To CAC or not to CAC - official game thread

There's a lot to like about this BH, including what appears to be some nice remaining luster and attractive toning. But for a grade of AU-50, I just don't think it's a B or C coin. On the bubble really, but I'll be a contrarian and say no bean.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Green on the bustie

 

In my home, alcohol can always play a part, although this time, it wasn't ; - )

My respect for your numismatic acumen is unphased by a single opinion.

And it is in that spirit that I will tag along once again - green bean!!

 

OK, good job by Publius. The coin failed at CAC. I did not get a response from JA on this one but my notes state it was probably an old dipping...ie dip and retone. As I recall the coin did have luster (which you can kind of see in the photo I took). Oh well...I was bummed but I did sell it with no problem 3/4 years later.

jom

 

I even went first to give everyone a hint that it didn't bean!

 

Hmmm, okay, so wxcoin wants to be the official contra-indicator of CAC worthiness.

 

I meant to say, "I just don't think it's an A or B coin.".

 

Rd. 1: 1921 MS 65 Green CAC Morgan--> Yes: 4 vs No: 3

Rd. 2: 1835 AU 50 Green CAC 50c--> Yes: 2 vs No: 8

Rd. 3: 1939-S Oregon MS 65 Gold CAC 50c--> Yes: 10 (8 Green and 2 Gold) vs No: 0

Rd. 4: 1838 AU 58 Green CAC (Gold $5)--> Yes: 1 vs No: 5

Rd. 5: 1908 MS 63 Green CAC (Gold $20)—> Yes: 5 vs No: 1

Rd. 6: 1885-CC MS 63 PL Green CAC Morgan--> Yes: 8 vs No: 1

Rd. 7: 1946-S MS 66 Green CAC Walker 50c--> Yes: 7 (6 Green and 1 Gold) vs No: 1

Rd. 8: 1885-S MS 62 NOT CAC Morgan--> Yes: 5 (4 Green and 1 Gold) vs No: 1

Rd. 9: 1830 EF 45 UNKNOWN CAC 50c--> Yes: 10 vs No: 1

Rd. 10*: 1899 MS 65 BN UNKNOWN CAC 1c--> Yes: 4 vs No: 5

Rd. 11: 1942 MS 65 Gold CAC 50c--> Yes: 4 (4 Green and 0 Gold) vs No: 2

Rd. 12: 1940-D MS 67 Star UNKNOWN CAC 10c--> Yes: 3 vs No: 4

Rd. 13*: 1884-O MS 61 Gold CAC $1--> Yes: 9 (4 Green and 5 Gold) vs No: 0

Rd. 14: 1827 AU 55 CAC 10c--> Yes: 1 vs No: 7

Rd. 15: 1851 MS 66 CAC 1c--> Yes: 5 vs No: 4

Rd. 16: 1919-S MS 65 Green CAC 10c--> Yes: 12 (11 Green and 1 Gold) vs No: 0

Rd. 17: 1922 MS 65 NOT CAC Peace $1--> Yes: 10 vs No: 1

Rd. 18: 1851 Au 58+ CAC 1/2C--> Yes: 0 vs No: 6

Rd. 19: 1839-O AU 53 NO CAC 50c--> Yes: 6 (5 Green and 1 Gold) vs No: 3

Rd. 20: 1920 MS 65 NO CAC 25c--> Yes: 4 vs No: 6

Rd. 21: 1862 PF 64 CAC H10c--> Yes: 5 vs No: 1

Rd. 22: 1869 PF 63 Gold CAC 10c--> Yes: 7 (5 Green and 2 Gold) vs No: 0

Rd. 23: 1834 XF 45 CAC $5--> Yes: 2 vs No: 5

Rd. 24: 1835 XF 40 CAC 25c--> Yes: 8 (7 Green and 1 Gold) vs No: 2

Rd. 25: 1876 MS 62 Not CAC 50c--> Yes: 7 (6 Green and 1 Gold) vs No: 1

Rd. 26: 1853 MS 64 Not CAC 10c--> Yes: 7 vs No: 0

Rd. 27: 1913 MS 62 CAC 2.5 Gold--> Yes: 1 vs No: 5

Rd. 28: 1835 AU 58 CAC 10c--> Yes: 3 vs No: 7

Rd. 29: 1908-S MS 64 CAC 1c--> Yes: 9 vs No: 2

Rd. 30: 1913-D MS 66+ CAC 5c--> Yes: 10 vs No: 0

Rd. 31: 1829 AU 55 NOT CAC 5c--> Yes: 11 vs No: 1

Rd. 32: 1851 MS 61 CAC 2.5 Gold--> Yes: 4 (3 Green and 1 Gold) vs No: 2

Rd. 33: 1936-D MS 66 GOLD CAC 5c--> Yes: 3 (3 Green) vs No: 2

Rd. 34: 1941-S AU 55 NOT CAC 10c--> Yes: 11 (2 Green and 9 Gold) vs No: 0

Rd. 35: 1924 MS 66 CAC 25c--> Yes: 3 vs No: 4

Rd. 36: 1936-D MS 67 Texas UNKNOWN CAC 50c--> Yes: 8 vs No: 1

Rd. 37: 1928 MS 66 Oregon UNKNOWN CAC 50c--> Yes: 9 vs No: 0

Rd. 38: 1893 MS 64 Isabella CAC 25c--> Yes: 2 vs No: 9

Rd. 39: 1820 AU 58 CAC 10c--> Yes: 3 vs No: 7

Rd. 40: 1881-S MS 65 CAC $1--> Yes: 7 (3 Green and 4 Gold) vs No: 0

Rd. 41: 1940 PR 66 CAC 50c--> Yes: 7 vs No: 0

Rd. 42: 1824 AU 50 CAC 50c--> Yes: 8 vs No: 1

Rd. 43: 1937 Texas MS 66 CAC 50c--> Yes: 5 vs No: 2

Rd. 44: 1903 PR 63 NOT CAC 50c--> Yes: 9 vs No: 1

Rd. 45: 1857 MS 64 CAC 10c--> Yes: 2 vs No: 6

Rd. 46: 1828 MS 62 CAC 10c--> Yes: 8 vs No: 1

Rd. 47: 1958 MS 67 FBL CAC 50c--> Yes: 1 vs No: 9

Rd. 48: 1902 PR 64 NOT CAC 50c--> Yes: 3 vs No: 4

Rd. 49: 1832 AU 58 CAC 1/2c--> Yes: 5 (1 gold) vs No: 4

Rd. 50: 1902 PF 61 CAC 25c--> Yes: 4 vs No: 2

Rd. 51: 1953-D MS 66+ FBL CAC 50c--> Yes: 3 vs No: 4

Rd. 52: 1880 MS 64 CAC $1--> Yes: 3 vs No: 2

Rd. 53: 1882-CC MS 62 CAC $1--> Yes: 5 vs No: 1

Rd. 54: 1892 MS 64 Columbian CAC 50c--> Yes: 5 vs No: 0

Rd. 55: 1895-O VF 20 CAC $1--> Yes: 1 vs No: 6

Rd. 56: 1880-O MS 64 Not CAC $1--> Yes: 11 vs No: 0

Rd. 57: 1954 PF 65 CAM Gold CAC 50c--> Yes: 7 (7 Green and 0 Gold) vs No: 1

Rd. 58: 1879-S MS 65 CAC $1--> Yes: 5 vs No: 2

Rd. 59: 1949 MS 66+ FBL CAC 50c--> Yes: 3 vs No: 5

Rd. 60: 1880-S MS 66 PL Green CAC Morgan--> Yes: 5 vs No: 7

Rd. 61: 1936 MS 67+ Green CAC York 50c--> Yes: 4 vs No: 5

Rd. 62: 1823/2 AU 58 CAC 10c--> Yes: 6 vs No: 3

Rd. 63: 1920 MS 65 CAC Pilgrim 50c--> Yes: 7 vs No: 4

Rd. 64: 1901/0-S XF 45 GOLD CAC Gold $5--> Yes: 7 (5 Green and 2 Gold) vs No: 2

Rd. 65: 1937-D Texas MS 66 CAC 50c--> Yes: 12 vs No: 1

Rd. 66: 1829 AU 55 CAC 50c--> Yes: 8 vs No: 2

Rd. 67: 1859 PR 62 Gold CAC H10c--> Yes: 7 (6 Green and 1 Gold) vs No: 1

Rd. 68: 1883-O MS 62 CAC $1--> Yes: 2 vs No: 5

Rd. 69: 1818 AU 50 NOT CAC 50c--> Yes: 10 vs No: 1

Green CAC on coin and deserves it: 26
Green CAC on coin and doesn't deserve it: 18
Gold CAC on coin and deserves it: 1
Gold CAC on coin but should only be Green: 7
Gold CAC on coin but should not sticker:
Failed to sticker but deserves a sticker: 10
Failed to sticker and should not sticker: 2
Unknown sticker status and deserves a sticker:3
Unknown sticker status and does not deserve a sticker:2


Note: if we don’t know the status of a coin before the reveal and more people say green CAC for a gold CAC coin, then it will go in the area of “Gold CAC on coin but should only be Green” ....see round 3 as the example case

*
Rd. 10 was 4-4...I interpreted that CircCam would consider it a no (based on a similar example), which swayed the overall vote to a lean towards no.
Rd. 13 was tied between green and gold at 4-4...I interpreted that geekpryde would consider it a gold

 

You're a "leading indicator"!

jom

 

Since I don't want to be the last poster in this thread I'll do another. Here is an 1828 Quarter PCGS F12 sent to CAC 7/5/2014. "Wha' happen Lucy?"



jom

 

If that thing didn't CAC, I don't know what would. That's gorgeous.

Not being familiar with early quarters.... what's going on with the denomination there? 25/50? Looks like some sort of overpunch.

 

I'll say YES to a Green ...very attractive circulated coin

 

It deserves a green sticker.

 

I tried to compare it to several others I could find graded F-12 by NGC and ANACS and it looks very similar except the OP's 25/50 coin has much better eye appeal. With that I'd go with a green bean.

 

Tough one for me. I think it makes the grade, or at least an F11.5 ....Are the surfaces 100% original? Again, not sure. But it's got nice toning for a circulated coin, awww, I'll say green sticker.

 

Yes on the bean.

 

I think it's actually a VG-8 by non-market standards. I'll bet the TPG gave it the F-12 market-grade because it has such attractive toning and very clean fields. If it were only that, then I'd say it got the bean. But, I've read here that JA does not not give beans to coins with old cleanings and re-tonings and I think that this coin was cleaned long ago and has re-toned in an album over many years.

So no to the bean.

That said, I'd be happy to give this coin a home any day.

 

For those that have an interest in such things, this 1828 Capped Bust Quarter is the B-3 die marriage, rarity 5 so a very nice find indeed with its super-clear blundered denomination.

It is Obverse 1 where Star 1 is close to the bust.
Reverse S which is called "25 over 5 over 50". This reverse die was engraved in 1818 and last used in 1822.*

A super nice find and coin. Love to have it myself. @jom, are you collecting these by die marriage?

*Information from Steve Tompkins book " Early United States Quarters, 1796-1838"

 

CAC. Very nice coin!

 

Publius wins again. The coin was rejected by CAC. I'm the one who has stated that (at least with my submissions) JA tends to reject dipped and re-toned coins. Another words, I don't believe this was rejected due to over-grading although in this particular case (according to my notes) I did not get direct confirmation on this one from JA but I half expected the failure as I recall.



jom