Another questionable CAC call

Hahaha, I know the feeling. My most expensive coin purchase (profile pic) is graded UNC Details - Cleaned. I just wanted to have one, so I got it at a discount because of the grade, then it arrived and I went, what? The coin is spectacular and there's no way I'd call it "cleaned". They obviously mistook die polish for cleaning hairlines, and I looked at every single image I could find of this coin and found the same "hairlines" on other examples. But a famous collector that a large batch (1500 or so) of coins all came from was notorious for cleaning his coins, and that inserted bias into the grading process. Which is my opinion.

Anyway, I understand what you're saying about "UNC Scratched". The two are not compatible. If it's scratched, it's "circulated". The scratch didn't happen at the mint. But the TPGs don't see it that way, it's all in the definition of "circulated".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

With the usual caveat that i know nothing, the nature of those "scratches" is a bit strange. The lines look more like stamps than scratches to me. One seems to be sort of on top of the other. Could there be more to this than graffiti?

Here is a relatively rare gold coin (an 1840 D quarter eagle), rare in any condition, that came back from NGC recently as AU scratched - pretty much what one would expect. But the deepest scratch, which looks more like a gouge than a scratch - couldn't it have been bag damage, or mint damage? How, when there no uniformity, do the graders decide between bag damage and a scratch - one preventing full grade and the other "ok". (I did notice that our friend with the mustache (GDJMSP) made reference to the size of the coin vs the size of the "scratch" - this is very small coin and although the mark looks huge in this picture it is not nearly as noticeable in hand - nice luster despite the marks and better than average strike, too).

 

Sorry, those marks appear to be post mint damage. Nothing about them appear to be part of the minting process.

 

I think that most likely the deep scratch/gouge at 12 was a test mark to see if the coin was in fact gold. then there are about 5 other scratches on the obv and the oval hit on the jaw (raised edges tell you it's damage and not a strike through). Otherwise it seems to have a nice patina and anything gold from N. Ga. is special.

 

I agree with your opinion on adjustment marks. As far as the 1794 dollar at MS 66. Your right not many of us could every think of owning it so who cares.

 

Thanks. Hah, yes, that could be. Makes sense. The coin is so small and light that it would seem difficult for that much force to be applied by accident. I was thinking about that. Good theory. And yes, any Dahlonega gold is special, this particular issue (1840) is one of the rarest so a details version of the issue that actually looks good is nice to have. Despite the scratches it's condition and strike are very good and likely better than many of the few others that exist.

 

One thing that I don't think was mentioned in this discussion, my understanding is that by stickering a coin, JA is saying (in part anyway), that he would like the coin in his inventory. By stickering a coin, he is saying he would buy the coin as a nice example, and pay appropriately. A standing offer. No?

 

One thing I did learn from all the info that has been give... I don't plan on buying a graded coin. I don't care what a coin is graded, if I like the coin, I will buy it and not search for redemption for buying a coin. My father left my brother and I a sizeable coin inventory. No graded coins. Coins were put in a small manila envelope where he put his interpretation of the coin. My brother and I had never bought or collect a coin until we got my father's coin collection. We split it down the middle. I got caught up in coin collecting and my brother put all of his coin in a glass jar, never to look at them again. I offered to buy his coins, but he was rather adamant that he did not want to sell them. That is his right to hoard his coins up.
Anyway, There are quite a few coins that look good and I need to look at them in depth to find the story as well to find out what my next step will be. Thanks to Coin Talk, I'm hoping that once I look at them, I will get some help. Thanks to all.

 

It has been mentioned before but you are right that I don't see it in this thread. For some coins, giving them a sticker wouldn't be the biggest issue for JA. For example, lets say there is a high end toned 1881-S MS 65 Morgan that is technically a 64. The sticker means JA would buy it at his bid for a 65 CAC Morgan (lets say around $200)-which would still be significantly lower than the price the coin would bring even in a 64 non-CAC holder (which could easily be $750 based on the toning).

 

I finally got over the feeling.

Phew

 

Please help me!

 

In response to your reply above, you are correct that a label never raised the price of a coin and this is evident by the different labels for First Strike, First Day of Issue and so on. The point made was that after the coin had been Graded by NGC or PCGS then, sealed in a permanent holder that CAC or MAC could adequately evaluate the coin in this state and confirm its Grade, apply a sticker and thereby raise its value more by this action. Pardon me but, No and Not at all. In comparison, you buy a Lotus and after you get it home, a certifier comes calling, confirms it is a Lotus and states it worth more than you paid now. Ridiculous and not true.

The only true way to have values raise on any coin is the demand for the coin with rarity, condition and population being considered which presently NGC and PCGS do not appropriately do but, perhaps one day these three points will be the norm. Currently, the amount paid for a coin is being used even though its artificial and not true. Oh well.

 

Interesting thoughts.

The difference, to me, is that LOTUS is certifying the value at the time of inspection. The 3rd. or 4th Party is not doing so, i.e., they are not certifying, they are offering an opinion and making a market. The equality to LOTUS in your example would be the Dept. of Treasury, and the certifier would be the U.S. Mint. Both have a fiduciary duty, in my opinion.

The TPGS and 4PG are rendering an opinion, no? The entities are not certified fiduciaries, nor are the entities under any obligation to guarantee the market value of their opinion.

There is a sense of comfort offered, because the entities are recognized in the market as a legitimate source of expertise, and their opinion sets the market condition, up or down. But, it is not fiduciary certification, is it?

What if the LOTUS certifier states it is worth less, now, and the market says baloney?

 

Current perceptions are that a coin which has been approved by CAC is better than one which does not have a sticker. Some CAC advocates go so far as to say that CAC has seen EVERY IMPORTANT COIN. Therefore any valuable coin that does not have the sticker, is a "reject." This is untrue, but it helps to push up the market.

There is a demand component to CAC that is just like rarity, condition and population. It's the population of CAC approved coins, and it's cited frequently in the sales pitch. "CAC has stickered 2 coins in this grade and three others higher," for example.

 

"Some CAC advocates go so far as to say that CAC has seen EVERY IMPORTANT COIN."

An example of this is a collection of coins my LCS bought that were mostly put together by a gentleman who died in 1946 and held on to by his heirs until this summer. This collection contained many raw MS and proof Liberty Seated Dimes and Quarters. Obviously none of these have ever been seen by a TPGS, let alone CAC.

 

I’ve got an 1820 over 19 CBH with two Xs scratched into it. Maybe if I give it just a few more years I can send it in for a straight grade?