This coin just sold for 20 Grand

I think this mark you're referring to is simply a minor graze catching the light differently. I see nastier/deeper scrapes on the chin. Keep in mind the graders (both at third party and CAC) are seeing these in hand and are able to compare them to similar specimens.

Couldn't agree more about the crazy valuations. It's the same with Peace dollars. And Van Goghs. But there's a lot of wealth out there just itchin' to make itself known.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Talk about gradeflation

 

A "+" next to the grade is still only a part of the TPG's grade. CAC doesn't care at all about the "+" except to the extent that a coin so adjudicated is probably more likely to get the Bean. Consider them - the + and the Bean - to be equivalent.

The images aren't large enough to form any sure opinion of whether the coin deserves the "+," but the darker "marks" are not inherently disqualifying. You wouldn't see them in-hand unless you lit the coin the same way as the photographer did, and even then you'd see them as "brighter" and not "darker."

The price is ludicrous, though.

 

Overgrade

 

I agree with what you said Dave. CAC, from everything I have read, disregards the plus in their evaluation. The + simply means that PCGS thought the coin was a "high end for the grade" and just not quite there for the next numerical grade. Which is pretty much the same thing that a green bean means.

As far as those darker spots in the photo's in the OP. I have an '82-CC which photographs exactly the same way. In hand, the dark spots are very bright and shiny. They are in the highest points of the coin. I believe they are points that did not quite get fully struck out and have the original planchet surfaces. The frost that the rest of the coin exhibits was not struck into it. Therefore it is a striking issue and not a post strike hit or graze. When looking at them under high magnification, you can see that there is no displaced metal caused by post strike surface hits.

I think that those areas are treated differently today then they were years ago. My '82-CC is in a PCGS Gen 2.1 holder from 1989 and is graded MS63. Today it would easily go 65. I've shown it to several dealers with the grade covered and that's how they have all graded it.

 

I've read this many times on CT. Is this CAC/John Albanese's formal stance? Honest question. Or is it how dealers have been interpreting a bean on a +?

 

You just answered my above question. I've not read anything specific from them about the plus; nothing on their website.

 

To my limited knowledge and belief, CAC has made no formal stand on the topic. It just doesn't make sense given their mission that they'd care one way or another whether the coin has a "+," and I see those designations as very similar.

 

I'm going to play devil's advocate with this earlier quote of yours (because this topic has bothered me for a while):

Technically, the Bean and + can't be equivalent because of what they represent: The bean represents, according to CAC, the top 2/3rds of any given grade (the A and B thirds, not C). It represents only that a coin satisfies the grade: is solid or better, and not weak. On the other hand, the + represents a coin that is strong for the grade, according to the TPGs who use it. Therefore the + is more exclusive than the bean.

And this should bear itself out in the market, except that many people erroneously believe the bean represents a premium coin.

I understand your point that CAC doesn't have to care whether a coin has a + if their mission is simply to confirm a proper grade. But it seems to me they're missing an opportunity to create an even more exclusive grade: a + with a bean.

On the other hand, the market seems to have done this for them: people routinely assign a higher value to a + with a bean, as the OP coin seems to show. Could this be why CAC has never published anything specific about grading plusses?

 

Isnt that what they're doing? I mean, pretend instead of the + the grade was 67.5. The same CAC guidelines would be in place for that grade. I don't know the true answer, if they specifically ignore + grades, but that would seem silly to me. What if a + coin doesn't bean? Does that mean it's low for MS67 or just low for MS67+? I think there may be some assumptions but it makes sense to me that the + IS a grade, just in between two whole numbers. Otherwise, like previously stated, why get a bean at all? I guess to reinforce the original grade, but that would mean their rules need to apply to that specific + grade or else it makes no sense. And you proved that to be true by saying the + with a bean has more of a premium, just for the fact that it could have not beaned. Since there was a chance it could have not beaned, that means they scrutinize the coin at the stated grade, not the whole number grade? Or not. But think about it.

 

I think it's an extraordinary coin with absolutely blazing luster, no contacts, and a beautifully pronounced strike. This coin is shot under high tech magnification revealing what wouldn't normally be observed under any standard magnification/lighting and is very deceptive. I truly believe this. Skeptics should post any personally owned examples which were graded lower, or the same, and more deserving of the grade... You take the photo.

 

You may be right. But not $20,000 worth of right.

 

I would be shocked if this coin wasn't every bit of the grade in hand.

 

I completely understand your reasoning and think the questions you pose (What if a + coin doesn't bean? Does that mean it's low for MS67 or just low for MS67+?) are legitimate and speak to two concerns: a), the problems inherent in the grading process, i.e, the sheer difficulty of consistent grading, and b), the vagueness surrounding CAC's approach to this. I don't think one person here could quote something CAC has published that explicitly explains how they approach the +.

Both PCGS and NGC have admitted that inconsistency occurs in grading—both over time and among individual graders. If their seasoned, expert graders can't always agree between a 66 and 67, for example, how could it be possible that CAC's graders could distinguish between a 67+ that deserves a bean and one that doesn't? And rather than a big, blast white Morgan, consider a heavily-toned half dime.

Therefore, I think most dealers assume, as some comments here reflect, that the + and bean are generally equivalent. The market seems to bear this out anyway. And the market also bears out that a + with a bean designates a slightly higher premium coin.