1799 Cent PCGS VF30 CAC

That looks good. I guess I have to go with the S-189 since the 'connection' may be raised corrosion. It's still a lovely 1799.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Just came back to the thread and checked Marshall's comments. My conclusion was that is was 189, there is slight separation between the L and I ad there s a little raised corrosion at the foot of the I that makes them look like they touch.

Then I go to the second page and I find hat Marshall has come to the same conclusion.

Always?? You mean they put a green bean on EVERYTHING that gets sent in? Except of course those few pieces that they give a gold one to.

 

Neat coin. Yes, even JA can make mistakes, I suppose but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He saw it hand, after all and is a better grader than me and 99.9 percent of the rest of the numismatic community.
Anyway, this is one cool assignment,Matt.:thumb:

 

Try this one on for size: If PCGS only slabbed problem free 1799 large cents, I think there might be 3.

Taking that statement into context might, perhaps, explain why PCGS (and CAC) takes the position they do on this date in particular.

While the idealist in me might want consistency in grading, the realist understands why the TPGs have chosen to take exception for high value and/or rare coins, and the 1799 qualifies on both counts!

Bottom line: For those of you who complain about this coin. Let's see your 1799.

 

I dont care if its a unique coin. The coin is the coin. The holder does not change my view of it. The coin has corrosion on it and that should be noted on the holder. It is what it is regardless of rarity, color, political view or religion, simply state on the holder what the coin is.

 

Then there should only be three in problem free holders. None of that takes away from the toughness of collecting this date.

I understand and I think Doug explained it best. Even being in a genuine holder takes nothing away from this coin - still good details. I think a genuine or details holder would more acurately describe the coin.

Heck - if I had one like this I would still be proud to show it off. Even in a genuine holder. It would probably be my avatar.

 

Doug

That was the way that I read your post, also.

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, the slab DOES add a few things to the coin. First, it gives an approximate value. Second, by giving it a (net) grade, the grade guarantee is in effect. In a genuine slab, it gets none of these.

Bottom line: With a (net) graded holder it does a much better job (IMO) of describing the coin versus something as generic as "Genuine".

But hey, that's just me (and PCGS and CAC), and we are all entitled to our opinions.....Mike

 

That just sucks for this coin. So yes - I can understand why they did it, just wish it wasn't so. One of these days I hope I have one to post.

 

You and me both, brother.

 

Please don't confuse understanding with agreement.

You make good and valid points, IMO. So do the TPGs (also IMO).

However, none of that changes the rationale/justification/"excuses" used by the TPGs (as I understand them), nor does it change the rarity of the coin in question.

Respectfully...Mike

p.s. as a publicly traded company, PCGS' primary responsibility is to get a return on the investment of their shareholders. Said a bit differently, if a publicly traded company has a choice between profit and credibility, they will (generally) choose profit. Sometimes in these philosophical discussions, I think that point is lost. Again, that doesn't make it necessarily good or bad, but it is what it is.

 

p.p.s. If I were ruler of the world, TPGs would be not-for-profit organizations under tight federal regulation. Alas, I don't rule the world, so therefore I simply try and understand it better (while trying not to pass judgment) as to best navigate it.

 

Doug,
In an ideal world, the TPGs would grade a coin by a single set of standards. A couple of questions, just so I understand your position more fully (I recognize that you've likely answered before but please humor me).
1. Should all Walkers be graded by one standard -- you've discussed the looser standard applied to Walkers pre-'33 by the TPGs. Is it a mistake?
2. Should the loosening for the top grade for key dates be abolished. Think 26-S Buffalo in MS65.(okay, I think I know your answer on this one and agree with you)
3. If PCGS should slab a coin like that in the OT in a Genuine holder, shouldn't it start giving problem coins a details grade to distinguish a better details coin from a poorer details coin?
Not trick questions -- just learning.:thumb:

 

Surely you jest, you really want the federal government regulating TPGs? Seen our federal government deficit lately?

 

Affirmative action for coins deemed special due to having low numbers in relation to the population. No, the federal government would never want to have a hand in that?