Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Barberian, post: 26626365, member: 24442&quot;]I agree that the CACG 1853-O and the 1858-S show clear signs of corrosion.&nbsp; The 1858-S looks burnt and I wouldn&#039;t be surprised if there were some cupric salts (green spots) on the surface.&nbsp; I don&#039;t care for either coin.&nbsp; They were sent in as test coins to see what floats and sinks in CAC&#039;s world.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>The color on the Texas is more brownish and lighter than shown.&nbsp; I haven&#039;t seen any green spots or other problems on the Texas.&nbsp; It has also received an acetone dip and will receive another as I&#039;m about to submit it to PCGS for grading. It looks like a normal toned coin to me, but I have a lot to learn about grading issues.&nbsp; &nbsp; For example, I would reject the CACG 1853-O and accept the Texas if I were grading these coins because of the bands of etching and pitting on the obverse of the 53-O.&nbsp; The 53-O looks like the surfaces were strafed by an A10 Warthog.&nbsp; Oddly enough, I have probably a dozen photo examples of corrosion and cupric salts on CAC-stickered coins in my &quot;CAC Hall of Shame&quot; file. CACG graded the 1859-S with VF30 details as VG10, when IMO, it should also have been rejected for &quot;black schmutz&quot; and correlated corroded surfaces.</p><p><br /></p><p>Thanks for your comments!&nbsp; I&#039;d love to sit down and show my coins to other collectors for their comments and pick their brains on grading.&nbsp; I feel that is something I&#039;ve missed by collecting off eBay and not getting input from other collectors and graders on my coins.[/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