion -- which it did -- it sold for $78,000 at Heritage in January 2021.
I am not a professional grader nor do I work for a TPG company, but I have seen many Buffalo nickels and U.S. gold coins, and the look of this coin does not add up to being what it is claimed to be nor having been produced by the U.S. mint.
Here is my evidence, but you be the judge:
1. The color of the surfaces of the coin look fresh and new, not 107 years old, as it was when it was "found" and encapsulated. In fact, the color of the surfaces look the same as the the gold in the test cut mark on its rim. There is no old skin tone on this coin.
2. The metal flow caused from long-in-use, old dies matches the metal flow of a 25% nickel/75% copper five cent piece, but it does not match the metal flow of any 90% gold/10% copper gold piece that I've ever seen.
3. The die clash from the chin, under the E Pluribus Unum, on the reverse matches the soft, rounded die clash of many Buffalo nickels struck on a 25% nickel/75% copper planchet, but it does not match the usually sharp-edged die clashes seen on any gold coins.
4. The auction description itself casts a few doubts: why old worn dies would have been used, and the unknown history of the piece that just happened to appear out of nowhere after 107 years.
My theory is that the coin was struck from dies that were made from a cast of a mold of a 1913 nickel -- and a worn, poorly struck one at that. This would explain the metal flow and the AU wear look.
I look forward to reading what others have to think.
I'm reasonably sure late night shenanigans were involved. I see no reason to think it is a counterfeit.
Absence of toning on a gold coin is evidence of nothing. Gold does not tone easily. It also could easily have been dipped.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
JA told me that CAC doesn't sticker coins with weak strikes, about 10 years ago.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
I have a ton of doubt that they cut at least 52 checks/yr for grade guarantees. I don't know where or how to find this information but I would happily bet the under.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
He doesn't sticker coins with weak strikes depending on the grade. I have seen plenty of coins (and own a couple) with weak strikes and green beans.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com