Would this get the cac sticker?

logger7 · October 17, 2026 7:44AM

Also, what are cac's criteria for DPL/DMPL stickering? And why is it so hard to get them to sticker?

MFeld · October 17, 2026 8:50AM

Liberty’s jaw area looks very rough, so my guess is no sticker.
CAC’s criteria for PL/DMPL is likely very similar to that of TPG’s, and I’m not under the impression that they’re unreasonably strict in that regard. Keep in mind, if a PL or DMPL fails to sticker it could be due to the numerical grade and not the designation.

braddick · October 17, 2026 9:03AM

It is also slightly muted and that coupled with the issues described in the post above mine would make stickering difficult I'd imagine.

cameonut2011 · October 17, 2026 9:11AM

I second Mark’s comments about the jaw. CAC was historically stricter on grading them than PCGS/NGC. With respect to PL/DPL/DMPL, my impression is that CAC is not that strict, and I have seen many weakly mirrored that stickered. This is particularly true with some of the older PCGS and NGC old no line fatty holders where the standards were laxer.

logger7 · October 17, 2026 9:17AM

The reason I asked on the DPL and DMPL stickering rate is that I saw low percentages:

"• Green Sticker Rate: Numismatic data and market tracking indicate that only about 10% (roughly 1 in 10) of MS65 or higher DMPL/DPL coins receive a green CAC sticker when submitted."

"1. Tightening Mirror Standards: In early third-party grading history ("old green holders" and early slabs), the requirements to achieve a DMPL or DPL designation were occasionally more relaxed than today's criteria. Because CAC applies strict modern standards to a coin's eye appeal and reflectivity, many older DMPL/DPL slabs fail to meet their minimum depth-of-mirror thresholds."

cameonut2011 · October 17, 2026 9:22AM

@logger7 said:
The reason I asked on the DPL and DMPL stickering rate is that I saw low percentages:

"• Green Sticker Rate: Numismatic data and market tracking indicate that only about 10% (roughly 1 in 10) of MS65 or higher DMPL/DPL coins receive a green CAC sticker when submitted."

"1. Tightening Mirror Standards: In early third-party grading history ("old green holders" and early slabs), the requirements to achieve a DMPL or DPL designation were occasionally more relaxed than today's criteria. Because CAC applies strict modern standards to a coin's eye appeal and reflectivity, many older DMPL/DPL slabs fail to meet their minimum depth-of-mirror thresholds."

Maybe they have tightened, but that has not been my experience. It is worth noting that while I have handled many PL/DMPL Morgans, my focus was on PL/DPL type coinage from the 19th and first half of the 20th century. Hopefully others will give their experiences.

coinbuf · October 17, 2026 9:32AM

With regard to the coin in the op and from only these photos I also think it is a long shot. This is the type of coin you would likely expect to have already been seen by CAC in the past.

MFeld · October 17, 2026 9:49AM

@coinbuf said:
With regard to the coin in the op and from only these photos I also think it is a long shot. This is the type of coin you would likely expect to have already been seen by CAC in the past.

Hypothetically, what if you knew the coin hadn’t been to CAC - would you try it in that scenario ?

Morgan13 · October 17, 2026 10:02AM

I would send it in anyway. It is graded 63 so some of the dings and scuffs pertain to the grade. One caveat, @MFeld has better advice than me.

Here is one of my CAC coins that is a recent purchase. Not to many 1921's with CAC stickers.

coinbuf · October 17, 2026 1:29PM

@MFeld said:

@coinbuf said:
With regard to the coin in the op and from only these photos I also think it is a long shot. This is the type of coin you would likely expect to have already been seen by CAC in the past.

Hypothetically, what if you knew the coin hadn’t been to CAC - would you try it in that scenario ?

It would be tempting, but from the photos no, if it were my coin the temptation might get the better of me.

MFeld · October 17, 2026 1:42PM

@coinbuf said:

@MFeld said:

@coinbuf said:
With regard to the coin in the op and from only these photos I also think it is a long shot. This is the type of coin you would likely expect to have already been seen by CAC in the past.

Hypothetically, what if you knew the coin hadn’t been to CAC - would you try it in that scenario ?

It would be tempting, but from the photos no, if it were my coin the temptation might get the better of me.

If it were mine, unless it looked better in hand, I wouldn’t try it. In addition to the marks on the obverse portrait and the subdued luster, that’s a pretty conspicuous hit opposite Star 6.

LeeBone · October 17, 2026 1:54PM

From the picture I would guess no, but I have been wrong before when sending to CAC.
🤷‍♂️
If you haven’t sent it, it’s worth a shot.

Walkerlover · October 17, 2026 2:03PM

@Morgan13 said:
I would send it in anyway. It is graded 63 so some of the dings and scuffs pertain to the grade. One caveat, @MFeld has better advice than me.

Here is one of my CAC coins that is a recent purchase. Not to many 1921's with CAC stickers.

Coin looks really nice for a 63, even undergraded. No harsh contact marks. I imagine it could be a 64 if resubmitted.

golden · October 17, 2026 4:35PM

I vote no.

blitzdude · October 17, 2026 4:56PM

Collect coins, not silly little stickers. RGDS!

Walkerfan · October 17, 2026 5:15PM

No, I wouldn’t try it. But, stranger things have happened.

Would this get the cac sticker?

Comments

Leave a Comment