JA didn’t sticker it, so now I must sell it …

Over on the PCGS blog, there is a collector who submitted a 1932-P quarter in a PCGS MS-64 holder to CAC for their approval. CAC refused to sticker it, and the owner called JA. JA told him that it is really an AU-58. Now he wants to sell because he doesn’t want any AU coins in his collection.

Some people have questioned CAC’s influence and why it should effect your enjoyment of the coin.

My answer can be summed up in the title of an off-Broadway show from years ago. “Your Arms are Too Short to Box With God.”

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

My answer would have been . . . . . .

 

Obviously PCGS and CAC disagree on the grade and 6 points is a big difference.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Yep. I'd sell it too if there is a risk that in the future the grade would drop.

this story gives me yet another reason to be supportive of CAC. I read the thread on CU.

I think the original poster was positively ID'd as someone who shouldn't have been on that site in the first place.

 

The post that @Evan Saltis is referencing was on the CU Forum
this morning. It has since vanished. At least I can't find it.

 

Collecting Nut, post: 7851700, member: 74863"]Obviously PCGS and CAC disagree on the grade and 6 points is a big difference.

I thought most of you knew this...

The difference between a coin with just a little friction that removes the original surface on a high point and a "gem 65" is NOT 6-7 points! It is a "blink" in the eye of the examiner. It is influenced by experience, magnification, lighting, and market conditions. Today's MS grading is fluid. So much so that the coin in question will be graded AU sometimes and MS other times if sent to the same service. JA does not want to bean an AU in a 64 slab. GOOD!

IMHO, this sort of predicament would happen only rarely if there actually was the old standard of NO TRACE OF WEAR. If that were the case, standards would remain fixed and ONLY the prices would rise. In that case, the coin in question could be graded AU-58, it would have received a bean AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PRICED AS TODAY'S MS-64.

This lesson should remind all of you to buy the coin and not the label BECAUSE examples of over/under/spot on grading exist for all the TPGS. That's because graders are human , "fudging-a-grade" happens , and "standards" "float."

 

And I have seen CAC approve of MS-64 graded coins that were really AU-58s. The difference in price is close to $10,000. In one case that drove me from buying expensive U.S. coins.

Some aspects of third party grading are illusions. CAC is only a bit less of an illusion. If you place 100% trust in them, you might be disappointed if they are not around to bail you out.

 

It is more than likely really a 64. Penalizing a coin from a 67 all the way down to a 58 for having just the slightest touch of barely noticable high point wear while an inferior baggy coin gets only few points deducted is a glaring flaw in the grading system. Technical grading is an antiquated practice which has long been replaced by pragmatic common sense market grading.

CAC validating a technical grade for a market graded coin is the height of idiocy. Of course the grade doesn't match when different standards are applied.

 

The is a certain amount of truth to this. Eye appeal can make up for some other sins. This is especially true now that the AU grades have been “degraded.” I used to love AU-58 graded coins, especially from the 18th and 19th centuries. Now a lot of recently graded ones turn me off. The scale is being slipped higher and higher.

 

I was able to find it once again.
https://forums.collectors.com/discu...pcgs-ms-64-washington-quarter-is-really-au-58

 

I can see trying to CAC a moderately valuable or more expensive coin, but I'm sorry, to try and CAC a ~ $100 slabbed coin makes no sense to me. Just throw your money away, why don't you?

 

For me the question would be, do I like the coin and does it fit in my set or collection? If it does, who cares what CAC thinks? A 1932 MS-64 quarter is hardly an investment piece.

 

johnmilton, posted: "And I have seen CAC approve of MS-64 graded coins that were really AU-58s. The difference in price is close to $10,000. In one case that drove me from buying expensive U.S. coins..."

Expensive and rare coins often are "fudged." Apparently, that AU coin was REALLY a commercial 64 or less common coin that JA would stand behind.

What TPGS wants to be critical on a good looking common Washington quarter? I have this argument all the time. I say coin grades X. Professional ex-dealer grader says MS or higher MS than I assign. His argument is that the coin is a common 1986, 1987, etc. SE or similar common coin. UNFORTUNATELY, one day that 1986, 1987, etc. SE graded MS-70 by the commercial grading "EX-Pert" is now worth $$$$ AND IT IS NOT a 70!

Jaelus, posted: "It is more than likely really a 64. [YES, the coin was a 64]Penalizing a coin from a 67 all the way down to a 58 for having just the slightest touch of barely noticable high point wear while an inferior baggy coin gets only few points deducted is a glaring flaw in the grading system. [Thanks for making the argument why collectors NEED to know how to grade for themselves so they don't pay for commercial sliders that make the coin market go around. You see, in some series of vintage coins, MS is very rare so to service collectors AU's MUST BE SOLD AS MS.] Technical grading is an antiquated practice which has long been replaced by pragmatic common sense market grading. [News Flash: Dah,. Thanks Mr. Obvious. True Technical grading has been dead a very long time BECAUSE it did not work in the coin market. It took the wiggle room away from coin dealers and allowed them to please customers who learned to purchase the highest grade they can afford. Commercial grading was a great system that made both the buyer and the seller happy! Who can fault that. So, call it technical grading, conservative grading, ignorant grading, etc; but some folks want the best. You my friend, can be satisfied with whatever you like and more power to you. BTW, in the way of the world, as soon as all the old timers are dead, the new collectors will all be trained that attractive sliders are MS. ] CAC validating a technical grade for a market graded coin is the height of idiocy. Of course the grade doesn't match when different standards are applied."

Rather than your expert opinion of CAC idiocy, it is more likely that CAC did not bean a coin they considered to be OVERGRADED as a 64. Just the fact that the post was removed PROVES IT enough for me.

 

I actually prefer the “old” system where AU coins show wear and MS coins don’t. That’s how it was supposed to work, right? In my opinion the price guides should be adapted to ensure superb circulated coins which would grade AU58s are somewhere in between the choice MS grades. Buyers would need to understand that an AU58 is likely a nicer coin than a low MS example. E.g.
AU 58 = $500
MS 63 = $400
MS 63+ = $500
MS 64 = $600
MS 65 = $750
…

 

WHAT"S A JA?

 

I personally prefer high AU coins over low MS. I agree with this sentiment

 

John Albanese is a founder of CAC. I have heard great things about him, and his style appears to be what makes a CAC stickered coin so desirable.

 

The thread is still up, but the author has been banned as a recurring alt.

 

@Evan Saltis
Thank you, I still believe buy the coin, not the slab (unless you collect slabs) or stickers.