Don't understand CAC

ajman · April 18, 2010 12:56AM

Can someone explain to me how this qualifies for solid for the grade and eye appeal? I'm not trying to stir up a hornet's nest, but am trying to learn. I think I have a good eye for quality no matter what the grade, but I don't know how this or some other coins qualfy for the green bean.

Barndog · April 18, 2010 12:58AM

DLRC doesn't have the best imaging process. The coin is likely "all there" in hand

TomB · April 18, 2010 12:58AM

It's a scan of an EF40 brown copper; it might be quite nice in-hand.

AUandAG · April 18, 2010 1:01AM

Maybe the green in the crevices make it "pop"?

bob

yellowkid · April 18, 2010 1:09AM

I'm guessing it's the photo, but itsn't it all about how the piece looks in relation to it's grade??

BAJJERFAN · April 18, 2010 1:12AM

I don't believe that CAC takes eye appeal into consideration. AFAIK unless it has changed, they go strictly by technical grade sans EA. If you recall, another member recently commented that CAC stickered some rather dark looking coins that he said were unsaleable even with the bean.

RYK · April 18, 2010 1:18AM

I give the benefit of the doubt to the expert who has seen the coin in hand.

MrEureka · April 18, 2010 1:37AM

I don't believe that CAC takes eye appeal into consideration. AFAIK unless it has changed, they go strictly by technical grade sans EA.

That is not true. They take everything into consideration when judging a coin.

And although I haven't heard them explain it this way, I believe their method can be best explained as a question they must ask themselves about each coin: "Would we be comfortable buying and selling it at the assigned grade?" Beyond that, it's all semantics and posturing.

BAJJERFAN · April 18, 2010 2:55AM

Judging by some of the comments here in the past couple of years, EA doesn't seem to have been a big factor in their decision to award the bean or not. I'd like to see a pic of one [sans cert number] they have rejected largely on negative EA.

ElmerFusterpuck · April 18, 2010 3:02AM

Still can't figure out why they won't hire someone of a Mark Goodman caliber to take their images, scans are soooo 2002 for coins.

Here is a sample DLRC image and the coin I received (1832 PCGS AU-53 large cent). Way different, but the upside is that the coin usually looks MUCH better in hand.

DLRC images:

My images:

nickel · April 18, 2010 3:21AM

I would like to learn also . CAC aside , the coin does not look like an EF40 .
The necklace is weak , I can barely make out one diamond on the ribbon ,
and the feathers look like VF relief . Therefore I dont know how to grade ,
or it's a weak strike?

PawPaul · April 18, 2010 3:33AM

Nice XF40 ,origional

RedHerring · April 18, 2010 4:21AM

<< <i>Therefore I dont know how to grade, or it's a weak strike? >>

My first thought was decent color but weakly struck. I've seen worse 40s to be sure.

crazyhounddog · April 18, 2010 4:23AM

DLRC is one of my favorite sellers, one of the best in the business! I sure wouldn't worry at all about buying any coin from this dealer

CAC or not!!!

lkeigwin · April 18, 2010 4:25AM

Based on those images that IHC does not appear to be a 40. All of LIBERTY should be quite distinct, there should be far less wear on the hair and ribbon, the details on the leaves should be stronger and the shield has too many blended stripes.

Still, it's hard to argue with PCGS graders and CAC who've seen the coin in hand. You gotta figure the photos are not representative and it's a legitimate XF40.
Lance.

BBN · April 18, 2010 4:29AM

I agree that scans just kill a photo. Wrong color and less detail. Scans can take a nicely struck ms66 buffalo with nice toning and make it look like a flat XF45 with a dull, gray look.

TwoSides2aCoin · April 18, 2010 4:34AM

I'd trust John Albanese' eyes over mine. And if Bruce M. won a grading competition and Laura is in alignment with them to make certain the industry remains as clean as possible, then I understand perfectly.

Although, I do believe the sticker should be on the reverse of the slab

Sunnywood · April 18, 2010 4:39AM

Some of the best grading eyes in the country - PCGS and CAC - saw the coin in hand. How can any of us question their combined judgment based solely on a poor image? You cannot grade coins from images - period. Most of us also cannot grade coins as well as PCGS or CAC, in my humble opinion.

When I see a PCGS, or especially a PCGS/CAC coin whose grade I disagree with, I don't immediately say, "they're wrong; what were they thinking?" Instead I ask myself, what can I learn from this coin? What did they see that I'm missing?

Only in the series that I have specialized in intensely for at least several years would I feel confident enough to challenge them outright. More often than not, it is I who can learn from them, and not the other way around.

Best,
Sunnywood

ajman · April 18, 2010 4:41AM

While I'll certainly agree that the coin "may" look better in hand than in the scans, and that DLRC is a top notch company( no question about that), the fact remains that the eye appeal is poor, at least in my eyes (pun intended). I truly believe in the CAC's mission for the collector and in the market, but I think they dropped the ball on this one and others. Maybe it's market acceptable for so much verdigri to be on a coin and receive the sticker, but I know what I like and it's not this coin. Which leads me to an old adage that I learned here on this forum from so many knowledgeable members, buy the coin and not the holder, or sticker, or whatever the case may be.

Shamika · April 18, 2010 4:49AM

Sorry, but I don't agree that all CAC coins deserved the green bean. Most are indeed nice for the grade. However, I've seen a small handful of absolutely duds. So much so that it made me wonder if the bean itself was counterfeit.

The IHC in question looks okay however.

EagleEye · April 18, 2010 5:19AM

Here is the PCGS -CAC coin

Here is the "XF-40" from CoinFacts

When you say "Too much verdigris" other people say - crusty and original.

Personally I think ever since the ANA grading standards were loosened in the last edition, I can't agree with what is being graded as XF. I like to see at least separation between the lower hair curl and the ribbon for an XF-40 and full diamonds for an XF-45.

mozin · April 18, 2010 6:13AM

Note that DLRC only gave their coin four stars out of a possible five. I learned some time ago, that I only bid on five star lots. Yes, I am fussy.

BillyGoatsGruff · April 18, 2010 6:18AM

<< <i>Some of the best grading eyes in the country - PCGS and CAC - saw the coin in hand. How can any of us question their combined judgment based solely on a poor image? You cannot grade coins from images - period. Most of us also cannot grade coins as well as PCGS or CAC, in my humble opinion.

When I see a PCGS, or especially a PCGS/CAC coin whose grade I disagree with, I don't immediately say, "they're wrong; what were they thinking?" Instead I ask myself, what can I learn from this coin? What did they see that I'm missing?

Only in the series that I have specialized in intensely for at least several years would I feel confident enough to challenge them outright. More often than not, it is I who can learn from them, and not the other way around.

Best,
Sunnywood >>

I second this. Well said Sunnywood.

kurtdog · April 18, 2010 8:32AM

I actually think this coin is good for the sticker that says it's good for the grade on the slab that says it grades XF40, I don't know about the rest of you...

tradedollarnut · April 18, 2010 9:01AM

Usually, I tend to agree that you can grade circulated coins fairly well off an image.

But not that image.

Don't understand CAC

Comments

Leave a Comment