Does CAC Make a Difference?

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think the eye appeal is rather neutral considering the series and grade. It'd have to be pretty ugly to warrant bumping it down from an XF to a VF.

I've seen enough of these graded by PCGS in hand to be comfortable assuming that if I see one with the wrong grade online it's just because they are very inconsistent with this series. On the NGC side, I find my opinion almost always agrees with the grade on the holder, and when it doesn't, it's typically a coin that's right on the line between grades.

 

Not a loupe, but a 2x magnifying glass as a concession to my aging eyes.

 

Certainly a possibility.

Another possibility that arose while at the ANA seminars was that I'm "old school".
Mostly technical grading back then; eye appeal, although important, did not really affect the grade.
Yes, of two coins with the same grade one may have looked better than the other and would have been selected for purchase but they were still the same grade.

 

Eye appeal is big for them in my experience. I think it's perfectly fine for the series as well. That said the picture gives the impression of an old wipe or something of that nature which from what I've seen they will keep some of those at 35 over a 40.

 

To me that looks like a nice original beauty. If you like it at the grade and/or the price then go for it. I did find it on heritage https://coins.ha.com/itm/bust-quart...5/a/1145-3576.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515 so not sure if anyone posted that. But I like the coin. My personal opinion.

 

The coin is now mine.
That closes out the set for me (missing the two tough ones).
I'll keep checking out eBay on occasion and hope for a stroke of luck.

Started on my next set today at the coin show.
Got my first CB Dime/Modified Design (1828-1837).
I'm going to limit it to Red Book listed dates/varieties.
Of course there is a stopper: 1829 Curl Base 2.

 

[QUOTE/]As for the reverse, weakness above the denomination on the right claw and arrows/stem is common for 1837 in general, and not indicative of the level of wear. Instead you can see the higher level of detail in the left claw, eagle's head, neck, and the high points in the wings. All point to XF40.

Overall, this isn't the strongest XF40, but it's also not low enough in quality to be on the line with VF35.[/QUOTE]


I doubt the coin would CAC at 35 let alone 40, and had it been submitted in 1990 it would have come back 25 or 30. Grading isn't all about wear as you seem to imply, be it die wear or circulation wear. Overall eye appeal is the determining factor for correctly grading a coin, and any coin allegedly at the Extremely Fine level ought to have at least a trace of luster in the protected areas, which clearly this coin totally lacks.

 

I wasn't implying that at all. I didn't mention it because the coin has enough apparent luster traces in the protected areas and neutral eye appeal, where neither should affect the grade. It's just another improperly graded PCGS coin in this series.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

For grading high MS coins, they still recommend a 5x loupe. Ding counting.

 

Everything you're saying is correct and accepted practice. However, given the utter lack of consistency on the part of the TPG's, I contend we should force them to use magnification on everything.

 

"They" is the ANA. "They" teach courses on grading at major shows. "They" tell everyone to bring a 5x loupe to the class. And "they", and "we", used them extensively in the course at Orlando. And yes, I'm talking from about MS64 on up. Brian Silliman was the instructor.

 

Stick with what the books say and you'll perpetually be about 2-3 years behind. A key part of the course is when to leave what the books say behind.

On the other hand, I doubt anyone put a loupe on the coin I recently got back graded MS64. I still see a 55.

 

After spending 16 hours studying grading sets, I still have NO idea what goes into grading classic gold. Some real dogs had high grades, much more so than in any other metal.