Useless CAC sticker

So are virtually all of them, Ruben. That's the point.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Do they also have black spots?

 

It has Black Spots and it will have MORE black spots as it ages.

 

I suspected you never used them....

The reason I asked is that I've read many, many similar posts about CAC, all from folks who don't like or see value in the service. Which is fine. However, if you asked people who have used the service (even those who initially disliked CAC), virtually every single one has found value in it. In fact, I cannot recall a single post that said "I sent my coins to the CAC and they are just marketing fluff".

To me, that speaks volumes, but YMMV.

Short answer: Because most are better coins and they deserve higher prices.

Longer answer: If I'm interpreting your posts correctly, you're arguing some sellers are using the CAC sticker to justify an even higher price than is reasonable, and you may very well be correct -- I've seen the same thing -- but as buyers we have the ability to not buy an overpriced coin with or without a sticker, don't we? Now, consider the alternative, a slabbed (or raw) coin without any sticker but still priced at a premium level -- which would you rather buy, the TPG graded and CAC stickered coin at a premium or the raw or slabbed one priced the same? All things being equal (which they rarely are) I'd take the former virtually every time. Wouldn't you?

Now, speaking from my own direct first-hand experience with CAC, I think JA did a very good job with my coins. He detected some problems I had missed, for instance, and shared his thoughts on each of my coins. Overall his assessments were close to my own, I disagreed with a few coins but agreed with many more. I found value in the service, and hope to use it again.

 

Reading A Simple Post.

I tried to keep my recent post simple for like-minded individuals who may have problems with details/comprehension, as cited after a recent post.

I find your assumption of: "that nobody here has ever collected premium gem SLQ's", and statements: "Lastly, not one person mentioned luster", "predisposed hatred towards TPG's and CAC.", "just my humble, very informed, opinion", to probably be evidence that assumptive, comprehensive, absolutes, and ego-centric criticism by others may be warranted. I believe the criticism is supported by your aforementioned statements.

"that nobody here has ever collected premium gem SLQ's"? I haven't been privy to your collection/understanding of "premium gem SLQ's", but based on arguments/hyperbole, I suspect that mine, and others may be comparable.

"Lastly, not one person mentioned luster"? Not only did I mention Luster, I cited the A.N.A. technical published standard for a lower grade, and reference date of publication: "(1977 A.N.A. MS65 Tech. Spec. "Has full mint luster")"

"predisposed hatred towards TPG's and CAC."? As previously stated, I'm not privy to your personal statistics, but suspect that the certified majority of my 7 figure collection doesn't constitute a "predisposed hatred". I argue that facts support: merely a concern for unfaultering inferred unexcelled performance in profession, as I would/do? provide.

"humble, very informed"? oxymoronic?, or moronic?

Thanks for any objective, enlightening, and informed correction.

Let's try to present facts, and avoid possibly slanderous (i.e. unqualitative or unquantitative) non-supported statements.

:bow:

 

YMMV ! What is that? A car built in Yugoslavia? BMW, VW and YMMV?

 

FWIW, and this is personal opinion, any coin that has a full head but a missing shield is just as inferior as a coin without a full head and complete shield. This idea that the head is the only aspect of the coin that determines value and strike is rather irritating.

 

I agree with you, however the market and the TPGs disagree.

Don't confuse YOUR standards with the broader market, Ruben, to do so would be a mistake.

For instance, I don't like woodgrain copper. In my own world, where I set my own standards, I discount coins that have this toning pattern. However, RLM, for instance, loves them, and the TPGs don't seem to mark coins down with them as much as I do.

Do I condemn RLM or the TPGs because of their own subjective view of the world differs from my own? Nope.

Neither should you condemn the TPGs or CAC because they have a different view of the world than you do. You should, rather, simply acknowledge the differences and use them to your advantage.

All of the above IMO and respectfully submitted...Mike

 

p.s. YMMV stands for "your mileage may vary".

 

Mike - it has black spots

 

I am not blind, Ruben.

I see the black spots. All I can offer is that the TPGs and JA don't seem to hate them as much as you do.

Acknowledge and use, not recognize and condemn, my friend.

 

For what it's worth. I think that the coin in question is probably closer to a 65 then a 66. And as for the FH it's hard to tell from the HA pictures but it looks to have the quality's they ask for in it.
I do not dislike that toning as it does not get in the fields that much but I would not call it attractive toning either.

It is CAC'D so if I owned it and did not like it I'd see if JA would buy it seeing they buy CAC'd coins.
Just an idea

 

If you have experience collecting premium gem SLQ's, then prove it.

And why do you find it necessary to compose your posts in a forum chat room as if you were writing a legal brief. Is it the same reason you bold your entire post? Is it the same reason your username is play on words indicating wealth? Is it the same reason your location indicates that you live an secure secluded area? Is it the same reason you claim to have a million (multi?) dollar collection? In my experience, those with wealth don't feel the need to prove to others that they are wealthy. Your are just a sorry little man screaming for attention. I will not be affording you mine for very much longer. Either start teaching us about high grade SLQ's or I will put you where you belong, on my ignore list.

 

There is a couple of things that could have happened but with the CAC sticker they aren't likely.

A- the spots might not have appeared until later. There is this idea that once the coin is slabbed, that its condition is then static. That is not always the case. As Jim pointed out, those cases aren't even air tight. I still think it has too many hits to make a MS66. To me, it is a 64 pushing a 64. It has too many hits within the focal area.

or

B- They didn't care. They viewed the coin for hits and luster and igored the stops because...because i don't know but I've seen them do this before. The coin almost has to be encrusted before they pay attention to uneven or damaging toning.

For a 66 I want a good shield. At 66 the strike matters.

Ruben

 

Although I agree with virtually all you've said/asked, that's rather harsh, Paul.

Thanks for your response, Ruben. I think we should all recognize that each of us subjectively assess coins -- collectors, dealers, TPGs, and CAC all have their own view of the world and sometimes we disagree on a particular coin. That's should not necessarily be a foundation for condemnation (e.g. "useless"), however.

We can (and should strive to) disagree without being disagreeable.

 

I think you are the only person up to this point who agrees with me that the grade is correct. I failed to mention the luster (mostly because the OP seemed to be zeroing in on the toning). But I agree the luster is fantastic. I don't think the toning does anything with the grade. I personally don't care for the toning and thus would consider finding a different example. But, that is a personal preference. From a technical standpoint, I think this is an excellent and accurately graded coin.

 

Well that PCGS looks much better than the NGC. Isn't there a thread on NGC VS PCGS ???? Kinda answers that question also....

 

There isn't a PCGS vs NGC thread...there are many of them. It seems like their is always one being discussed. I think if you look over the history of those discussions, you will find the consensus is both companies are about equal. Although most people are jumping on the overgraded bandwagon for this coin...don't use one coin as your reason why one company is inferior to the other.

 

And it really doesn't because the standards for a 1929 vs 1928-S are very different with regards to strike. Here is a 1928-S SLQ PCGS MS66 FH CAC for comparison.



1928-S SLQ PCGS MS66 FH CAC Heritage

The coins have similar surfaces and a similar strike. The only difference is the absence of toning which was achieved by dipping the coin. The luster looks better on the PCGS coin but you really can't judge luster accurately from a photo, especially when talking about a toned coin.

 

Also an excellent point. People often fail to realize that the strike quality varied greatly through the years...even at the same mint. An excellent example is O mint Morgan Dollars which are famous for poor strikes. However, several O mint years were well struck...but almost everyone will tell you they weren't. There is a link in my signature where you can read up on this. When I first research it...I was quite surprised.