Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="mark_h, post: 994557, member: 3726"]Okay - so they got one right. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> Lets revisit(or not) and compare to this <a href="http://www.cointalk.com/t127137/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.cointalk.com/t127137/">1799 Large Cent</a>.  I am neither pro-CAC nor anti-CAC - I just would not buy a coin sight unseen just because it was tpg and cac graded.  I understand the why's and hows of the 1799 cent - I just disagree with it.  I would be disappointed if I bought that coin site unseen - which is what CAC is suppose to facillitate.  As far as early copper I think overall CAC does fine - I don't agree with all of them(based off pictures mostly), but think they do pretty good. Again based off pictures might not be the same as in hand - could change my mind. The problem with early copper is when will the coin take a hit based off the surface spots with CAC - I could I have seen were questionable in my mind.  And who knows I have some nice IHC's I might send in one day to CAC. Plus I don't think the average CAC coin should bring a premium - some certainly should because of the coin itself.[/QUOTE]