<< <i>Now...enter the "evil force". That's the dealers who are willing to doctor coins, buy better coins for the grade and crack them out for upgrades and whatever other games they can invent. This got so bad that themarket became inundated with crappy coins once the true stuff had been bought by collectors. Along came CAC..with a mission to ferret out doctired coins and as someone pointed out, to pay UP fior the better coins for the grade, which made it more difficult for crack-out artists to continually submit coins for upgrades. And the pressure that these dealers seemingly put on the graders could have even had some effect on gradeflation, but I'm not going there. CAC has made life very difficult for the "players". So what if you pay another $10 per coin to get them stickered. You'll get two things for the money; a 99% assurance that the coin is original and not tampered with and second, MORE money if you want to sell it. That's a certainty. I've sold numerous coins to CAC for a solid premium over what I likely would have gotten elsewhere, and I've sold CAC coins in auctions for significant premiums over what comparably graded coins went for. >>
OK, I'm sick of debating this topic already, but you DO NOT get a 99% assurance that a coin is original when it sports a sticker. I have seen dozens of dipped coins that received the "seal of approval". >>
In the context of what Laura wrote, original would be defined as not having been doctored.
<< <i>Now...enter the "evil force". That's the dealers who are willing to doctor coins, buy better coins for the grade and crack them out for upgrades and whatever other games they can invent. This got so bad that themarket became inundated with crappy coins once the true stuff had been bought by collectors. Along came CAC..with a mission to ferret out doctired coins and as someone pointed out, to pay UP fior the better coins for the grade, which made it more difficult for crack-out artists to continually submit coins for upgrades. And the pressure that these dealers seemingly put on the graders could have even had some effect on gradeflation, but I'm not going there. CAC has made life very difficult for the "players". So what if you pay another $10 per coin to get them stickered. You'll get two things for the money; a 99% assurance that the coin is original and not tampered with and second, MORE money if you want to sell it. That's a certainty. I've sold numerous coins to CAC for a solid premium over what I likely would have gotten elsewhere, and I've sold CAC coins in auctions for significant premiums over what comparably graded coins went for. >>
OK, I'm sick of debating this topic already, but you DO NOT get a 99% assurance that a coin is original when it sports a sticker. I have seen dozens of dipped coins that received the "seal of approval". >>
In the context of what Laura wrote, original would be defined as not having been doctored. >>
In the context of the English language, a dipped coin is not original. End of story.
<< <i>Now...enter the "evil force". That's the dealers who are willing to doctor coins, buy better coins for the grade and crack them out for upgrades and whatever other games they can invent. This got so bad that themarket became inundated with crappy coins once the true stuff had been bought by collectors. Along came CAC..with a mission to ferret out doctired coins and as someone pointed out, to pay UP fior the better coins for the grade, which made it more difficult for crack-out artists to continually submit coins for upgrades. And the pressure that these dealers seemingly put on the graders could have even had some effect on gradeflation, but I'm not going there. CAC has made life very difficult for the "players". So what if you pay another $10 per coin to get them stickered. You'll get two things for the money; a 99% assurance that the coin is original and not tampered with and second, MORE money if you want to sell it. That's a certainty. I've sold numerous coins to CAC for a solid premium over what I likely would have gotten elsewhere, and I've sold CAC coins in auctions for significant premiums over what comparably graded coins went for. >>
OK, I'm sick of debating this topic already, but you DO NOT get a 99% assurance that a coin is original when it sports a sticker. I have seen dozens of dipped coins that received the "seal of approval". >>
In the context of what Laura wrote, original would be defined as not having been doctored. >>
In the context of the English language, a dipped coin is not original. End of story. >>
Of course, neither is a toned one so I guess there's no such thing as an original coin except for Modern Crap, eh?
If she were talking about dipping then you would be correct, however the context of what she's talking about is doctoring. Frankly, 80%+ of unc non Morgan 19th century material is unoriginal in the dipping context and couldn't be called original under your criteria. So it's a complete straw man argument.
<< <i>Now...enter the "evil force". That's the dealers who are willing to doctor coins, buy better coins for the grade and crack them out for upgrades and whatever other games they can invent. This got so bad that themarket became inundated with crappy coins once the true stuff had been bought by collectors. Along came CAC..with a mission to ferret out doctired coins and as someone pointed out, to pay UP fior the better coins for the grade, which made it more difficult for crack-out artists to continually submit coins for upgrades. And the pressure that these dealers seemingly put on the graders could have even had some effect on gradeflation, but I'm not going there. CAC has made life very difficult for the "players". So what if you pay another $10 per coin to get them stickered. You'll get two things for the money; a 99% assurance that the coin is original and not tampered with and second, MORE money if you want to sell it. That's a certainty. I've sold numerous coins to CAC for a solid premium over what I likely would have gotten elsewhere, and I've sold CAC coins in auctions for significant premiums over what comparably graded coins went for. >>
OK, I'm sick of debating this topic already, but you DO NOT get a 99% assurance that a coin is original when it sports a sticker. I have seen dozens of dipped coins that received the "seal of approval". >>
In the context of what Laura wrote, original would be defined as not having been doctored. >>
In the context of the English language, a dipped coin is not original. End of story. >>
Of course, neither is a toned one so I guess there's no such thing as an original coin except for Modern Crap, eh?
If she were talking about dipping then you would be correct, however the context of what she's talking about is doctoring. Frankly, 80%+ of unc non Morgan 19th century material is unoriginal in the dipping context and couldn't be called original under your criteria. So it's a complete straw man argument. >>
1) Under your "definition", NOTHING in the universe is original. (ALL coins are toned to SOME degree) 2) I'd wager that a majority of informed parties would agree with me that a dipped coin is not original, while a toned one is. 3) Who cares what percentage of 19th (or 18th) century coins have been dipped? We're talking about definitions, not empirical data.
<< <i><<Alternatively, as a collector purchasing a coin, yes, I'd like a CAC, but no, I don't want to pay a stupid premium for it.>>
On the flip side would you expect to pay less for a coin that you knew didn't sticker?
MJ >>
No, here's my point: We can go back and forth discussing the significance of a slab with a sticker and one without, but what I don't wantis to pay a 10-20% premium (or more) for having the sticker itself. If it's there fine, if not, fine. I'll decide for myself whether to, and how much of a premium to pay.
"Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end."
1) Under your "definition", NOTHING in the universe is original. (ALL coins are toned to SOME degree) 2) I'd wager that a majority of informed parties would agree with me that a dipped coin is not original, while a toned one is. 3) Who cares what percentage of 19th (or 18th) century coins have been dipped? We're talking about definitions, not empirical data. >>
Under MY definition? You're the one who brought the English Language definition into the debate.
If you want to be able to qualify what 'original' means, then why shouldn't I be able to? Circular logic garbage argument, dude.
1) Under your "definition", NOTHING in the universe is original. (ALL coins are toned to SOME degree) 2) I'd wager that a majority of informed parties would agree with me that a dipped coin is not original, while a toned one is. 3) Who cares what percentage of 19th (or 18th) century coins have been dipped? We're talking about definitions, not empirical data. >>
Under MY definition? You're the one who brought the English Language definition into the debate.
If you want to be able to qualify what 'original' means, then why shouldn't I be able to? Circular logic garbage argument, dude. >>
The point is that NOTHING is immutable, so if (as you posited) a change (such as natural toning) disqualifies something from being "original", then the term would have no meaning.
If you want to take me up on point #2, let me know.
First you want the English Language definition of original used, then you want to define original yourself. Which will it be, sir?
In the context of what Laura was discussing, "original" meant undoctored. Period. End of discussion. You can go back to your regularly scheduled wailing about dipped coins being allowed in slabs now. /eyeroll
<< <i>First you want the English Language definition of original used, then you want to define original yourself. Which will it be, sir?
In the context of what Laura was discussing, "original" meant undoctored. Period. End of discussion. You can go back to your regularly scheduled wailing about dipped coins being allowed in slabs now. /eyeroll >>
OK, so Laura considers dipped coins "original"? I'm sure glad I don't shop at Legend...
<< <i>First you want the English Language definition of original used, then you want to define original yourself. Which will it be, sir?
In the context of what Laura was discussing, "original" meant undoctored. Period. End of discussion. You can go back to your regularly scheduled wailing about dipped coins being allowed in slabs now. /eyeroll >>
OK, so Laura considers dipped coins "original"? I'm sure glad I don't shop at Legend...
>>
Twist away. You do yourself a disservice by being obtuse. Do you really expect others to take your opinions seriously when you show yourself willing to put words into mouths?
In my opinion there is absolutely NO way to tell if a coin has been dipped if it is done correctly. And in time, if stored outside of an air-tight container, it would even qualify as your definition of "original" based on it being toned. This is where your take on the word "original" falls apart imho. A properly dipped coin will not fit your description of "original" initially but will overtime....
A dipping does not become a cleaning until someone either messes it up, or the coin is dipped too many times. If done correctly, little (if any) luster and ORIGINAL coin surface is lost. What is lost is all of the debris, toning, etc. that has accumulated on the ORIGINAL coin since it left the mint.
Edit for typo
Want to buy an auction catalog for the William Hesslein Sale (December 2, 1926). Thanks to all those who have helped us obtain the others!!!
In my opinion there is absolutely NO way to tell if a coin has been dipped if it is done correctly. And in time, if stored outside of an air-tight container, it would even qualify as your definition of "original" based on it being toned. This is where your take on the word "original" falls apart imho. A properly dipped coin will not fit your description of "original" initially but will overtime....
A dipping does not become a cleaning until someone either messes it up, or the coin is dipped too many times. If done correctly, little (if any) luster and ORIGINAL coin surface is lost. What is lost is all of the debris, toning, etc. that has accumulated on the ORIGINAL coin since it left the mint.
Edit for typo >>
I responded to the statement (by Saintguru, not Laura) that if one buys a stickered coin, one can be 99% sure it's "original". I stated that I have seen many stickered coins that were unquestionably dipped, and hence, according to standard and accepted definitions used in Numismatics, NOT original. Now I don't dispute that it is impossible to discern whether many coins have or have not been dipped, but that isn't really germane to my point.
<< <i> You can go back to your regularly scheduled wailing about dipped coins being allowed in slabs now. /eyeroll >>
Please cite a single post (out of 2000+) where I have ever stated that dipped coins shouldn't be slabbed. What were you saying about putting words in someone's mouth?
<< <i> You can go back to your regularly scheduled wailing about dipped coins being allowed in slabs now. /eyeroll >>
Please cite a single post (out of 2000+) where I have ever stated that dipped coins shouldn't be slabbed. What were you saying about putting words in someone's mouth? >>
<< <i> You can go back to your regularly scheduled wailing about dipped coins being allowed in slabs now. /eyeroll >>
Please cite a single post (out of 2000+) where I have ever stated that dipped coins shouldn't be slabbed. What were you saying about putting words in someone's mouth? >>
Pardon me - in stickered slabs. >>
You are pardoned. Now please cite a single post where I stated that dipped coins should not be stickered.
Edit: What I stated was that if one's definition of "original" excludes blast white Seated and Bust dollars, a sticker does not guarantee that one will receive an original coin. If your definition is otherwise, we have no basis for a conversation. Cheers.
Yes I agree - Its an uncool comment by Legend. Again their typical hype touting how you need them bc of some rubbish the TPG's can't grade. As far as the public, well a lot of them have no concept of CAC anyway and won't pay extra money for CAC coins. As far as dealers - its insulting they want to paint us as a bunch of barbarians who hate them and are idiots who can't pick out nice coins for their clients. Its like her trashing of wannabees in here awhile back. A total lack of class. I don't have a prob with CAC coins in my inventory but they have to meet my standards. Its a great racket for CAC - the TPG's do the job, take responsibility for mistakes, and then CAC gets to sit on the fence and put down everybody. I do charge a $25 premium for CAC coins however - if you like them then yer gonna hafta pay the money. Lets face it, coins over $1000 are risky - the chance your expensive piece will fall victim to the elements (exposure to the atmosphere) over time is much greater than it being puttied. And I don't blame the guy putting together an expensive set for wanting CAC coins. I just wonder if the CAC sticker is good forever LOL.
In my opinion there is absolutely NO way to tell if a coin has been dipped if it is done correctly. And in time, if stored outside of an air-tight container, it would even qualify as your definition of "original" based on it being toned. This is where your take on the word "original" falls apart imho. A properly dipped coin will not fit your description of "original" initially but will overtime....
A dipping does not become a cleaning until someone either messes it up, or the coin is dipped too many times. If done correctly, little (if any) luster and ORIGINAL coin surface is lost. What is lost is all of the debris, toning, etc. that has accumulated on the ORIGINAL coin since it left the mint.
Edit for typo >>
As a pratticioner, I totally agree. So many people are confused on this. The reality is tarnished coins at some point will need a dip or conservation. I have found even ASE rolls in the original mint tube will develop a black line on the rims where there is a plastic seam inside the tube.
CAC still gets it wrong too. We've all seen a CAC sticker and gone "huh?" The thing about CAC is that buyers think it is good so they pay more. Just put a sticker on there that says caveat emptor -- no way are buyers going to pay a premium for that.
When talking about coins in the range that Legend sells, I don't believe they price coins piecemeal via add 25 dollars because of the CAC. What they are selling is a couple of things and coins are one of them. They pride themselves on having choice coins and dont go there looking for a discount. What you can count on is not getting a dog from them.
Laura's rhetoric can get to some people at times, but she has a very small segment of the coin market for her customers. People who buy $3,000 coins the way I buy $50 coins are a much smaller group of individuals. Tiffany does not market the same way that Kay's jewelers does. This irritates a lot of folks, but not her target demographic.
The CAC is just another way to validate a coin. It is an instrument, nothing more, nothing less. There is still a coin for sale at a price and the buyer can use any number of methods to evaluate their potential purchases. For myself, I like them on the more expensive coins, but I would like to flatter myself and think I do not need that validation.
Remember, resubmissions will tend to get borderline coins into the next holder up and that is what CAC is about IMHO.
Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
lava-CAC has gotten it wrong and BOUGHT back their mistakes. You can`t always be perfect with coins. A CAC sticker, most of the time, means it`s a nice coin. Also, with the CAC sticker, it`s now part of the strong CAC market for sight unseen coins.
Why is it that so many folks on this forum seem to think that Laura's Market Reports are written for us? She could give a rat's patootie about most of us weenies here... we, for the most part, are not her client base... those of us who know her and those who choose to do business with her... we can choose to read her Reports or not... anyone is free to read them if they choose...
But this endless debate over her every word... and whether she spelled correctly... and on and on... is just infantile sandbox nonsense...
There are those who will agree with her... and those that won't... and for the most part... everyone's mind has already been made up before the discussion/debate has even begun...
I have come to the absolute conclusion WITH CONVICTION ... that those here who can't help but bash Laura... ARE THE ONE'S WITH THE PROBLEM... I may not always agree with everything she says... but I do not feel I have the right to bash her... for the record... I am not about bashing anyone... but I might, sometimes, somewhat forcefully suggest that folks check themselves... there might be alot of problems in the Numismatic World that need fixing... yet IMHO, Laura, Legend and CAC are not part of the problem...
My advice, FWIW... to SG and TDN (and it's worth every cent you will have to pay for it ) ... stop trying to defend or explain or justify Laura or the CAC... why beat your heads against a brick wall over and over?... , I don't know, maybe you find it entertaining... but I'm from Jersey and I know Jersey girls... they are fully capable of taking care of themselves... and someone with the history and reputation of JA does not need to justify himself to anyone...
So with all that said... from one weenie to a gang of weenies... go sit on a soggy cornflake
Re: Slabbed coins - There are some coins that LIVE within clear plastic and wear their labels with pride... while there are others that HIDE behind scratched plastic and are simply dragged along by a label. Then there are those coins that simply hang out, naked and free
<< <i>Why is it that so many folks on this forum seem to think that Laura's Market Reports are written for us? >>
I don't know, but every time I read one of those comments about how her reports are nothing but "a bunch of self-serving hype," I can't help but wonder what the poster expects to find, on her own freaking website? Is it really such a surprise to find that a business is actually trying to market its wares (once again, on its own website) to potential customers? It's not like she's coming here to post that stuff, now is it?
SeaEagle, if you are talking about me, please point out where I bashed Laura. I stated that if Laura classifies dipped coins as "original", then we have a difference of opinion. As I pointed out several times, I was responding to a statement made by Saintguru. TDN chose to shift the discussion back to the Market Report. That you find this thread infantile and $4 will buy me a latte at Starbucks...
<< <i>Why is it that so many folks on this forum seem to think that Laura's Market Reports are written for us? She could give a rat's patootie about most of us weenies here... we, for the most part, are not her client base... >>
why do you say that? i visited their website just a few days ago and found many coins within my budget range. Many coins were below 1000 and some were around 300-400.
Yes, i know they just did a big deal for a lot of coins but they are obviously catering to a wide range of collectors right this second based on available pieces at a range of prices.
<< <i>Why is it that so many folks on this forum seem to think that Laura's Market Reports are written for us? She could give a rat's patootie about most of us weenies here... we, for the most part, are not her client base... those of us who know her and those who choose to do business with her... we can choose to read her Reports or not... anyone is free to read them if they choose...
But this endless debate over her every word... and whether she spelled correctly... and on and on... is just infantile sandbox nonsense...
There are those who will agree with her... and those that won't... and for the most part... everyone's mind has already been made up before the discussion/debate has even begun...
I have come to the absolute conclusion WITH CONVICTION ... that those here who can't help but bash Laura... ARE THE ONE'S WITH THE PROBLEM... I may not always agree with everything she says... but I do not feel I have the right to bash her... for the record... I am not about bashing anyone... but I might, sometimes, somewhat forcefully suggest that folks check themselves... there might be alot of problems in the Numismatic World that need fixing... yet IMHO, Laura, Legend and CAC are not part of the problem...
My advice, FWIW... to SG and TDN (and it's worth every cent you will have to pay for it ) ... stop trying to defend or explain or justify Laura or the CAC... why beat your heads against a brick wall over and over?... , I don't know, maybe you find it entertaining... but I'm from Jersey and I know Jersey girls... they are fully capable of taking care of themselves... and someone with the history and reputation of JA does not need to justify himself to anyone...
So with all that said... from one weenie to a gang of weenies... go sit on a soggy cornflake
>>
For the record: I started the OP with the intent of gaining insight into the idea that some dealers "despise" the CAC--a concept that I had not considered. For some reason any thread regarding Laura or the CAC tends to degenerate.
This was not my intent.
And is that a CAC sticker being kicked??
"Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end."
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>Now...enter the "evil force". That's the dealers who are willing to doctor coins, buy better coins for the grade and crack them out for upgrades and whatever other games they can invent. This got so bad that themarket became inundated with crappy coins once the true stuff had been bought by collectors. Along came CAC..with a mission to ferret out doctired coins and as someone pointed out, to pay UP fior the better coins for the grade, which made it more difficult for crack-out artists to continually submit coins for upgrades. And the pressure that these dealers seemingly put on the graders could have even had some effect on gradeflation, but I'm not going there. CAC has made life very difficult for the "players". So what if you pay another $10 per coin to get them stickered. You'll get two things for the money; a 99% assurance that the coin is original and not tampered with and second, MORE money if you want to sell it. That's a certainty. I've sold numerous coins to CAC for a solid premium over what I likely would have gotten elsewhere, and I've sold CAC coins in auctions for significant premiums over what comparably graded coins went for. >>
OK, I'm sick of debating this topic already, but you DO NOT get a 99% assurance that a coin is original when it sports a sticker.
I have seen dozens of dipped coins that received the "seal of approval". >>
In the context of what Laura wrote, original would be defined as not having been doctored.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Now...enter the "evil force". That's the dealers who are willing to doctor coins, buy better coins for the grade and crack them out for upgrades and whatever other games they can invent. This got so bad that themarket became inundated with crappy coins once the true stuff had been bought by collectors. Along came CAC..with a mission to ferret out doctired coins and as someone pointed out, to pay UP fior the better coins for the grade, which made it more difficult for crack-out artists to continually submit coins for upgrades. And the pressure that these dealers seemingly put on the graders could have even had some effect on gradeflation, but I'm not going there. CAC has made life very difficult for the "players". So what if you pay another $10 per coin to get them stickered. You'll get two things for the money; a 99% assurance that the coin is original and not tampered with and second, MORE money if you want to sell it. That's a certainty. I've sold numerous coins to CAC for a solid premium over what I likely would have gotten elsewhere, and I've sold CAC coins in auctions for significant premiums over what comparably graded coins went for. >>
OK, I'm sick of debating this topic already, but you DO NOT get a 99% assurance that a coin is original when it sports a sticker.
I have seen dozens of dipped coins that received the "seal of approval". >>
In the context of what Laura wrote, original would be defined as not having been doctored. >>
In the context of the English language, a dipped coin is not original. End of story.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Now...enter the "evil force". That's the dealers who are willing to doctor coins, buy better coins for the grade and crack them out for upgrades and whatever other games they can invent. This got so bad that themarket became inundated with crappy coins once the true stuff had been bought by collectors. Along came CAC..with a mission to ferret out doctired coins and as someone pointed out, to pay UP fior the better coins for the grade, which made it more difficult for crack-out artists to continually submit coins for upgrades. And the pressure that these dealers seemingly put on the graders could have even had some effect on gradeflation, but I'm not going there. CAC has made life very difficult for the "players". So what if you pay another $10 per coin to get them stickered. You'll get two things for the money; a 99% assurance that the coin is original and not tampered with and second, MORE money if you want to sell it. That's a certainty. I've sold numerous coins to CAC for a solid premium over what I likely would have gotten elsewhere, and I've sold CAC coins in auctions for significant premiums over what comparably graded coins went for. >>
OK, I'm sick of debating this topic already, but you DO NOT get a 99% assurance that a coin is original when it sports a sticker.
I have seen dozens of dipped coins that received the "seal of approval". >>
In the context of what Laura wrote, original would be defined as not having been doctored. >>
In the context of the English language, a dipped coin is not original. End of story. >>
Of course, neither is a toned one so I guess there's no such thing as an original coin except for Modern Crap, eh?
If she were talking about dipping then you would be correct, however the context of what she's talking about is doctoring. Frankly, 80%+ of unc non Morgan 19th century material is unoriginal in the dipping context and couldn't be called original under your criteria. So it's a complete straw man argument.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Now...enter the "evil force". That's the dealers who are willing to doctor coins, buy better coins for the grade and crack them out for upgrades and whatever other games they can invent. This got so bad that themarket became inundated with crappy coins once the true stuff had been bought by collectors. Along came CAC..with a mission to ferret out doctired coins and as someone pointed out, to pay UP fior the better coins for the grade, which made it more difficult for crack-out artists to continually submit coins for upgrades. And the pressure that these dealers seemingly put on the graders could have even had some effect on gradeflation, but I'm not going there. CAC has made life very difficult for the "players". So what if you pay another $10 per coin to get them stickered. You'll get two things for the money; a 99% assurance that the coin is original and not tampered with and second, MORE money if you want to sell it. That's a certainty. I've sold numerous coins to CAC for a solid premium over what I likely would have gotten elsewhere, and I've sold CAC coins in auctions for significant premiums over what comparably graded coins went for. >>
OK, I'm sick of debating this topic already, but you DO NOT get a 99% assurance that a coin is original when it sports a sticker.
I have seen dozens of dipped coins that received the "seal of approval". >>
In the context of what Laura wrote, original would be defined as not having been doctored. >>
In the context of the English language, a dipped coin is not original. End of story. >>
Of course, neither is a toned one so I guess there's no such thing as an original coin except for Modern Crap, eh?
If she were talking about dipping then you would be correct, however the context of what she's talking about is doctoring. Frankly, 80%+ of unc non Morgan 19th century material is unoriginal in the dipping context and couldn't be called original under your criteria. So it's a complete straw man argument. >>
1) Under your "definition", NOTHING in the universe is original. (ALL coins are toned to SOME degree)
2) I'd wager that a majority of informed parties would agree with me that a dipped coin is not original, while a toned one is.
3) Who cares what percentage of 19th (or 18th) century coins have been dipped? We're talking about definitions, not empirical data.
<< <i><<Alternatively, as a collector purchasing a coin, yes, I'd like a CAC, but no, I don't want to pay a stupid premium for it.>>
On the flip side would you expect to pay less for a coin that you knew didn't sticker?
MJ >>
No, here's my point: We can go back and forth discussing the significance of a slab with a sticker and one without, but what I don't wantis to pay a 10-20% premium (or more) for having the sticker itself. If it's there fine, if not, fine. I'll decide for myself whether to, and how much of a premium to pay.
<< <i>
1) Under your "definition", NOTHING in the universe is original. (ALL coins are toned to SOME degree)
2) I'd wager that a majority of informed parties would agree with me that a dipped coin is not original, while a toned one is.
3) Who cares what percentage of 19th (or 18th) century coins have been dipped? We're talking about definitions, not empirical data. >>
Under MY definition? You're the one who brought the English Language definition into the debate.
If you want to be able to qualify what 'original' means, then why shouldn't I be able to? Circular logic garbage argument, dude.
<< <i>
<< <i>
1) Under your "definition", NOTHING in the universe is original. (ALL coins are toned to SOME degree)
2) I'd wager that a majority of informed parties would agree with me that a dipped coin is not original, while a toned one is.
3) Who cares what percentage of 19th (or 18th) century coins have been dipped? We're talking about definitions, not empirical data. >>
Under MY definition? You're the one who brought the English Language definition into the debate.
If you want to be able to qualify what 'original' means, then why shouldn't I be able to? Circular logic garbage argument, dude.
The point is that NOTHING is immutable, so if (as you posited) a change (such as natural toning) disqualifies
something from being "original", then the term would have no meaning.
If you want to take me up on point #2, let me know.
In the context of what Laura was discussing, "original" meant undoctored. Period. End of discussion. You can go back to your regularly scheduled wailing about dipped coins being allowed in slabs now. /eyeroll
<< <i>First you want the English Language definition of original used, then you want to define original yourself. Which will it be, sir?
In the context of what Laura was discussing, "original" meant undoctored. Period. End of discussion. You can go back to your regularly scheduled wailing about dipped coins being allowed in slabs now. /eyeroll >>
OK, so Laura considers dipped coins "original"? I'm sure glad I don't shop at Legend...
<< <i>
<< <i>First you want the English Language definition of original used, then you want to define original yourself. Which will it be, sir?
In the context of what Laura was discussing, "original" meant undoctored. Period. End of discussion. You can go back to your regularly scheduled wailing about dipped coins being allowed in slabs now. /eyeroll >>
OK, so Laura considers dipped coins "original"? I'm sure glad I don't shop at Legend...
Twist away. You do yourself a disservice by being obtuse. Do you really expect others to take your opinions seriously when you show yourself willing to put words into mouths?
In my opinion there is absolutely NO way to tell if a coin has been dipped if it is done correctly. And in time, if stored outside of an air-tight container, it would even qualify as your definition of "original" based on it being toned. This is where your take on the word "original" falls apart imho. A properly dipped coin will not fit your description of "original" initially but will overtime....
A dipping does not become a cleaning until someone either messes it up, or the coin is dipped too many times. If done correctly, little (if any) luster and ORIGINAL coin surface is lost. What is lost is all of the debris, toning, etc. that has accumulated on the ORIGINAL coin since it left the mint.
Edit for typo
<< <i>CoinJunkie,
In my opinion there is absolutely NO way to tell if a coin has been dipped if it is done correctly. And in time, if stored outside of an air-tight container, it would even qualify as your definition of "original" based on it being toned. This is where your take on the word "original" falls apart imho. A properly dipped coin will not fit your description of "original" initially but will overtime....
A dipping does not become a cleaning until someone either messes it up, or the coin is dipped too many times. If done correctly, little (if any) luster and ORIGINAL coin surface is lost. What is lost is all of the debris, toning, etc. that has accumulated on the ORIGINAL coin since it left the mint.
Edit for typo >>
I responded to the statement (by Saintguru, not Laura) that if one buys a stickered coin, one can be 99% sure it's
"original". I stated that I have seen many stickered coins that were unquestionably dipped, and hence, according
to standard and accepted definitions used in Numismatics, NOT original. Now I don't dispute that it is impossible
to discern whether many coins have or have not been dipped, but that isn't really germane to my point.
<< <i> You can go back to your regularly scheduled wailing about dipped coins being allowed in slabs now. /eyeroll >>
Please cite a single post (out of 2000+) where I have ever stated that dipped coins shouldn't be slabbed. What
were you saying about putting words in someone's mouth?
CAC is good for the hobby period.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
<< <i>
<< <i> You can go back to your regularly scheduled wailing about dipped coins being allowed in slabs now. /eyeroll >>
Please cite a single post (out of 2000+) where I have ever stated that dipped coins shouldn't be slabbed. What
were you saying about putting words in someone's mouth? >>
Pardon me - in stickered slabs.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> You can go back to your regularly scheduled wailing about dipped coins being allowed in slabs now. /eyeroll >>
Please cite a single post (out of 2000+) where I have ever stated that dipped coins shouldn't be slabbed. What
were you saying about putting words in someone's mouth? >>
Pardon me - in stickered slabs. >>
You are pardoned. Now please cite a single post where I stated that dipped coins should not be stickered.
Edit: What I stated was that if one's definition of "original" excludes blast white Seated and Bust dollars,
a sticker does not guarantee that one will receive an original coin. If your definition is otherwise, we have
no basis for a conversation. Cheers.
<< <i>CoinJunkie,
In my opinion there is absolutely NO way to tell if a coin has been dipped if it is done correctly. And in time, if stored outside of an air-tight container, it would even qualify as your definition of "original" based on it being toned. This is where your take on the word "original" falls apart imho. A properly dipped coin will not fit your description of "original" initially but will overtime....
A dipping does not become a cleaning until someone either messes it up, or the coin is dipped too many times. If done correctly, little (if any) luster and ORIGINAL coin surface is lost. What is lost is all of the debris, toning, etc. that has accumulated on the ORIGINAL coin since it left the mint.
Edit for typo >>
As a pratticioner, I totally agree. So many people are confused on this. The reality is tarnished coins at some point will need a dip or conservation. I have found even ASE rolls in the original mint tube will develop a black line on the rims where there is a plastic seam inside the tube.
<< <i> I do charge a $25 premium for CAC coins however - if you like them then yer gonna hafta pay the money. >>
Agreed, to cover the cost of the bean and shipping and time. But NOT an extra 10-30% for the "assurance."
Laura's rhetoric can get to some people at times, but she has a very small segment of the coin market for her customers. People who buy $3,000 coins the way I buy $50 coins are a much smaller group of individuals. Tiffany does not market the same way that Kay's jewelers does. This irritates a lot of folks, but not her target demographic.
The CAC is just another way to validate a coin. It is an instrument, nothing more, nothing less. There is still a coin for sale at a price and the buyer can use any number of methods to evaluate their potential purchases. For myself, I like them on the more expensive coins, but I would like to flatter myself and think I do not need that validation.
Remember, resubmissions will tend to get borderline coins into the next holder up and that is what CAC is about IMHO.
But this endless debate over her every word... and whether she spelled correctly... and on and on... is just infantile sandbox nonsense...
There are those who will agree with her... and those that won't... and for the most part... everyone's mind has already been made up before the discussion/debate has even begun...
I have come to the absolute conclusion WITH CONVICTION ... that those here who can't help but bash Laura... ARE THE ONE'S WITH THE PROBLEM... I may not always agree with everything she says... but I do not feel I have the right to bash her... for the record... I am not about bashing anyone... but I might, sometimes, somewhat forcefully suggest that folks check themselves... there might be alot of problems in the Numismatic World that need fixing... yet IMHO, Laura, Legend and CAC are not part of the problem...
My advice, FWIW... to SG and TDN (and it's worth every cent you will have to pay for it
So with all that said... from one weenie to a gang of weenies... go sit on a soggy cornflake
<< <i>Why is it that so many folks on this forum seem to think that Laura's Market Reports are written for us? >>
I don't know, but every time I read one of those comments about how her reports are nothing but "a bunch of self-serving hype," I can't help but wonder what the poster expects to find, on her own freaking website? Is it really such a surprise to find that a business is actually trying to market its wares (once again, on its own website) to potential customers? It's not like she's coming here to post that stuff, now is it?
coins as "original", then we have a difference of opinion. As I pointed out several times, I was responding to a statement
made by Saintguru. TDN chose to shift the discussion back to the Market Report. That you find this thread infantile and
$4 will buy me a latte at Starbucks...
<< <i>Why is it that so many folks on this forum seem to think that Laura's Market Reports are written for us? She could give a rat's patootie about most of us weenies here... we, for the most part, are not her client base... >>
why do you say that? i visited their website just a few days ago and
found many coins within my budget range. Many coins were below
1000 and some were around 300-400.
Yes, i know they just did a big deal for a lot of coins but they are obviously
catering to a wide range of collectors right this second based on available
pieces at a range of prices.
<< <i>Why is it that so many folks on this forum seem to think that Laura's Market Reports are written for us? She could give a rat's patootie about most of us weenies here... we, for the most part, are not her client base... those of us who know her and those who choose to do business with her... we can choose to read her Reports or not... anyone is free to read them if they choose...
But this endless debate over her every word... and whether she spelled correctly... and on and on... is just infantile sandbox nonsense...
There are those who will agree with her... and those that won't... and for the most part... everyone's mind has already been made up before the discussion/debate has even begun...
I have come to the absolute conclusion WITH CONVICTION ... that those here who can't help but bash Laura... ARE THE ONE'S WITH THE PROBLEM... I may not always agree with everything she says... but I do not feel I have the right to bash her... for the record... I am not about bashing anyone... but I might, sometimes, somewhat forcefully suggest that folks check themselves... there might be alot of problems in the Numismatic World that need fixing... yet IMHO, Laura, Legend and CAC are not part of the problem...
My advice, FWIW... to SG and TDN (and it's worth every cent you will have to pay for it
So with all that said... from one weenie to a gang of weenies... go sit on a soggy cornflake
For the record: I started the OP with the intent of gaining insight into the idea that some dealers "despise" the CAC--a concept that I had not considered. For some reason any thread regarding Laura or the CAC tends to degenerate.
This was not my intent.
And is that a CAC sticker being kicked??