Another questionable CAC call

I agree that the OP coin should have been in a Details holder. It is clearly graffitied (if such a word exists!). Here's another graffitied coin (one of mine) that deservedly wound up with a details grade even though the marks are not too readily apparent. In fact, I had to ask the dealer I bought it from to show them to me and he had to spend a minute to see them. The graffiti is between the crown and the letters UE.

The TPGs are very inconsistent in their grading standards except that they are consistent generally in giving a pass to certain types, ages, and values of coins than others.

IMO, CAC absolutely should not have beaned the 1795 half dollar. This undermines CAC's entire raison d'etre: That collectors can have confidence that a beaned coin meets the requirements for an A or B example of the TPG's grade. Of course, that definition can be a slippery slope if CAC accepts a sliding scale of TPG grades. Then CAC would stand for nothing.

Takes us right back to the old mantra: "Buy the coin and not the holder."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Précisément...........

 

I was cruising through Heritage archives hovering over the large-sized images for all of the XF40s, and the OP coin popped up as one I would not pick. The X was immediately noticeable. Hard to fathom why CAC picked it as an "A or B" example. To each their own, I guess.

 

Snap, Crackle, and Pop the CAC. Does not encourage me to purchase any TPG slab with it on it. It's all in the coin itself. Want to meet the most powerful grader in the world, look in the mirror!

 

Actually, it speaks volumes about the state of collectors. There used to be a time collectors actually learned about the coins they were buying. Then the TPG came along and collectors no longer needed to learn things like grading, authentication, and detecting problems. Then some dealers looking for a way to make money created a problem (gradeflation) and a solution (CAC).

4-6 experts? Hummm. Remember the "minimum 2 graders and a finalizer" wording they used to say. Where is that wording today?

In what world is a 1795 Flowing Hair half similar to a 1916-S Walker? That's like comparing a minivan to a Ferrari.

 

I sent a coin in with some damage and it came back damaged. It was an 1806 draped quarter. My damage was on the reverse and covered in patina. And this coin gets a straight grade? Yes and CAC shouldn't have ever passed it.

 

To be objective about third party grading, NGC did give this Chain Cent a straight grade of VF-30 (too high). My grade, all things considered, is Fine-15.

I think the straight line that runs through Ms. Liberty's eye is a scratch. Some others have called it a planchet defect. The mark behind the hair on the lower left is a die break. The "Y" shaped mark on the right is a struck-through.



They kicked back these two coins to me in body bags about 20 years ago.



PCGS later graded this 1797 S-139 Cent after one of the services body bagged it when I submitted it. It is a condition census piece. I sold it raw at an EAC convention auction. It made the front cover of the catalog.

 

Did it sell at a discount?

 

Regardless to what the TPGS say, that 1797 is a well struck beautiful coin!

 

I have never understood the desire of collectors of these pieces to accept obvious defects that would relegate any other coin to the realm of a "problem coin" as market acceptable. The coin should be graded XF Details Graffiti/Scratched.

 

Regardless of what the TPG did with it, I landed on my feet. It sold for strong money at the EAC auctions, now it's been slabbed.

 

I recall it was $8-9000 but an R4 variety or something.

 

I have stated prior and I will reiterate now, CAC or MAC are redundant companies beyond Grading that has already been realized. At what point do you require CAC to agree with or validate the Grade realized and given by NGC or PCGS. Then, add additional value to that same coin Grade in their system as if it miraculously improved the coin or Grade in some way. Although some people may want or seek out this worthless CAC or MAC sticker, you are wasting your time as a validation of a Grade has never improved or raised the value ever. Again, this is a worthless and redundant evaluation and sticker, in my opinion.

 

A question: do you all think the coin would have been approved if the mark in question was obviously, say, another letter like an R?
It might be a 1 in a 5000 chance, but two straight scratches that intersect and form an X could theoretically just be scratches. The legs are not quite the same length. I mean, if the graders are looking for wiggle room.

 

Yes, the X is a problem just like the scratch in Liberty’s face. It shouldn’t have CAC’ed and not even straight graded in the first place.

 

Search Heritage for "1795 50c graffiti" and compare I guess. Quite a few X's, possibly NGC and ANACS are stricter about it. Here's other auction images and link.
https://coins.ha.com/itm/early-half.../1279-3076.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

 

And you can say the same thing about grading companies such as NGC or PCGS. That paper label has never improved or raised the value of the coin inside that slab by a single cent.

It has, however, supplied a level of insurance that adds value to the coin. So does that green bean. Either can add some comfort to a potential buyer.

 

Help me everyone!

I am trying not to hit like!

Please stop me!

 

An intervention is required!