Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;treylxapi47, post: 2298071, member: 41863&quot;]I know in my series that I focus on, I would tend to say that I am rather unimpressed with the Green Beaned coins that I see and regularly pass them by without much of a second glance. </p><p><br /></p><p>I actually maintain a search for CAC coins inside my selected series and regularly see coins that I think are ugly and wouldn&#039;t waste my money in. </p><p><br /></p><p>I think there are 2 major conflicts at play with regards to CAC. </p><p><br /></p><p>Their overzealous need to sticker &#039;strictly original&#039; coins even when they are butt ugly. Sure it may meet all of the technical factors, but the eye appeal can be lacking. </p><p><br /></p><p>So for example 1 say you have a nice original coin, never tampered with, but the luster has become muted and the coin has lost its &#039;pop&#039; due to the overly natural skin on the surface. It&#039;s original and technically sound for the grade, but eye appeal sits at about a 3.5(10). </p><p><br /></p><p>Example 2 is when you have original toning, and even sometimes paired with a thick, natural skin that is just plain unattractive. Again meeting all of the technical factors, but eye appeal being about 4(10). </p><p><br /></p><p>I see this happen quite often in the seated quarters. And maybe the nicer CAC coins are just being hoarded tightly, because the only real nice CAC seated quarters I find are usually the higher grade coins and are typically easy to tell are solid for the assigned grade. </p><p><br /></p><p>I mainly focus on AU quarters though, so my observations also might be skewed a bit due to the nature of the coins I look for.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in