Just got this one in today from CAC. Who is right? PCGS? John Albanese? What if I call it an MS67 FB? Am I right? Even with all these services, it's still debatable.
You can call it whatever you want, but it wont mean anything. PCGS & CAC make the market, their opinions carry weight. PCGS called this an MS65FB in the 90's, JA is calling it MS66FB today. My guess is that the spread between MS65FB and MS66FB is so small that it explains why the coin has not already been resubmitted.
You're forgetting that the gold CAC sticker indicates that the coin is undergraded by AT LEAST one full point. Perhaps John thinks it's a 67, 68, etc. There's no way to know.
I have no clue what it'll sell for, but it is gonna be auctioned off from 99 cents no reserve. I'm into it $38.50. I'll be it goes for $75ish, but time will tell.
If you resubmit and get MS66FB, you basically break even, but if it comes back MS67FB, that's a nice score. Sure you don't wanna gamble? You are playing with house money.
Not for any market reason, per se, but that slab has educational value, e.g. for a talk, as an example of how and when and why gold beans get awarded, and how TPG has changed over the years. I already own a "blind screaming nice" 1942-D, but I'd go almost $75 just for what I stated above.
If you really thought that coin was an MS67FB, I think the addition to your bankroll would make you forget about feeding PCGS.
How do you know that the graders at PCGS at the time didn't think this coin was a just miss MS66FB? In my eyes, this coin is not a poster child for gradeflation.
I'm being serious when I say that I'm sick of playing "the game." I think it's a 67 FB but I'm not going to pay them $20 + $10 processing + $23.75 shipping 1, 2, 3, or 4 times just to get the nod on this coin. Besides the fact that resubmitting would delay me seeing ANY money for months on end... yeah, I'll just take my meager profit and reinvest it in another coin.
If his goal was to flip this coin, to make money, the gold bean only gives him a little bit of money.
I don't use the term "gradeflation". I prefer to call it "evolution", or even "improvement in grading". I'm not chained to some belief that the way grading was at some random point in the past is/was better than what we have today.