@breakdown said:
I am with earlyAurum. I respect his collection and opinions as we both collect early gold. But at some level, we are at the mercy of auction houses, dealers and grading services. I feel more that way as many of my contacts retire ( hi Mark!) or otherwise step back from the business.
Both PCGS and CAC can’t decide whether this example is a 53, 55 or 61, but I am asked to believe that grading services can distinguish whether a coin should be awarded a plus.
I think this example only further supports my belief that over 95 percent of pre-Civil War gold has been “improved” at some point by dipping or worse and that includes stickered coins.
Just my opinion. Bid, buy and collect accordingly.
The comment regarding “PCGS and CAC can’t decide…” is a key issue in my opinion on what is not just a garden variety coin. I think JA is rightly troubled that this occurred given the value of the coin and how 53, 55 and 61 and a CAC sticker can impact the value. If it’s not just a matter of “we (fill in the blank) screwed up” I’m interested in knowing the technical reasons for the disagreement.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
The comment regarding “PCGS and CAC can’t decide…” is a key issue in my opinion on what is not just a garden variety coin. I think JA is rightly troubled that this occurred given the value of the coin and how 53, 55 and 61 and a CAC sticker can impact the value. If it’s not just a matter of “we (fill in the blank) screwed up” I’m interested in knowing the technical reasons for the disagreement.
Agree--but perhaps for a slightly different reason.
The CAC grading guarantee is very limited (caps in the original) :
"THE MAXIMUM AGGREGATE LIABILITY … ,SHALL IN NO EVENT EXCEED THE LESSER OF THE FEE OR THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY US WITH RESPECT …."
Given that, think reputational erosion likely more of a concern than CAC’s minimal financial exposure :
"Green Bean
For its stickering services, CAC verifies the grade for coins certified by other grading services that meet the highest standard.
Out of all coins submitted to CAC, less than half receive the green sticker, commonly referred to as the "green bean". As a result, the CAC sticker serves as an unmistakable means of identifying premium coins for the grade.
Question 15: How many graders look at each coin?
Answer 15: At least two graders look at each coin.
Question 16: Does John Albanese look at every coin?
Answer 16: Yes, John reviews each coin that comes in."
Albanese didn't like the coin as a 55, yet liked it as a "premium" 61.
The comment regarding “PCGS and CAC can’t decide…” is a key issue in my opinion on what is not just a garden variety coin. I think JA is rightly troubled that this occurred given the value of the coin and how 53, 55 and 61 and a CAC sticker can impact the value. If it’s not just a matter of “we (fill in the blank) screwed up” I’m interested in knowing the technical reasons for the disagreement.
Agree--but perhaps for a slightly different reason.
The CAC grading guarantee is very limited (caps in the original) :
"THE MAXIMUM AGGREGATE LIABILITY … ,SHALL IN NO EVENT EXCEED THE LESSER OF THE FEE OR THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY US WITH RESPECT …."
Given that, think reputational erosion likely more of a concern than CAC’s minimal financial exposure :
"Green Bean
For its stickering services, CAC verifies the grade for coins certified by other grading services that meet the highest standard.
Out of all coins submitted to CAC, less than half receive the green sticker, commonly referred to as the "green bean". As a result, the CAC sticker serves as an unmistakable means of identifying premium coins for the grade.
Question 15: How many graders look at each coin?
Answer 15: At least two graders look at each coin.
Question 16: Does John Albanese look at every coin?
Answer 16: Yes, John reviews each coin that comes in."
Albanese didn't like the coin as a 55, yet liked it as a "premium" 61.
@breakdown said:
I am with earlyAurum. I respect his collection and opinions as we both collect early gold. But at some level, we are at the mercy of auction houses, dealers and grading services. I feel more that way as many of my contacts retire ( hi Mark!) or otherwise step back from the business.
Both PCGS and CAC can’t decide whether this example is a 53, 55 or 61, but I am asked to believe that grading services can distinguish whether a coin should be awarded a plus.
I think this example only further supports my belief that over 95 percent of pre-Civil War gold has been “improved” at some point by dipping or worse and that includes stickered coins.
Just my opinion. Bid, buy and collect accordingly.
The comment regarding “PCGS and CAC can’t decide…” is a key issue in my opinion on what is not just a garden variety coin. I think JA is rightly troubled that this occurred given the value of the coin and how 53, 55 and 61 and a CAC sticker can impact the value. If it’s not just a matter of “we (fill in the blank) screwed up” I’m interested in knowing the technical reasons for the disagreement.
I may be missing something but I am not sure JA even knows about the coin or its history detailed in this thread. Other than CAC saw it at least twice and came to inconsistent results.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
As to this coin - grading inconsistency is a real thing. Buyers need to grade their coins themselves. I've heard some wild numbers thrown around about how accurate CAC is, but the truth of the matter is that the very best graders usually average 70% consistency on a good day. Some might hit 80% periodically, anything above that is pretty much impossible for the long term.
Don't trust the plastic or bean blindly. Use them as a tool, and learn to grade yourself.
This is a pretty bold statement. So you have sat in a grading room grading the graders? Or have you sent in say 100 1883-CC Morgan dollars multiple times to multiple TPGs to build a statistical model? I am betting no to either of these or any other scenario. Seems like you are just throwing out numbers.
The comment regarding “PCGS and CAC can’t decide…” is a key issue in my opinion on what is not just a garden variety coin. I think JA is rightly troubled that this occurred given the value of the coin and how 53, 55 and 61 and a CAC sticker can impact the value. If it’s not just a matter of “we (fill in the blank) screwed up” I’m interested in knowing the technical reasons for the disagreement.
Agree--but perhaps for a slightly different reason.
The CAC grading guarantee is very limited (caps in the original) :
"THE MAXIMUM AGGREGATE LIABILITY … ,SHALL IN NO EVENT EXCEED THE LESSER OF THE FEE OR THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY US WITH RESPECT …."
Given that, think reputational erosion likely more of a concern than CAC’s minimal financial exposure :
"Green Bean
For its stickering services, CAC verifies the grade for coins certified by other grading services that meet the highest standard.
Out of all coins submitted to CAC, less than half receive the green sticker, commonly referred to as the "green bean". As a result, the CAC sticker serves as an unmistakable means of identifying premium coins for the grade.
Question 15: How many graders look at each coin?
Answer 15: At least two graders look at each coin.
Question 16: Does John Albanese look at every coin?
Answer 16: Yes, John reviews each coin that comes in."
Albanese didn't like the coin as a 55, yet liked it as a "premium" 61.
Why?
Well there is that interstellar object, 3I/ATLAS, which the fully trustworthy Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb keeps implying is an alien craft and it has been going through the solar system for a while.
Whether it is a 55 or 61 is a matter of opinion on different grading events 30 years apart. It seems very certain that grading standards have changed over time, I don’t think anyone will disagree with that. So………………….
I may be missing something but I am not sure JA even knows about the coin or its history detailed in this thread. Other than CAC saw it at least twice and came to inconsistent results.
In the Rattler as a 55, Tom Bush points out above some stuff that was there that does not appear in the new Tru Views as a 61. So maybe it was professionally conserved (?) in an acceptable way (?) such that it was deemed non-CAC before as a 55 and CAC in a higher grade after the successful conservation? If so, that might not be inconsistent results………………. So I am not so sure that it is easy to know the full story here and I am more cautious about why it was updgraded and later stickered. Just sayin'
As to this coin - grading inconsistency is a real thing. Buyers need to grade their coins themselves. I've heard some wild numbers thrown around about how accurate CAC is, but the truth of the matter is that the very best graders usually average 70% consistency on a good day. Some might hit 80% periodically, anything above that is pretty much impossible for the long term.
Don't trust the plastic or bean blindly. Use them as a tool, and learn to grade yourself.
This is a pretty bold statement. So you have sat in a grading room grading the graders? Or have you sent in say 100 1883-CC Morgan dollars multiple times to multiple TPGs to build a statistical model? I am betting no to either of these or any other scenario. Seems like you are just throwing out numbers.
’Truth’?
Best, DM
This is a somewhat known number if you pay close attention.
The TPGs used to use (still likely do use) the grading contests at the large shows to screen for potential graders. 70-75% was usually the line for pro graders. The all-time record for any grading contest at NGC (to include graders like Jeff Garrett and Ron Guth), is 85%. Neither of those experts hold the record.
I may be missing something but I am not sure JA even knows about the coin or its history detailed in this thread. Other than CAC saw it at least twice and came to inconsistent results.
In the Rattler as a 55, Tom Bush points out above some stuff that was there that does not appear in the new Tru Views as a 61. So maybe it was professionally conserved (?) in an acceptable way (?) such that it was deemed non-CAC before as a 55 and CAC in a higher grade after the successful conservation? If so, that might not be inconsistent results………………. So I am not so sure that it is easy to know the full story here and I am more cautious about why it was updgraded and later stickered. Just sayin'
DM,
I am a CAC backer, as I think you know. But a 55 shouldn’t be “conservable” into a 61. I would be curious to see what JA said if he saw this coin again and knew he didn’t sticker it as a 55.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
Still waiting on a call back. The coin remains in the population from what I can see.
To address some speculation, it was unknown that it was the same coin on the resubmission. A comment was made that it would likely have got the nod at 62 and the coin looked very fresh.
The coin initially failed on the premise that a choice AU coin (55) does/cannot have heavy adjustment marks despite being as minted, so it could be stickered as a 53 only. Otherwise it was considered a nice original AU coin.
I’ve seen many AU coins with high spot toning or “rub” that will never be considered MS. It is interesting that you may be able to dip off that toning and make the coin MS. Historically, I have found CAC to be very picky about holding back possible AU coins so this example is quite interesting.
With me being into the coin for 58 money it would not have made sense to alter the coin (I wouldn’t anyway). With the next owner into it for 53 money, it was worth the gamble and paid off to the tune of 400%+.
I wouid expect the submitter has significant experience in such processing in order to attempt on a mid 5 figure coin.
Despite the disappointment in the whole situation, I’m hopeful to gain some insight I can apply moving forward.
Collector of Original Early Gold with beginnings in Proof Morgan collecting.
@breakdown said:
I am with earlyAurum. I respect his collection and opinions as we both collect early gold. But at some level, we are at the mercy of auction houses, dealers and grading services. I feel more that way as many of my contacts retire ( hi Mark!) or otherwise step back from the business.
Both PCGS and CAC can’t decide whether this example is a 53, 55 or 61, but I am asked to believe that grading services can distinguish whether a coin should be awarded a plus.
I think this example only further supports my belief that over 95 percent of pre-Civil War gold has been “improved” at some point by dipping or worse and that includes stickered coins.
Just my opinion. Bid, buy and collect accordingly.
The comment regarding “PCGS and CAC can’t decide…” is a key issue in my opinion on what is not just a garden variety coin. I think JA is rightly troubled that this occurred given the value of the coin and how 53, 55 and 61 and a CAC sticker can impact the value. If it’s not just a matter of “we (fill in the blank) screwed up” I’m interested in knowing the technical reasons for the disagreement.
I may be missing something but I am not sure JA even knows about the coin or its history detailed in this thread. Other than CAC saw it at least twice and came to inconsistent results.
Based on what I read in this thread JA is aware of the situation and disturbed that CAC came to widely different opinions of it having evaluated the coin twice. I don't know if he actually saw the coin in either case.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Stay with me here because what I write might be completely counterintuitive. The quoted text in the last post by @Proofmorgan is quite interesting. It is as follows-
"The coin initially failed on the premise that a choice AU coin (55) does/cannot have heavy adjustment marks despite being as minted, so it could be stickered as a 53 only. Otherwise it was considered a nice original AU coin."
This brings up an interesting idea. Perhaps within the AU grade range a coin with heavy adjustment marks is precluded from a choice AU grade (AU55 or AU58), but those same adjustment marks might not preclude an MS61 grade if a coin is viewed as a low MS candidate. That is, if the coin was removed from the rattler and lightly and expertly dipped it would have removed the outermost layer of skin. This outermost layer of skin might have shown the rub on the coin very well, but with its removal (especially on gold coinage) then the coin might not have been so obviously worn (or so "apparently" obviously worn) and may have slid into the low MS grade range at either PCGS or CAC (which it did).
Soooooo, this "nearly" same coin might have displayed noticeable wear deserving of an AU grade (and the grade limitations due to heavy adjustment marks) before the dipping and then appeared as a coin within the MS grade range (and been exempt from those same limitations due to heavy adjustment marks) after the dipping.
I'm not saying this is the thought process involved at PCGS or CAC, but if there are different standards for grade limiting qualities (and there may or may not be) then examples like this are bound to occur.
@Desert Moon said:
Whether it is a 55 or 61 is a matter of opinion on different grading events 30 years apart. It seems very certain that grading standards have changed over time, I don’t think anyone will disagree with that. So………………….
I don't think the issue is grading standards over 30 years but CAC not giving the coin a nod at 55 and shortly there after giving the none at 61.
That said TomB brings up a scenario that might explain the discrepancy but I'm not expert enough to know if experts would see it as viable. Can the removal of toning slide a coin from AU to MS? Experts please chime in.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
I think @TomB is right on here, in that CAC (per their communication with Proofmorgan) saw some AU grade limiting factor that was not wear (adjustment marks), and left it at that.
I think it’s been shown convincingly over the years that you can dip off signs of light wear, especially on choice AU gold. Sometimes the “wear” can mostly be a buildup of impurities on the high points of the gold and removing that is enough to get the coin in an MS holder. That’s why so much gold is dipped.
As a “new” 61, CAC can now ignore the adjustment marks and grade the coin based on wear and marks, and they decided it passed.
@TomB said:
Stay with me here because what I write might be completely counterintuitive. The quoted text in the last post by @Proofmorgan is quite interesting. It is as follows-
"The coin initially failed on the premise that a choice AU coin (55) does/cannot have heavy adjustment marks despite being as minted, so it could be stickered as a 53 only. Otherwise it was considered a nice original AU coin."
This brings up an interesting idea. Perhaps within the AU grade range a coin with heavy adjustment marks is precluded from a choice AU grade (AU55 or AU58), but those same adjustment marks might not preclude an MS61 grade if a coin is viewed as a low MS candidate. That is, if the coin was removed from the rattler and lightly and expertly dipped it would have removed the outermost layer of skin. This outermost layer of skin might have shown the rub on the coin very well, but with its removal (especially on gold coinage) then the coin might not have been so obviously worn (or so "apparently" obviously worn) and may have slid into the low MS grade range at either PCGS or CAC (which it did).
Soooooo, this "nearly" same coin might have displayed noticeable wear deserving of an AU grade (and the grade limitations due to heavy adjustment marks) before the dipping and then appeared as a coin within the MS grade range (and been exempt from those same limitations due to heavy adjustment marks) after the dipping.
I'm not saying this is the thought process involved at PCGS or CAC, but if there are different standards for grade limiting qualities (and there may or may not be) then examples like this are bound to occur.
Tom, I think you may be right (barring any other alteration besides dipping, which I personally won't rule out just yet).
With that said, if this is the case, why are adjustments acceptable on MS coins but not AU? They're mint-made flaws, and if anything should be less acceptable on MS coins. I find this to be a very slippery slope.
@Desert Moon said:
Whether it is a 55 or 61 is a matter of opinion on different grading events 30 years apart. It seems very certain that grading standards have changed over time, I don’t think anyone will disagree with that. So………………….
While, that might excuse the wide disparity in grades by PCGS, I think it’s largely beside the point. From what’s been posted in this thread, my understanding is that the coin failed as an AU55 and then passed as an MS61 at CAC within a very short time period.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@TomB said:
Stay with me here because what I write might be completely counterintuitive. The quoted text in the last post by @Proofmorgan is quite interesting. It is as follows-
"The coin initially failed on the premise that a choice AU coin (55) does/cannot have heavy adjustment marks despite being as minted, so it could be stickered as a 53 only. Otherwise it was considered a nice original AU coin."
This brings up an interesting idea. Perhaps within the AU grade range a coin with heavy adjustment marks is precluded from a choice AU grade (AU55 or AU58), but those same adjustment marks might not preclude an MS61 grade if a coin is viewed as a low MS candidate. That is, if the coin was removed from the rattler and lightly and expertly dipped it would have removed the outermost layer of skin. This outermost layer of skin might have shown the rub on the coin very well, but with its removal (especially on gold coinage) then the coin might not have been so obviously worn (or so "apparently" obviously worn) and may have slid into the low MS grade range at either PCGS or CAC (which it did).
Soooooo, this "nearly" same coin might have displayed noticeable wear deserving of an AU grade (and the grade limitations due to heavy adjustment marks) before the dipping and then appeared as a coin within the MS grade range (and been exempt from those same limitations due to heavy adjustment marks) after the dipping.
I'm not saying this is the thought process involved at PCGS or CAC, but if there are different standards for grade limiting qualities (and there may or may not be) then examples like this are bound to occur.
Tom, I can’t get past my opinion that mint-made adjustment marks shouldn’t be penalized to any greater degree on an AU coin than on a mint state example. And that if anything, they should be more acceptable on the former.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Q&A with John Albanese: Adjustment Marks
March 22, 2013
One of our collector members, Ankur Jetley, recently sat down with John Albanese with the hope that he could shed some light on a few numismatic topics. This is the first of nine discussion questions in the series. Keep an eye out for the rest of the responses as we post them.
Question # 1: Adjustment marks: approximately what percentage of coins with them pass CAC? How much is too much?
I purposely waited over sixty days before answering this question. Adjustment marks are quite common on early U.S. coinage. CAC has probably viewed over 500 early coins from this period just in the last sixty days and only two weren’t stickered due to problematic adjustment marks. The first coin, an 1802/1 $5 in MS62, only had a few adjustment marks. They weren’t distracting in terms of their pattern as they were basically parallel. However, they were very deep and would be considered bothersome to even the most seasoned collector. The second coin, a 1795 50C in XF45, had about 10-15 much lighter adjustment marks. The biggest issue with the 1795 50C was zoloftanxiety.com the pattern of the adjustment marks, which crisscrossed over Miss Liberty’s profile, almost as though there was a tic-tac-toe board on the obverse. The ‘95 50C was a very easy call to not sticker, though the 02/01 $5 was a borderline call due to the coin being “fresh” and nearly MS63 in technical terms.
Most coins with adjustment marks viewed by CAC are barely even considered potentially problematic and it is rare for adjustment marks to be factored into a decision as to whether they merit a sticker. There are currently four CAC graders and all have at least 30 years of coin grading experience. We’ve all been taught that adjustment marks are “mint made” and are rarely a factor in determining the desirability of early U.S. coinage. I sure hope the current crop of young graders continues this tradition and doesn’t succumb to the pressures of less sophisticated....
I'll bring this up as it is relevant to the current conversation:
When I argued that I felt the coin should have been stickered after I received the result, citing weak strike and adjustment marks are very common for this variety (as opposed to the Large 8). The response was that this coin was discussed in depth to the point the Virgina Beach team was consulted. Ultimately, they decided as I said before, it would never be considered "choice AU" and I was advised to send to CACG to grade as a 53 if I were to sell or leave it alone if I was to keep. I left in alone AND sold as I felt in my experience a nice coin in a rattler usually sells decently strong even if not stickered. I was incorrect in this instance.
I did press further in my conversation as I still disagreed with the decision and the conversation basically ended with: "I'd like to sticker it, but I would have to answer for it if I did". That gave me the sense that CAC had rejected other coins with adjustment marks from prominent submitters so could not give this coin a pass, even though he said it was a nice original AU and loved the look in hand. An example of this that comes to mind is that Rare Coin Wholesalers has an 1804 $10 that looks PQ in 61, but has heavy adjustment marks on the bust and is not stickered. Though, that contradicts the decision to sticker my ex coin in 61.
I have yet to receive a call back (I understand JA is a very busy guy and I have much respect for him). I hope that this thread does not put a damper on receiving that feedback. I do value transparency and ultimately hoped that sharing my experience may be informative to members here.
Collector of Original Early Gold with beginnings in Proof Morgan collecting.
@Proofmorgan said:
I'll bring this up as it is relevant to the current conversation:
When I argued that I felt the coin should have been stickered after I received the result, citing weak strike and adjustment marks are very common for this variety (as opposed to the Large 8). The response was that this coin was discussed in depth to the point the Virgina Beach team was consulted. Ultimately, they decided as I said before, it would never be considered "choice AU" and I was advised to send to CACG to grade as a 53 if I were to sell or leave it alone if I was to keep. I left in alone AND sold as I felt in my experience a nice coin in a rattler usually sells decently strong even if not stickered. I was incorrect in this instance.
I did press further in my conversation as I still disagreed with the decision and the conversation basically ended with: "I'd like to sticker it, but I would have to answer for it if I did". That gave me the sense that CAC had rejected other coins with adjustment marks from prominent submitters so could not give this coin a pass, even though he said it was a nice original AU and loved the look in hand. An example of this that comes to mind is that Rare Coin Wholesalers has an 1804 $10 that looks PQ in 61, but has heavy adjustment marks on the bust and is not stickered. Though, that contradicts the decision to sticker my ex coin in 61.
I have yet to receive a call back (I understand JA is a very busy guy and I have much respect for him). I hope that this thread does not put a damper on receiving that feedback. I do value transparency and ultimately hoped that sharing my experience may be informative to members here.
I could post this thread over at CAC's forums if you'd like.
The first is the very odd ".com" that is within the quoted text posted by @JCH22. If one reads the text you will see a commercial (or hoax or spam) site embedded into the text. I followed the link provided and it is there, too. Weird.
The second is that I agree with @MFeld that mint-made adjustment marks shouldn't be penalized any more on an AU coin than they are on an MS coin. As I wrote in my previous post, I'm not saying that they are penalized more heavily, but instead saying that if they are then that might explain the evaluation results.
Regardless, if that is the line in the sand for a TPG or CAC then if we take a hypothetical near-pristine, 18th century gold coin that has nearly universal terrific luster, great skin, fabulous color and very few marks, but one that also has deep adjustment marks and only the slightest wisp of wear then I would guess that under those rules that coin could grade (or sticker) no higher than an AU53. That is also weird.
It might be better not to stir the pot too much I guess, but you'd get varying opinions on that based on who you ask. I did have a few people reach out to me privately to advocate that I shouldn't rock the boat as it may have consequences. I don't know how valid that is, but that was the recommendation.
I'd prefer to wait for an organic response that I can share with the group here. Rather than a pressured response by pasting on the CAC forum.
@Proofmorgan said:
I'll bring this up as it is relevant to the current conversation:
When I argued that I felt the coin should have been stickered after I received the result, citing weak strike and adjustment marks are very common for this variety (as opposed to the Large 8). The response was that this coin was discussed in depth to the point the Virgina Beach team was consulted. Ultimately, they decided as I said before, it would never be considered "choice AU" and I was advised to send to CACG to grade as a 53 if I were to sell or leave it alone if I was to keep. I left in alone AND sold as I felt in my experience a nice coin in a rattler usually sells decently strong even if not stickered. I was incorrect in this instance.
I did press further in my conversation as I still disagreed with the decision and the conversation basically ended with: "I'd like to sticker it, but I would have to answer for it if I did". That gave me the sense that CAC had rejected other coins with adjustment marks from prominent submitters so could not give this coin a pass, even though he said it was a nice original AU and loved the look in hand. An example of this that comes to mind is that Rare Coin Wholesalers has an 1804 $10 that looks PQ in 61, but has heavy adjustment marks on the bust and is not stickered. Though, that contradicts the decision to sticker my ex coin in 61.
I have yet to receive a call back (I understand JA is a very busy guy and I have much respect for him). I hope that this thread does not put a damper on receiving that feedback. I do value transparency and ultimately hoped that sharing my experience may be informative to members here.
I could post this thread over at CAC's forums if you'd like.
Collector of Original Early Gold with beginnings in Proof Morgan collecting.
The first is the very odd ".com" that is within the quoted text posted by @JCH22. If one reads the text you will see a commercial (or hoax or spam) site embedded into the text. I followed the link provided and it is there, too. Weird.
....
Tom:
Noted and agree- embedded spam link was odd. My error for failing to pick it up before posting.
@Desert Moon said:
Whether it is a 55 or 61 is a matter of opinion on different grading events 30 years apart. It seems very certain that grading standards have changed over time, I don’t think anyone will disagree with that. So………………….
While, that might excuse the wide disparity in grades by PCGS, I think it’s largely beside the point. From what’s been posted in this thread, my understanding is that the coin failed as an AU55 and then passed as an MS61 at CAC within a very short time period.
But, let’s say an acetone wash plus removal of some grunge on top, brings out the full luster in a coin graded 30 years ago at 55. Full luster, then UNC, I don’t see an issue here……………...
And to @FlyingAl, I’d say 90% based on my several hundred submissions to NGC, PCGS, and CACG. But, that is likely still not precise enough to make a statistical argument. But my experience is they are clearly not at 70-80% accurate, much more…………….
@Desert Moon said:
Whether it is a 55 or 61 is a matter of opinion on different grading events 30 years apart. It seems very certain that grading standards have changed over time, I don’t think anyone will disagree with that. So………………….
While, that might excuse the wide disparity in grades by PCGS, I think it’s largely beside the point. From what’s been posted in this thread, my understanding is that the coin failed as an AU55 and then passed as an MS61 at CAC within a very short time period.
But, let’s say an acetone wash plus removal of some grunge on top, brings out the full luster in a coin graded 30 years ago at 55. Full luster, then UNC, I don’t see an issue here……………...
AU53 and 55 coins typically display noticeable/obvious wear. Bringing out full luster doesn’t change that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
As to this coin - grading inconsistency is a real thing. Buyers need to grade their coins themselves. I've heard some wild numbers thrown around about how accurate CAC is, but the truth of the matter is that the very best graders usually average 70% consistency on a good day. Some might hit 80% periodically, anything above that is pretty much impossible for the long term.
Don't trust the plastic or bean blindly. Use them as a tool, and learn to grade yourself.
This is a pretty bold statement. So you have sat in a grading room grading the graders? Or have you sent in say 100 1883-CC Morgan dollars multiple times to multiple TPGs to build a statistical model? I am betting no to either of these or any other scenario. Seems like you are just throwing out numbers.
’Truth’?
Best, DM
This is a somewhat known number if you pay close attention.
The TPGs used to use (still likely do use) the grading contests at the large shows to screen for potential graders. 70-75% was usually the line for pro graders. The all-time record for any grading contest at NGC (to include graders like Jeff Garrett and Ron Guth), is 85%. Neither of those experts hold the record.
So your evidence is a comment from 15+ years ago from someone saying that they heard that former graders tested at that number? That’s not evidence, and grading contest themselves are a flawed way of measuring ability using a small amount of data in a subpar viewing environment. Respectfully, you shouldn’t speak on behalf of the TPGs without having worked at one.
As to this coin - grading inconsistency is a real thing. Buyers need to grade their coins themselves. I've heard some wild numbers thrown around about how accurate CAC is, but the truth of the matter is that the very best graders usually average 70% consistency on a good day. Some might hit 80% periodically, anything above that is pretty much impossible for the long term.
Don't trust the plastic or bean blindly. Use them as a tool, and learn to grade yourself.
This is a pretty bold statement. So you have sat in a grading room grading the graders? Or have you sent in say 100 1883-CC Morgan dollars multiple times to multiple TPGs to build a statistical model? I am betting no to either of these or any other scenario. Seems like you are just throwing out numbers.
’Truth’?
Best, DM
This is a somewhat known number if you pay close attention.
The TPGs used to use (still likely do use) the grading contests at the large shows to screen for potential graders. 70-75% was usually the line for pro graders. The all-time record for any grading contest at NGC (to include graders like Jeff Garrett and Ron Guth), is 85%. Neither of those experts hold the record.
So your evidence is a comment from 15+ years ago from someone saying that they heard that former graders tested at that number? That’s not evidence, and grading contest themselves are a flawed way of measuring ability using a small amount of data in a subpar viewing environment. Respectfully, you shouldn’t speak on behalf of the TPGs without having worked at one.
I've had graders tell me the same figures as well, but figured no one here would accept that either.
So your evidence is a comment from 15+ years ago from someone saying that they heard that former graders tested at that number? That’s not evidence, and grading contest themselves are a flawed way of measuring ability using a small amount of data in a subpar viewing environment. Respectfully, you shouldn’t speak on behalf of the TPGs without having worked at one.
Peripheral issue perhaps--especially given Albanese's own statement regarding adjustment marks? He did see the coin.
Gradflation concerns aside--- how do you reconcile the disparate treatment of the adjustment marks by CAC. No pretense to any kind of grading expertise here, but would seem unlikely to me that disqualifying " very deep" adjustment marks can be dipped away.
Seems 3 possibilities present, none of which are a good look:
1) The coin was properly denied a sticker at 55 as adjustment marks were deemed deep and too distracting; okay, but then....
2) Something happened to make then less deep, and CAC failed to detect such doctoring, or
3) CAC has an inconsistent standard to determine when the average 2 out of 500 coins specifically rejected for adjustment marks is applied.
May be more possibilities, if so, would appreciate any thoughts.
@Desert Moon said:
Whether it is a 55 or 61 is a matter of opinion on different grading events 30 years apart. It seems very certain that grading standards have changed over time, I don’t think anyone will disagree with that. So………………….
While, that might excuse the wide disparity in grades by PCGS, I think it’s largely beside the point. From what’s been posted in this thread, my understanding is that the coin failed as an AU55 and then passed as an MS61 at CAC within a very short time period.
But, let’s say an acetone wash plus removal of some grunge on top, brings out the full luster in a coin graded 30 years ago at 55. Full luster, then UNC, I don’t see an issue here……………...
AU53 and 55 coins typically display noticeable/obvious wear. Bringing out full luster doesn’t change that.
Sure but we all know, one persons 55-58 is another persons 62. Happens all of the time. Plus again, luster might be inpared by patina or grunge. Simply comparing the Rattler images vs. the new images, there appears to be more luster (and grunge removal). But who knows as I was not in the grading room and I have not seen the coin in hand in either holder, so just throwin’ it out there………………
And, many informed numismatists would agree that frequently Rattler coins are severely undergraded. So…………...
As to this coin - grading inconsistency is a real thing. Buyers need to grade their coins themselves. I've heard some wild numbers thrown around about how accurate CAC is, but the truth of the matter is that the very best graders usually average 70% consistency on a good day. Some might hit 80% periodically, anything above that is pretty much impossible for the long term.
Don't trust the plastic or bean blindly. Use them as a tool, and learn to grade yourself.
This is a pretty bold statement. So you have sat in a grading room grading the graders? Or have you sent in say 100 1883-CC Morgan dollars multiple times to multiple TPGs to build a statistical model? I am betting no to either of these or any other scenario. Seems like you are just throwing out numbers.
’Truth’?
Best, DM
This is a somewhat known number if you pay close attention.
The TPGs used to use (still likely do use) the grading contests at the large shows to screen for potential graders. 70-75% was usually the line for pro graders. The all-time record for any grading contest at NGC (to include graders like Jeff Garrett and Ron Guth), is 85%. Neither of those experts hold the record.
So your evidence is a comment from 15+ years ago from someone saying that they heard that former graders tested at that number? That’s not evidence, and grading contest themselves are a flawed way of measuring ability using a small amount of data in a subpar viewing environment. Respectfully, you shouldn’t speak on behalf of the TPGs without having worked at one.
I've had graders tell me the same figures as well, but figured no one here would accept that either.
Sure but we all know, one persons 55-58 is another persons 62. Happens all of the time. Plus again, luster might be inpared by patina or grunge. Simply comparing the Rattler images vs. the new images, there appears to be more luster (and grunge removal). But who knows as I was not in the grading room and I have not seen the coin in hand in either holder, so just throwin’ it out there………………
And, many informed numismatists would agree that frequently Rattler coins are severely undergraded. So…………...
As to this coin - grading inconsistency is a real thing. Buyers need to grade their coins themselves. I've heard some wild numbers thrown around about how accurate CAC is, but the truth of the matter is that the very best graders usually average 70% consistency on a good day. Some might hit 80% periodically, anything above that is pretty much impossible for the long term.
Don't trust the plastic or bean blindly. Use them as a tool, and learn to grade yourself.
This is a pretty bold statement. So you have sat in a grading room grading the graders? Or have you sent in say 100 1883-CC Morgan dollars multiple times to multiple TPGs to build a statistical model? I am betting no to either of these or any other scenario. Seems like you are just throwing out numbers.
’Truth’?
Best, DM
This is a somewhat known number if you pay close attention.
The TPGs used to use (still likely do use) the grading contests at the large shows to screen for potential graders. 70-75% was usually the line for pro graders. The all-time record for any grading contest at NGC (to include graders like Jeff Garrett and Ron Guth), is 85%. Neither of those experts hold the record.
So your evidence is a comment from 15+ years ago from someone saying that they heard that former graders tested at that number? That’s not evidence, and grading contest themselves are a flawed way of measuring ability using a small amount of data in a subpar viewing environment. Respectfully, you shouldn’t speak on behalf of the TPGs without having worked at one.
I've had graders tell me the same figures as well, but figured no one here would accept that either.
As to this coin - grading inconsistency is a real thing. Buyers need to grade their coins themselves. I've heard some wild numbers thrown around about how accurate CAC is, but the truth of the matter is that the very best graders usually average 70% consistency on a good day. Some might hit 80% periodically, anything above that is pretty much impossible for the long term.
Don't trust the plastic or bean blindly. Use them as a tool, and learn to grade yourself.
This is a pretty bold statement. So you have sat in a grading room grading the graders? Or have you sent in say 100 1883-CC Morgan dollars multiple times to multiple TPGs to build a statistical model? I am betting no to either of these or any other scenario. Seems like you are just throwing out numbers.
’Truth’?
Best, DM
This is a somewhat known number if you pay close attention.
The TPGs used to use (still likely do use) the grading contests at the large shows to screen for potential graders. 70-75% was usually the line for pro graders. The all-time record for any grading contest at NGC (to include graders like Jeff Garrett and Ron Guth), is 85%. Neither of those experts hold the record.
So your evidence is a comment from 15+ years ago from someone saying that they heard that former graders tested at that number? That’s not evidence, and grading contest themselves are a flawed way of measuring ability using a small amount of data in a subpar viewing environment. Respectfully, you shouldn’t speak on behalf of the TPGs without having worked at one.
I've had graders tell me the same figures as well, but figured no one here would accept that either.
Rexford is a grader, isn't he? He clearly doesn't agree.
For the record, 70% seems way too low. A lot of coins are not edge cases where you're trying to decide between 64 and 64+. That might be 70% consistency between 2 different graders, that is not the same as saying that a grader is 70% consistent.
The grading contest gives you ZERO evidence of consistency for professional graders for 2 reasons:
1. They are mostly NOT professional graders. Even if they later became one, their consistency will be much better after they graded 10,000 coins.
2. Grading contests are testing for "consistency" between the amateur grader and the professional.
Take a solid but not spectacular XF40 coin. Do you really think that 1 out if 3 times it would come back XF45 or VF35? I don't, otherwise you'd have 50% of coins in the wrong holder.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@Desert Moon said:
Whether it is a 55 or 61 is a matter of opinion on different grading events 30 years apart. It seems very certain that grading standards have changed over time, I don’t think anyone will disagree with that. So………………….
While, that might excuse the wide disparity in grades by PCGS, I think it’s largely beside the point. From what’s been posted in this thread, my understanding is that the coin failed as an AU55 and then passed as an MS61 at CAC within a very short time period.
But, let’s say an acetone wash plus removal of some grunge on top, brings out the full luster in a coin graded 30 years ago at 55. Full luster, then UNC, I don’t see an issue here……………...
AU53 and 55 coins typically display noticeable/obvious wear. Bringing out full luster doesn’t change that.
Sure but we all know, one persons 55-58 is another persons 62. Happens all of the time. Plus again, luster might be inpared by patina or grunge. Simply comparing the Rattler images vs. the new images, there appears to be more luster (and grunge removal). But who knows as I was not in the grading room and I have not seen the coin in hand in either holder, so just throwin’ it out there………………
And, many informed numismatists would agree that frequently Rattler coins are severely undergraded. So…………...
That fails to explain how in this particular case, CAC could deny the coin a sticker in its AU55 holder (due to the adjustment marks) but later sticker it s a 61. I'm a huge fan of CAC, but feel that you're making excuses for them which they probably wouln't even make for themselvbes.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Desert Moon said:
Whether it is a 55 or 61 is a matter of opinion on different grading events 30 years apart. It seems very certain that grading standards have changed over time, I don’t think anyone will disagree with that. So………………….
While, that might excuse the wide disparity in grades by PCGS, I think it’s largely beside the point. From what’s been posted in this thread, my understanding is that the coin failed as an AU55 and then passed as an MS61 at CAC within a very short time period.
But, let’s say an acetone wash plus removal of some grunge on top, brings out the full luster in a coin graded 30 years ago at 55. Full luster, then UNC, I don’t see an issue here……………...
AU53 and 55 coins typically display noticeable/obvious wear. Bringing out full luster doesn’t change that.
Sure but we all know, one persons 55-58 is another persons 62. Happens all of the time. Plus again, luster might be inpared by patina or grunge. Simply comparing the Rattler images vs. the new images, there appears to be more luster (and grunge removal). But who knows as I was not in the grading room and I have not seen the coin in hand in either holder, so just throwin’ it out there………………
And, many informed numismatists would agree that frequently Rattler coins are severely undergraded. So…………...
That fails to explain how in this particular case, CAC could deny the coin a sticker in its AU55 holder (due to the adjustment marks) but later sticker it s a 61. I'm a huge fan of CAC, but feel that you're making excuses for them which they probably wouln't even make for themselvbes.
Mark, in your professional opinion is it possible to dip a gold coin that has wear/rub and by dipping remove the evidence of that wear/rub?
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@Desert Moon said:
Whether it is a 55 or 61 is a matter of opinion on different grading events 30 years apart. It seems very certain that grading standards have changed over time, I don’t think anyone will disagree with that. So………………….
While, that might excuse the wide disparity in grades by PCGS, I think it’s largely beside the point. From what’s been posted in this thread, my understanding is that the coin failed as an AU55 and then passed as an MS61 at CAC within a very short time period.
But, let’s say an acetone wash plus removal of some grunge on top, brings out the full luster in a coin graded 30 years ago at 55. Full luster, then UNC, I don’t see an issue here……………...
AU53 and 55 coins typically display noticeable/obvious wear. Bringing out full luster doesn’t change that.
Sure but we all know, one persons 55-58 is another persons 62. Happens all of the time. Plus again, luster might be inpared by patina or grunge. Simply comparing the Rattler images vs. the new images, there appears to be more luster (and grunge removal). But who knows as I was not in the grading room and I have not seen the coin in hand in either holder, so just throwin’ it out there………………
And, many informed numismatists would agree that frequently Rattler coins are severely undergraded. So…………...
That fails to explain how in this particular case, CAC could deny the coin a sticker in its AU55 holder (due to the adjustment marks) but later sticker it s a 61. I'm a huge fan of CAC, but feel that you're making excuses for them which they probably wouln't even make for themselvbes.
Mark, in your professional opinion is it possible to dip a gold coin that has wear/rub and by dipping remove the evidence of that wear/rub?
If it's actually rub/wear, then no. However, some mint state coins have substances on their surfaces that can give the appearance of rub/wear.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Still awaiting a call, but I do agree with Tom’s assessment and assume that’s the rationale I will get from JA (if not doctored). The coin was likely low end AU due to the adj marks, but once dipped it became a low end MS coin. But that just happened to make the coin one grade below CAC top pop, which was huge.
Unfortunately, I do think the coin sold before JA could get a second look at it, but he stated he spoke with the submitter and wouid follow up with me.
Collector of Original Early Gold with beginnings in Proof Morgan collecting.
A coin going from low end AU to low end MS certainly seems like quite a stretch, especially considering it was seen by one of the most knowledgeable numismatists on the planet, and subsequently judged to have issues that preclude a sticker at the assigned grade.
This is a perfect example of the human psychology aspect of grading at play, where a new holder and a different look of the coin, perhaps even the different coins seen that day played a role in the determination of the eye appeal, grade, and even CAC approval.
Me personally, I would be quite upset if this happened to me, especially with the notion that I was told "there's no way this coin can go 55 or higher with these adjustment marks." I might type out some more eloquent thoughts when I have a second, but this is just my brief opinion of the matter.
Collector of Capped Bust Halves, SLQ's, Commems, and random cool stuff! @davidv_numismatics on Instagram
What is just as interesting is that the coin only realized low 53 money being auctioned in a large venue and presumably viewed by many dealers and collectors alike.
@Davidk7 said:
A coin going from low end AU to low end MS certainly seems like quite a stretch, especially considering it was seen by one of the most knowledgeable numismatists on the planet, and subsequently judged to have issues that preclude a sticker at the assigned grade.
This is a perfect example of the human psychology aspect of grading at play, where a new holder and a different look of the coin, perhaps even the different coins seen that day played a role in the determination of the eye appeal, grade, and even CAC approval.
Me personally, I would be quite upset if this happened to me, especially with the notion that I was told "there's no way this coin can go 55 or higher with these adjustment marks." I might type out some more eloquent thoughts when I have a second, but this is just my brief opinion of the matter.
Collector of Original Early Gold with beginnings in Proof Morgan collecting.
I’ve met 3 top TPG graders and have had discussions with them. None of them seemed like the type of folks that would violate their employers rules and state opinions on their belief on grading accuracy in the grading room. Clearly this would be a no no and a potential for them to be relieved of their duties if said employer finds out. So I find it highly unusual that you would claim they told this to you…………. And if they did, did they have stats to back such a claim up?
So if you won’t provide any more info to back up your claim…………..
Sure but we all know, one persons 55-58 is another persons 62. Happens all of the time. Plus again, luster might be inpared by patina or grunge. Simply comparing the Rattler images vs. the new images, there appears to be more luster (and grunge removal). But who knows as I was not in the grading room and I have not seen the coin in hand in either holder, so just throwin’ it out there………………
And, many informed numismatists would agree that frequently Rattler coins are severely undergraded. So…………...
I’ve met 3 top TPG graders and have had discussions with them. None of them seemed like the type of folks that would violate their employers rules and state opinions on their belief on grading accuracy in the grading room. Clearly this would be a no no and a potential for them to be relieved of their duties if said employer finds out. So I find it highly unusual that you would claim they told this to you…………. And if they did, did they have stats to back such a claim up?
So if you won’t provide any more info to back up your claim…………..
I'll PM you so as not to derail this thread any more.
As to this coin - grading inconsistency is a real thing. Buyers need to grade their coins themselves. I've heard some wild numbers thrown around about how accurate CAC is, but the truth of the matter is that the very best graders usually average 70% consistency on a good day. Some might hit 80% periodically, anything above that is pretty much impossible for the long term.
Don't trust the plastic or bean blindly. Use them as a tool, and learn to grade yourself.
This is a pretty bold statement. So you have sat in a grading room grading the graders? Or have you sent in say 100 1883-CC Morgan dollars multiple times to multiple TPGs to build a statistical model? I am betting no to either of these or any other scenario. Seems like you are just throwing out numbers.
’Truth’?
Best, DM
This is a somewhat known number if you pay close attention.
The TPGs used to use (still likely do use) the grading contests at the large shows to screen for potential graders. 70-75% was usually the line for pro graders. The all-time record for any grading contest at NGC (to include graders like Jeff Garrett and Ron Guth), is 85%. Neither of those experts hold the record.
So your evidence is a comment from 15+ years ago from someone saying that they heard that former graders tested at that number? That’s not evidence, and grading contest themselves are a flawed way of measuring ability using a small amount of data in a subpar viewing environment. Respectfully, you shouldn’t speak on behalf of the TPGs without having worked at one.
I've had graders tell me the same figures as well, but figured no one here would accept that either.
Rexford is a grader, isn't he? He clearly doesn't agree.
For the record, 70% seems way too low. A lot of coins are not edge cases where you're trying to decide between 64 and 64+. That might be 70% consistency between 2 different graders, that is not the same as saying that a grader is 70% consistent.
The grading contest gives you ZERO evidence of consistency for professional graders for 2 reasons:
1. They are mostly NOT professional graders. Even if they later became one, their consistency will be much better after they graded 10,000 coins.
2. Grading contests are testing for "consistency" between the amateur grader and the professional.
Take a solid but not spectacular XF40 coin. Do you really think that 1 out if 3 times it would come back XF45 or VF35? I don't, otherwise you'd have 50% of coins in the wrong holder.
You forget TPGs use consensus grading. An individual grader might be 70%, but three graders would be far more likely to reach the correct grade by consensus. I have no idea how accurate any individual grading team would be, but statistically a three man team would get it wrong ~21.6% of the time with a 70% accuracy per grader. 4 grader team is at ~17%. 80% means they’d get it wrong on average ~11.4% of the time. Somewhere in that range seems to be a very reasonable figure to me, and is much more accurate than I’ve personally observed (I've cracked and resubbed 5 coins, and only one has come back the same grade).
Grading contests are the only evidence we have to go off of. I’d greatly welcome any other evidence, but I haven’t seen any.
@MFeld said:
That fails to explain how in this particular case, CAC could deny the coin a sticker in its AU55 holder (due to the adjustment marks) but later sticker it s a 61. I'm a huge fan of CAC, but feel that you're making excuses for them which they probably wouln't even make for themselvbes.
We don’t know what the situation was each time it was evaluated. Many here, from their posts, think we know that it was conserved or altered based on Tom Bush’s evaluation in this thread. No one says CAC is perfect, but I also know they are some of the best coin graders in the world seeing a coin at different times in different situations. So I am making no excuses for anyone here but instead look forward to what JA has to say as the OP is looking forward to hearing from him. Each decision might be justifiable in this subjective world of grading………………..
This is an interesting learning experience about grading by the best for sure, so let’s wait and see what JA has to say. Maybe they did blow it, maybe not, let’s just hold on and find out.
Comments
The comment regarding “PCGS and CAC can’t decide…” is a key issue in my opinion on what is not just a garden variety coin. I think JA is rightly troubled that this occurred given the value of the coin and how 53, 55 and 61 and a CAC sticker can impact the value. If it’s not just a matter of “we (fill in the blank) screwed up” I’m interested in knowing the technical reasons for the disagreement.
....
Agree--but perhaps for a slightly different reason.
The CAC grading guarantee is very limited (caps in the original) :
"THE MAXIMUM AGGREGATE LIABILITY … ,SHALL IN NO EVENT EXCEED THE LESSER OF THE FEE OR THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY US WITH RESPECT …."
Given that, think reputational erosion likely more of a concern than CAC’s minimal financial exposure :
"Green Bean
For its stickering services, CAC verifies the grade for coins certified by other grading services that meet the highest standard.
Out of all coins submitted to CAC, less than half receive the green sticker, commonly referred to as the "green bean". As a result, the CAC sticker serves as an unmistakable means of identifying premium coins for the grade.
Question 15: How many graders look at each coin?
Answer 15: At least two graders look at each coin.
Question 16: Does John Albanese look at every coin?
Answer 16: Yes, John reviews each coin that comes in."
Albanese didn't like the coin as a 55, yet liked it as a "premium" 61.
Why?
I may be missing something but I am not sure JA even knows about the coin or its history detailed in this thread. Other than CAC saw it at least twice and came to inconsistent results.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
This is a pretty bold statement. So you have sat in a grading room grading the graders? Or have you sent in say 100 1883-CC Morgan dollars multiple times to multiple TPGs to build a statistical model? I am betting no to either of these or any other scenario. Seems like you are just throwing out numbers.
’Truth’?
Best, DM
Well there is that interstellar object, 3I/ATLAS, which the fully trustworthy Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb keeps implying is an alien craft and it has been going through the solar system for a while.
So, yeah, aliens must be the correct answer here.
https://nypost.com/2025/11/01/science/manhattan-sized-interstellar-object-3i-atlas-accelerates-and-turns-bluer-possible-signs-of-alien-engine-harvard-scientist/
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Whether it is a 55 or 61 is a matter of opinion on different grading events 30 years apart. It seems very certain that grading standards have changed over time, I don’t think anyone will disagree with that. So………………….
In the Rattler as a 55, Tom Bush points out above some stuff that was there that does not appear in the new Tru Views as a 61. So maybe it was professionally conserved (?) in an acceptable way (?) such that it was deemed non-CAC before as a 55 and CAC in a higher grade after the successful conservation? If so, that might not be inconsistent results………………. So I am not so sure that it is easy to know the full story here and I am more cautious about why it was updgraded and later stickered. Just sayin'
This is a somewhat known number if you pay close attention.
The TPGs used to use (still likely do use) the grading contests at the large shows to screen for potential graders. 70-75% was usually the line for pro graders. The all-time record for any grading contest at NGC (to include graders like Jeff Garrett and Ron Guth), is 85%. Neither of those experts hold the record.
See this thread: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/3819545#Comment_3819545
DM,
I am a CAC backer, as I think you know. But a 55 shouldn’t be “conservable” into a 61. I would be curious to see what JA said if he saw this coin again and knew he didn’t sticker it as a 55.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
Hi all,
Still waiting on a call back. The coin remains in the population from what I can see.
To address some speculation, it was unknown that it was the same coin on the resubmission. A comment was made that it would likely have got the nod at 62 and the coin looked very fresh.
The coin initially failed on the premise that a choice AU coin (55) does/cannot have heavy adjustment marks despite being as minted, so it could be stickered as a 53 only. Otherwise it was considered a nice original AU coin.
I’ve seen many AU coins with high spot toning or “rub” that will never be considered MS. It is interesting that you may be able to dip off that toning and make the coin MS. Historically, I have found CAC to be very picky about holding back possible AU coins so this example is quite interesting.
With me being into the coin for 58 money it would not have made sense to alter the coin (I wouldn’t anyway). With the next owner into it for 53 money, it was worth the gamble and paid off to the tune of 400%+.
I wouid expect the submitter has significant experience in such processing in order to attempt on a mid 5 figure coin.
Despite the disappointment in the whole situation, I’m hopeful to gain some insight I can apply moving forward.
Based on what I read in this thread JA is aware of the situation and disturbed that CAC came to widely different opinions of it having evaluated the coin twice. I don't know if he actually saw the coin in either case.
Stay with me here because what I write might be completely counterintuitive. The quoted text in the last post by @Proofmorgan is quite interesting. It is as follows-
"The coin initially failed on the premise that a choice AU coin (55) does/cannot have heavy adjustment marks despite being as minted, so it could be stickered as a 53 only. Otherwise it was considered a nice original AU coin."
This brings up an interesting idea. Perhaps within the AU grade range a coin with heavy adjustment marks is precluded from a choice AU grade (AU55 or AU58), but those same adjustment marks might not preclude an MS61 grade if a coin is viewed as a low MS candidate. That is, if the coin was removed from the rattler and lightly and expertly dipped it would have removed the outermost layer of skin. This outermost layer of skin might have shown the rub on the coin very well, but with its removal (especially on gold coinage) then the coin might not have been so obviously worn (or so "apparently" obviously worn) and may have slid into the low MS grade range at either PCGS or CAC (which it did).
Soooooo, this "nearly" same coin might have displayed noticeable wear deserving of an AU grade (and the grade limitations due to heavy adjustment marks) before the dipping and then appeared as a coin within the MS grade range (and been exempt from those same limitations due to heavy adjustment marks) after the dipping.
I'm not saying this is the thought process involved at PCGS or CAC, but if there are different standards for grade limiting qualities (and there may or may not be) then examples like this are bound to occur.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I don't think the issue is grading standards over 30 years but CAC not giving the coin a nod at 55 and shortly there after giving the none at 61.
That said TomB brings up a scenario that might explain the discrepancy but I'm not expert enough to know if experts would see it as viable. Can the removal of toning slide a coin from AU to MS? Experts please chime in.
I think @TomB is right on here, in that CAC (per their communication with Proofmorgan) saw some AU grade limiting factor that was not wear (adjustment marks), and left it at that.
I think it’s been shown convincingly over the years that you can dip off signs of light wear, especially on choice AU gold. Sometimes the “wear” can mostly be a buildup of impurities on the high points of the gold and removing that is enough to get the coin in an MS holder. That’s why so much gold is dipped.
As a “new” 61, CAC can now ignore the adjustment marks and grade the coin based on wear and marks, and they decided it passed.
Tom, I think you may be right (barring any other alteration besides dipping, which I personally won't rule out just yet).
With that said, if this is the case, why are adjustments acceptable on MS coins but not AU? They're mint-made flaws, and if anything should be less acceptable on MS coins. I find this to be a very slippery slope.
While, that might excuse the wide disparity in grades by PCGS, I think it’s largely beside the point. From what’s been posted in this thread, my understanding is that the coin failed as an AU55 and then passed as an MS61 at CAC within a very short time period.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Tom, I can’t get past my opinion that mint-made adjustment marks shouldn’t be penalized to any greater degree on an AU coin than on a mint state example. And that if anything, they should be more acceptable on the former.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Q&A with John Albanese: Adjustment Marks
March 22, 2013
One of our collector members, Ankur Jetley, recently sat down with John Albanese with the hope that he could shed some light on a few numismatic topics. This is the first of nine discussion questions in the series. Keep an eye out for the rest of the responses as we post them.
Question # 1: Adjustment marks: approximately what percentage of coins with them pass CAC? How much is too much?
I purposely waited over sixty days before answering this question. Adjustment marks are quite common on early U.S. coinage. CAC has probably viewed over 500 early coins from this period just in the last sixty days and only two weren’t stickered due to problematic adjustment marks. The first coin, an 1802/1 $5 in MS62, only had a few adjustment marks. They weren’t distracting in terms of their pattern as they were basically parallel. However, they were very deep and would be considered bothersome to even the most seasoned collector. The second coin, a 1795 50C in XF45, had about 10-15 much lighter adjustment marks. The biggest issue with the 1795 50C was zoloftanxiety.com the pattern of the adjustment marks, which crisscrossed over Miss Liberty’s profile, almost as though there was a tic-tac-toe board on the obverse. The ‘95 50C was a very easy call to not sticker, though the 02/01 $5 was a borderline call due to the coin being “fresh” and nearly MS63 in technical terms.
Most coins with adjustment marks viewed by CAC are barely even considered potentially problematic and it is rare for adjustment marks to be factored into a decision as to whether they merit a sticker. There are currently four CAC graders and all have at least 30 years of coin grading experience. We’ve all been taught that adjustment marks are “mint made” and are rarely a factor in determining the desirability of early U.S. coinage. I sure hope the current crop of young graders continues this tradition and doesn’t succumb to the pressures of less sophisticated....
https://web.archive.org/web/20170808163745/http://www.caccoin.com/category/cac-in-the-news/#.WYno34LP32c
I'll bring this up as it is relevant to the current conversation:
When I argued that I felt the coin should have been stickered after I received the result, citing weak strike and adjustment marks are very common for this variety (as opposed to the Large 8). The response was that this coin was discussed in depth to the point the Virgina Beach team was consulted. Ultimately, they decided as I said before, it would never be considered "choice AU" and I was advised to send to CACG to grade as a 53 if I were to sell or leave it alone if I was to keep. I left in alone AND sold as I felt in my experience a nice coin in a rattler usually sells decently strong even if not stickered. I was incorrect in this instance.
I did press further in my conversation as I still disagreed with the decision and the conversation basically ended with: "I'd like to sticker it, but I would have to answer for it if I did". That gave me the sense that CAC had rejected other coins with adjustment marks from prominent submitters so could not give this coin a pass, even though he said it was a nice original AU and loved the look in hand. An example of this that comes to mind is that Rare Coin Wholesalers has an 1804 $10 that looks PQ in 61, but has heavy adjustment marks on the bust and is not stickered. Though, that contradicts the decision to sticker my ex coin in 61.
I have yet to receive a call back (I understand JA is a very busy guy and I have much respect for him). I hope that this thread does not put a damper on receiving that feedback. I do value transparency and ultimately hoped that sharing my experience may be informative to members here.
I could post this thread over at CAC's forums if you'd like.
I'll add two more things here.
The first is the very odd ".com" that is within the quoted text posted by @JCH22. If one reads the text you will see a commercial (or hoax or spam) site embedded into the text. I followed the link provided and it is there, too. Weird.
The second is that I agree with @MFeld that mint-made adjustment marks shouldn't be penalized any more on an AU coin than they are on an MS coin. As I wrote in my previous post, I'm not saying that they are penalized more heavily, but instead saying that if they are then that might explain the evaluation results.
Regardless, if that is the line in the sand for a TPG or CAC then if we take a hypothetical near-pristine, 18th century gold coin that has nearly universal terrific luster, great skin, fabulous color and very few marks, but one that also has deep adjustment marks and only the slightest wisp of wear then I would guess that under those rules that coin could grade (or sticker) no higher than an AU53. That is also weird.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
It might be better not to stir the pot too much I guess, but you'd get varying opinions on that based on who you ask. I did have a few people reach out to me privately to advocate that I shouldn't rock the boat as it may have consequences. I don't know how valid that is, but that was the recommendation.
I'd prefer to wait for an organic response that I can share with the group here. Rather than a pressured response by pasting on the CAC forum.
....
Tom:
Noted and agree- embedded spam link was odd. My error for failing to pick it up before posting.
Link below is a later capture from 10/9/2017 which. I hope, omits the embedded spam. Text is the same.
https://web.archive.org/web/20171009015153/http://www.caccoin.com/category/cac-in-the-news/
But, let’s say an acetone wash plus removal of some grunge on top, brings out the full luster in a coin graded 30 years ago at 55. Full luster, then UNC, I don’t see an issue here……………...
And to @FlyingAl, I’d say 90% based on my several hundred submissions to NGC, PCGS, and CACG. But, that is likely still not precise enough to make a statistical argument. But my experience is they are clearly not at 70-80% accurate, much more…………….
AU53 and 55 coins typically display noticeable/obvious wear. Bringing out full luster doesn’t change that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
So your evidence is a comment from 15+ years ago from someone saying that they heard that former graders tested at that number? That’s not evidence, and grading contest themselves are a flawed way of measuring ability using a small amount of data in a subpar viewing environment. Respectfully, you shouldn’t speak on behalf of the TPGs without having worked at one.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
I've had graders tell me the same figures as well, but figured no one here would accept that either.
.....
Peripheral issue perhaps--especially given Albanese's own statement regarding adjustment marks? He did see the coin.
Gradflation concerns aside--- how do you reconcile the disparate treatment of the adjustment marks by CAC. No pretense to any kind of grading expertise here, but would seem unlikely to me that disqualifying " very deep" adjustment marks can be dipped away.
Seems 3 possibilities present, none of which are a good look:
1) The coin was properly denied a sticker at 55 as adjustment marks were deemed deep and too distracting; okay, but then....
2) Something happened to make then less deep, and CAC failed to detect such doctoring, or
3) CAC has an inconsistent standard to determine when the average 2 out of 500 coins specifically rejected for adjustment marks is applied.
May be more possibilities, if so, would appreciate any thoughts.
Sure but we all know, one persons 55-58 is another persons 62. Happens all of the time. Plus again, luster might be inpared by patina or grunge. Simply comparing the Rattler images vs. the new images, there appears to be more luster (and grunge removal). But who knows as I was not in the grading room and I have not seen the coin in hand in either holder, so just throwin’ it out there………………
And, many informed numismatists would agree that frequently Rattler coins are severely undergraded. So…………...
Uh, so names?
Can a dip lessen the depth of adjustment marks?
No.
Rexford is a grader, isn't he? He clearly doesn't agree.
For the record, 70% seems way too low. A lot of coins are not edge cases where you're trying to decide between 64 and 64+. That might be 70% consistency between 2 different graders, that is not the same as saying that a grader is 70% consistent.
The grading contest gives you ZERO evidence of consistency for professional graders for 2 reasons:
1. They are mostly NOT professional graders. Even if they later became one, their consistency will be much better after they graded 10,000 coins.
2. Grading contests are testing for "consistency" between the amateur grader and the professional.
Take a solid but not spectacular XF40 coin. Do you really think that 1 out if 3 times it would come back XF45 or VF35? I don't, otherwise you'd have 50% of coins in the wrong holder.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
That fails to explain how in this particular case, CAC could deny the coin a sticker in its AU55 holder (due to the adjustment marks) but later sticker it s a 61. I'm a huge fan of CAC, but feel that you're making excuses for them which they probably wouln't even make for themselvbes.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Mark, in your professional opinion is it possible to dip a gold coin that has wear/rub and by dipping remove the evidence of that wear/rub?
If it's actually rub/wear, then no. However, some mint state coins have substances on their surfaces that can give the appearance of rub/wear.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Still awaiting a call, but I do agree with Tom’s assessment and assume that’s the rationale I will get from JA (if not doctored). The coin was likely low end AU due to the adj marks, but once dipped it became a low end MS coin. But that just happened to make the coin one grade below CAC top pop, which was huge.
Unfortunately, I do think the coin sold before JA could get a second look at it, but he stated he spoke with the submitter and wouid follow up with me.
A coin going from low end AU to low end MS certainly seems like quite a stretch, especially considering it was seen by one of the most knowledgeable numismatists on the planet, and subsequently judged to have issues that preclude a sticker at the assigned grade.
This is a perfect example of the human psychology aspect of grading at play, where a new holder and a different look of the coin, perhaps even the different coins seen that day played a role in the determination of the eye appeal, grade, and even CAC approval.
Me personally, I would be quite upset if this happened to me, especially with the notion that I was told "there's no way this coin can go 55 or higher with these adjustment marks." I might type out some more eloquent thoughts when I have a second, but this is just my brief opinion of the matter.
Collector of Capped Bust Halves, SLQ's, Commems, and random cool stuff! @davidv_numismatics on Instagram
What is just as interesting is that the coin only realized low 53 money being auctioned in a large venue and presumably viewed by many dealers and collectors alike.
I’ve met 3 top TPG graders and have had discussions with them. None of them seemed like the type of folks that would violate their employers rules and state opinions on their belief on grading accuracy in the grading room. Clearly this would be a no no and a potential for them to be relieved of their duties if said employer finds out. So I find it highly unusual that you would claim they told this to you…………. And if they did, did they have stats to back such a claim up?
So if you won’t provide any more info to back up your claim…………..
Obviously not.
I'll PM you so as not to derail this thread any more.
You forget TPGs use consensus grading. An individual grader might be 70%, but three graders would be far more likely to reach the correct grade by consensus. I have no idea how accurate any individual grading team would be, but statistically a three man team would get it wrong ~21.6% of the time with a 70% accuracy per grader. 4 grader team is at ~17%. 80% means they’d get it wrong on average ~11.4% of the time. Somewhere in that range seems to be a very reasonable figure to me, and is much more accurate than I’ve personally observed (I've cracked and resubbed 5 coins, and only one has come back the same grade).
Grading contests are the only evidence we have to go off of. I’d greatly welcome any other evidence, but I haven’t seen any.
We don’t know what the situation was each time it was evaluated. Many here, from their posts, think we know that it was conserved or altered based on Tom Bush’s evaluation in this thread. No one says CAC is perfect, but I also know they are some of the best coin graders in the world seeing a coin at different times in different situations. So I am making no excuses for anyone here but instead look forward to what JA has to say as the OP is looking forward to hearing from him. Each decision might be justifiable in this subjective world of grading………………..
This is an interesting learning experience about grading by the best for sure, so let’s wait and see what JA has to say. Maybe they did blow it, maybe not, let’s just hold on and find out.