To CAC or not to CAC - official game thread

Green bean on the bust half.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I've actually talked to JA about some of my failures (4 different times maybe) and pretty much every time some coin failed due to "an old cleaning....years ago" etc.

IMO an early 19th century coin that doesn't get a sticker is more likely to fail due to cleaning that it is for over grading, IMO. Especially for coins at or below AU.

jom

 

Without counting, looks like the vote is about equal. CAC gave it a NO.
I agree that an old cleaning probably held it back.
I bought it from a good friend knowing that CAC said NO. I was good with that. Beans are nice but not something I have to have.

 

I feel the same. JA particular on surfaces of early coins

 

OK...who's next?

jom

 

I think you are.

 

Really? Okie dokie...

I bought this coin 9/20/2008 in a PCGS 65 holder.

I sent this coin to CAC 12/11/2012. What happened?



jom

PS: I give dates as to help with what time period things were happening.

 

I'll go with yes on the green bean.

 

Summary

Rd. 1: 1921 MS 65 Green CAC Morgan--> Yes: 4 vs No: 3

Rd. 2: 1835 AU 50 Green CAC 50c--> Yes: 2 vs No: 8

Rd. 3: 1939-S Oregon MS 65 Gold CAC 50c--> Yes: 10 (8 Green and 2 Gold) vs No: 0

Rd. 4: 1838 AU 58 Green CAC (Gold $5)--> Yes: 1 vs No: 5

Rd. 5: 1908 MS 63 Green CAC (Gold $20)—> Yes: 5 vs No: 1

Rd. 6: 1885-CC MS 63 PL Green CAC Morgan--> Yes: 8 vs No: 1

Rd. 7: 1946-S MS 66 Green CAC Walker 50c--> Yes: 7 (6 Green and 1 Gold) vs No: 1

Rd. 8: 1885-S MS 62 NOT CAC Morgan--> Yes: 5 (4 Green and 1 Gold) vs No: 1

Rd. 9: 1830 EF 45 UNKNOWN CAC 50c--> Yes: 10 vs No: 1

Rd. 10*: 1899 MS 65 BN UNKNOWN CAC 1c--> Yes: 4 vs No: 5

Rd. 11: 1942 MS 65 Gold CAC 50c--> Yes: 4 (4 Green and 0 Gold) vs No: 2

Rd. 12: 1940-D MS 67 Star UNKNOWN CAC 10c--> Yes: 3 vs No: 4

Rd. 13*: 1884-O MS 61 Gold CAC $1--> Yes: 9 (4 Green and 5 Gold) vs No: 0

Rd. 14: 1827 AU 55 CAC 10c--> Yes: 1 vs No: 7

Rd. 15: 1851 MS 66 CAC 1c--> Yes: 5 vs No: 4

Rd. 16: 1919-S MS 65 Green CAC 10c--> Yes: 12 (11 Green and 1 Gold) vs No: 0

Rd. 17: 1922 MS 65 NOT CAC Peace $1--> Yes: 10 vs No: 1

Rd. 18: 1851 Au 58+ CAC 1/2C--> Yes: 0 vs No: 6

Rd. 19: 1839-O AU 53 NO CAC 50c--> Yes: 6 (5 Green and 1 Gold) vs No: 3

Green CAC on coin and deserves it: 6
Green CAC on coin and doesn't deserve it: 4
Gold CAC on coin and deserves it: 1
Gold CAC on coin but should only be Green: 2
Gold CAC on coin but should not sticker:
Failed to sticker but deserves a sticker: 3
Failed to sticker and should not sticker:
Unknown sticker status and deserves a sticker:1
Unknown sticker status and does not deserve a sticker:2


Note: if we don’t know the status of a coin before the reveal and more people say green CAC for a gold CAC coin, then it will go in the area of “Gold CAC on coin but should only be Green” ....see round 3 as the example case

*
Rd. 10 was 4-4...I interpreted that CircCam would consider it a no (based on a similar example), which swayed the overall vote to a lean towards no.
Rd. 13 was tied between green and gold at 4-4...I interpreted that geekpryde would consider it a gold

 

And back to the Quarter...
I'll say Green
...and I like the look of this one regardless of sticker

 

I would say no on the 1920 quarter.

I had a 1917 Type 1 quarter that looked like that when I was a dealer, a decade + ago. PCGS bounced it back to me for "questionable toning."

It didn't matter I sold the piece almost instantly the next show, even after I told the buyer that PCGS had rejected it.

 

I like the SLQ but lean towards no bean.

 

I don't know if it beaned, but I love it. I say "yes" to the green.

 

I think it got a green CAC.

 

Suggestion: If you have a respones to this (either way) give the reason why you think so. It's helpful...at least to me.

jom

 

On the '20 Quarter, there are two things I'm concerned about. First is the scratch above her left shoulder. Is that a staple scratch? It should be there. Secondly, the splotchiness of the toning on the reverse implies a dip and retone, very similar to the 39O Bust half we just talked about. It's considered market acceptable by a wide majority, and even attractive by some, but the splotchiness implies that it's been dipped and retoned.

Two strikes, I'll bet out.

 

I saw the scratches too and the big hit on the 0 in the date. I also wasn't impressed with the strike as well; especially on the date. After discussions about the toning on the 1831-O half I too questioned whether this coin was dipped at some time.

 

No CAC on 1839-O 50c PCGS 53. I am suspicious it has pvc (green areas). I don’t like it’s uneven look. Could have been dipped at some point many years ago. It is heavily tarnished on obverse. The tarnish will only grow darker over time. A C coin in my view. PASS.

With CPG at 3250 it could go ok at auction (toning hobbyist) probably $2500 but wb tough sell off the bourse. Start it on eBay at $9.95 and get rid of it?

 

I gave this one a quick glance (as quick as the TPGs/CAC people ) and my first impression was it looks solid. I still find it attractive, but I can see where the others are coming from (I didn't notice the scratch(?) above the left shoulder until looking more in depth). I'm not changing my guess (sticking with green sticker) but could understand if it failed.

 

I’m going to say no. A beautiful coin but the scratch the mark on the wing and quite a few other minor marks tell me it’s a low end 65