@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.
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?
@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)
@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….
@coastaljerseyguy said:
Agree wish it wasn't stickered, but also agree it would probably get a clean grade of AG3 most of the time. Not to offer excuses, but that first photo is at least 50X's the size of the quarter - see how many quarters will fit into that photo. The close ups probably > 100X's magnified. Graders use a 5-7X loupe. Is it obviously traced with the right magnification, yes but in hand without any magnification probably looks ok for an AG3.
Sorry. IMO - again, that coin is obviously "naked eye damaged" and any one worth 2c would point out the problem when the coin was offered to them.
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.
@VanHalen said: Does CAC cut slack for rare coins.
Irrespective of the coin in question, my answer is no.
The alternative is too horrible to contemplate. That means the professionals at PCGS and CAC are not up to the job of protecting the public and placing values on coins. In my VERY LIMITED experience, I don't think a grade is important once a coin is detailed. Is it possible that the reverse is a G+ to VG and the obvers just missed G so the coin was net graded for the scratch?
@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.
@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.
Agree. The ANA grading guide says a coin graded 62 can have continuous hairlines [from mishandling such as light cleaning?]
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.
The guys who write for these auctions are worth their weight in gold. It is such a beautiful coin that only a real nitpicker would need us to mention the punch damage (pin prick) on the reverse of this virtually first struck (sure it was) coin.
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.
@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.
I thought that is what knowledgeable Professionals do. The difference is a 26-Ss will look different from a 38-D in each identical grade due to its strike and luster. Same yardstick but a different appearance. I think that might be what you are saying.
@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….
Come on. I have been collecting coins since the 1960's. I've seen authentication and grading services come and go. Authentication has not changed: Good, Bad, No Decision. Grading has changed and IMO, anyone who does not know that every TPGS started out very strict and then became more lenient is not very informed. If history is to be believed, even CAC grading has changed. Comments here seem to support that conclusion.
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.
...and yet that's 8 out of 10 of the last posts on this thread.
I come to this forum mostly on weekends and post in bunches to specific posters in all the discussions that I flag. I rarely buy coins at auction, but I do read cast-away catalogues. I don't use TPGS's, but I do buy slabs - let the other guy pay. I do lurk on the CAC forum and have posted with a suggestion one time with JA. Making suggestions to improve stuff is in my nature. Therefore, I think I am an above average collector with VERY LIMITED EXPERIENCE on those topics. I read lots of numismatic publications. Potter, Julian, Fazzari, Lange (RIP), Fahey, and Mishler are my favorite columnists. I do have friends on both sides of the bourse table and keep my 60+ old ear to the ground, so I think I add value to the CU coin forum when I am able to post an opinion. Experience is a two-edge sword. I consider the CONTENT of a member's post rather than the number of them, the value of their collection, their popularity, or how long they have been posting here.
I tried to send you a PM. Apparently, you have me blocked so someone may alert you to this request:
Perhaps in the future, rather than making an off-subject reply to the way I post, I wish you would either add your EXPERIENCED opinion to the discussion or refute something I posted that you disagree with.
PS I know you collect Trade dollars so I'm waiting for you to add your experience and knowledge to my Trade Dollar discussion! Thank you very much.
@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.
@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.
Comments
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.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
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 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)
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
Sorry. IMO - again, that coin is obviously "naked eye damaged" and any one worth 2c would point out the problem when the coin was offered to them.
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.
My post is about the OP's quarter:
The alternative is too horrible to contemplate. That means the professionals at PCGS and CAC are not up to the job of protecting the public and placing values on coins. In my VERY LIMITED experience, I don't think a grade is important once a coin is detailed. Is it possible that the reverse is a G+ to VG and the obvers just missed G so the coin was net graded for the scratch?
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.
Yes, but that is a "detailed" slab.
Agree. The ANA grading guide says a coin graded 62 can have continuous hairlines [from mishandling such as light cleaning?]
The guys who write for these auctions are worth their weight in gold. It is such a beautiful coin that only a real nitpicker would need us to mention the punch damage (pin prick) on the reverse of this virtually first struck (sure it was) coin.
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.
I thought that is what knowledgeable Professionals do. The difference is a 26-Ss will look different from a 38-D in each identical grade due to its strike and luster. Same yardstick but a different appearance. I think that might be what you are saying.
Come on. I have been collecting coins since the 1960's. I've seen authentication and grading services come and go. Authentication has not changed: Good, Bad, No Decision. Grading has changed and IMO, anyone who does not know that every TPGS started out very strict and then became more lenient is not very informed. If history is to be believed, even CAC grading has changed. Comments here seem to support that conclusion.
...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.
I come to this forum mostly on weekends and post in bunches to specific posters in all the discussions that I flag. I rarely buy coins at auction, but I do read cast-away catalogues. I don't use TPGS's, but I do buy slabs - let the other guy pay. I do lurk on the CAC forum and have posted with a suggestion one time with JA. Making suggestions to improve stuff is in my nature. Therefore, I think I am an above average collector with VERY LIMITED EXPERIENCE on those topics. I read lots of numismatic publications. Potter, Julian, Fazzari, Lange (RIP), Fahey, and Mishler are my favorite columnists. I do have friends on both sides of the bourse table and keep my 60+ old ear to the ground, so I think I add value to the CU coin forum when I am able to post an opinion. Experience is a two-edge sword. I consider the CONTENT of a member's post rather than the number of them, the value of their collection, their popularity, or how long they have been posting here.
I tried to send you a PM. Apparently, you have me blocked so someone may alert you to this request:
Perhaps in the future, rather than making an off-subject reply to the way I post, I wish you would either add your EXPERIENCED opinion to the discussion or refute something I posted that you disagree with.
PS I know you collect Trade dollars so I'm waiting for you to add your experience and knowledge to my Trade Dollar discussion! Thank you very much.
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.
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.
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.