Did it CAC? 1832 Half Dime

OK, here's the reveal. I hoped this coin would generate some lively comments and it did. I am a little surprised that the toning did not cause comments but this wouldn't be the first time this week I got something wrong.

Anyway, the coin did receive a green bean. I am also sometimes mystified by how CAC goes about its business.

Below the 1832 half dime, I show my 1853 dime in NGC MS-64. This was sent to CAC and was turned down which further adds to my confusion about CAC's acceptance standards.

Thanks for contributing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I can see your point about the 1853 dime. It looks like a strong MS64. I don't see any detracting marks that would knock it down a grade or make it a C coin. So far I haven't played the CAC game. If I find a coin that I like then I don't need someone else to tell me otherwise.

 

Fascinating!

 

As often noted elsewhere on this Forum, the TPGs don't follow the ANA Grading Guide. Here's an example where they differ. This is my 1937 Walking Liberty Half, PCGS PR-63 CAC with obvious continuous hairlines on the obverse.

This is, I think, another example that illustrates what CAC says about its mission: To validate the TPG's grade as a solid (B) coin or better (A) coin. In order for this mission statement to have any validity at all, CAC must use the TPG's grading definitions which are, by definition, market grading criteria.

So, when we do a "GTG" (of a TPG's grade) or a "Did it CAC", the whole premise of the exercise is within the framework of the TPG market grading criteria. It's nice to have your own standards apart from that commercial framework, but I think (IMHO) the bulk of the numismatic marketplace in more expensive U.S. coins is now premised upon that commercial framework.

I'm not endorsing anything with these comments nor denigrating anyone else's POV, just explaining my logic about how I view these matters, FWIW.

 

Your example does not show continuous hairlines, it shows a patch. I can do you one better, I have a PCGS MS-64 WLH with a large patch of hairlines on the reverse. The other thing to consider is that hairlines are a bigger factor when grading proofs than they are with MS coins.

As for TPGS GTG's, I think every poster agreed with a COMMERCIAL grade of
AU-something.

PS If your Proof actually is completely hairlined over its entire surface, then it looks like impaired Proofs can even reach the grade of PR-63.

 

You are correct. I used the word "continuous" incorrectly.

The hairlines on this coin are concentrated in the primary right obverse field. There are a couple of light hairlines in the secondary left field under the flag. This coin conforms to the definition of Proof 63 in the 7th edition of the ANA Grading Guide, page 33: "Hairlines are light but extensive and are visible without magnification...Will have extensive but light hairlines."

For Proof 60, ANA says: "There will be a heavy concentration of hairlines...Hairlines: extensive and intensive."

It's pretty clear that for proof coins, according to ANA, the existence of extensive hairlines by themselves does not automatically make the coin an impaired proof. (continuous is not a term ANA uses for proof coins, though they do for MS coins, page 253)

So, the upshot is that I picked a poor example to make my point. Thanks for pointing that out as I learned something today.,

 

So Did I! Several new things; the learning never stops.

 

OK, you make me curious as to your take on the toning, @Publius2 .
I'd call it a net positive I think, vs how I think the coin would look without the rim color, but I do not think it is quite "correct." Also a bit to dark perhaps?

 

I thought the toning might be a bit too dark and extensive for some's taste. That's all.

If you could see it in hand, there's a good amount of luster where the toning hasn"t taken over.

 

I think there might be some confusion over what CAC does or doesn't do. the website says:
"Within each number of the coin grading scale is a small range of condition from low-end to high-end. Certified coins of the same grade can be of varying quality. Many of today’s collectors want coins that are solid or premium quality for their assigned grade. CAC holds coins to a higher standard so you can be confident in the value of yours. We verify previously graded coins … and award our sticker only to those coins that meet the standard for today’s selective buyer."

and elsewhere on the site
"coin dealers and advanced collectors have used the letters A, B, and C among themselves to further describe coins. C indicates low-end for the grade, B indicates solid for the grade, and A indicates high-end. CAC will only award stickers to coins in the A or B category. C coins, although accurately graded, will be returned without a CAC sticker."

green bean for a B, Gold bean for a A.

it not so much of a "will it CAC or not?" as it is "is this coin premium quality for the grade it was given compared to it's peersof like coins in this grade, or is it average or low for it's grade?"
that's what determines a bean or not. also if they have already beaned nicer coins, then they might have set the bar.

 

Actually I believe it needs to exceed "A" to get a gold sticker.
Both A's and B's should get green. At least that has always been my understanding. So coins like the seated dime failing are hard to figure out.

 

I wasn't sure about that exactly I just assumed they gave stickers to As and Bs and had two types of stickers... very possible though.

 

I think that A and B coins get green beans. Respectively, a B coin is "solid for the grade" and an A coin is "premium quality for the grade". You cannot tell from the sticker which it is. The gold bean denotes that the coin is undergraded by at least one grade.

 

When it comes to non-MS coins, how much of a bump would be needed for a gold bean?

 

We still have not found out about the way CAC consider a coin's strike. I have not called to find out.

 

Agreed. In my post I noted that virtually every coin has hair lines. My point was meant for earlier coins. Modern proof coins or other type coins like ASE normally wouldn't. I manly collect per 1900 coins so hairlines are expected even on proof and uncirculated coins.

As far as the term wiped your date of 1998 seems to be around the time I heard that term used.

You are right just because a coin has some hairlines doesn't mean harshly cleaned. And sometimes it not even mean the coin was cleaned. I recently picked up a 1796 bust dollar details graded VF cleaned. It's a solid VF 25 coin and coin has some very faint hairlines that may not indicate it was cleaned but it could have but, I've seen far worse coins in straight graded slabs.

 

I do know if there is weak strike they typically don't give it a bean. This is a big problem on early cbh and I'm also finding its just as bad with eisenhower dollars.

 

Interesting. In the past a weakly struck coin was not graded above 64. So it should make sense that a weakly struck "A" graded MS-63 might get a bean. I expect this strike issue will not be "pinned down" by CAC as it will remove some of the subjectivity about what they like to bean.

 

That is one of the issues I have with all of this; "subjectivity". The entire grading process has a lot of "subjectivity" embedded in it. What may get a bean today may not get one in the future and visa versa.

 

Using this coin as an example, they don’t seem to mind a weak strike (up to 64 at least) as long as the rest of the coin is all there since the graders correctly limited it for that reason.

If this coin were graded 65 it likely wouldn’t sticker due to the weak strike, but the reason would still relate to the “not AB for the grade” concept and not because they “don’t like weak strikes.” IMO