1799 Cent PCGS VF30 CAC

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can;
and the wisdom to know the difference.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

For the coin in question, my understanding is the above is not true. As I understand it, many of the 1799s left the mint with "issues" including corrosion/planchet problems.

 

Doug,

I understand my first two questions were not directly applicable to whether the coin in the OT should be in a Genuine holder or not holdered at all but I think there is a common theme: the ideal of a single, consistent grading standard that should be applied to coins, regardless of age, rarity, pedigree, etc.

I appreciate your answers and even agree with you on the first two points.:yes: Early Walkers were not struck like those from the 30s and 40s and so an adjusted scale is appropriate. I also think the loosening of standards for key date coins only leads to confusion in the marketplace and arbitrary price differentials between coins that may be graded a point apart (say a 26-S Buffalo in 64 versus 65) that is unjustified.

However, I see a possible inconsistency in your answer to the first two questions. You say that a different standard is justified for early Walkers but not for key dates. However, many key dates in Buffalos, for instance, are condition rarities because of strike deficiencies. The 19-D or 20-D are great examples -- even most MS65 PCGS examples are weak strikes (think of a nice smooth buffalo head north and west of the horn) and they were weak strikes the day they left the mint. As Bowers put it, the press attendants at the Denver mint became "increasingly inattentive" during this period. So is a looser standard justified for those coins because they were consistently softly struck?

Still learning!
Jeff

 

all my coins are rare and valuable even my pocket change so when do we get the tpgs to grade them as 71?

and as far as i am concerned pedigrees are nonsense otherwise both of our coins would have been worth something.

btw i am amazed that you think the tpg's have any credibility left that would really be the joke of the day.

 

bravo bravo

 

dont worry grandpa it wont ever happen like that in our kingdom

 

hilarious

didnt know you had that in you mike i would say the best situational post by you ever

now now we can just ask GD he knew exactly what happened in 1799. i was busy because tipu sultan was dying but he was monitoring the mint

 

fraid not possible breakdown metals have changed in the process and when the metal changes from gold to aluminum or stainless steel. and there is no inconsistency in what gd is saying he is saying that taking batch production judge each batch by the quality that defines that batch. now if some batch has become a key or not that shouldnt matter. what i advocate is take it one level up and if batch was not produced correctly ( weakly struck bad planchets etc) then penalize it. gd argues and rightly s then thos ebatches would never have the high grades and i argue that yes they wont because they are not of the same high quality so they dont deserve the high grades. you cannot use a standard to adjust for bad production at the mint just because the entire batch was made that way.

in other words if corroded coins were made by the mint and not post mint then just because it happened at the mint doesnt get them into slabs or it shouldnt.

and imho a looser standard for these coins is completely and truly unjustifed and once yous tart loosening here then what stops you loosening somewhere else? and history proves nothing. you now see problem coins with the genuine labels in slabs

 

still talking greek eh gd?

 

I hav NO complaints about the coin, the complaints are about the slab and grading.

I have two 1799's, neither one comes anywhere close to the OP coin. Both added together don't come anywhere close.

 

I agree 100% with this post.. Other than I dont have two 1799's. : ) The coin is what the coin is.. One I would be proud call mine.. but the coin does not in my eyes live up to the plastic it is entombed in.

 

lordy? you are calling other people lord in from of hrh? do you want stainless version 2.0 unleashed on you?

and what is this making allowances for a spot of corrosion here and there? you falling to the dark side? blasphemous if we make allowance for one then we hav eo tmake allowance for everyone.

 

You said these coins didn't come from the mint "damaged", when in fact they did.

I'm not making any excuses. I'm simply trying to be accurate in portraying how these coins came from the mint -- often with damage, corrosion, and other surface issues. Never did I say this coin came from the mint like this.

The underlying point -- that virtually all 1799's come with some problems -- remains undisputed. For good reason...because it's true.

Take care...Mike

 

I never said it deserved to be in a slab. I simply presented the rationale (or an "excuse", if you prefer) the TPGs use when slabbing these coins, and I said the coin was better "described" in a slab.

Again, please don't confuse understanding with agreement. I see both sides of the issue, and don't think I have judged or chosen either one by words or actions.

Respectfully...Mike