#5637234 - 04/28/1211:43 PMRe: My CAC visit today
[Re: TomB]
coinman_23885coinman_23885
FACT if I stop posting, trillions and trillions of transistors would be out of work.
Registered: 11/13/10
Posts: 4859
Originally Posted By: TomB
It is interesting that the 1938-D Buffalo would get a gold sticker. The reason I state this is because the obverse spots on the coin appear quite distracting. Perhaps the lighting brings them out more prominently, but if not then this is the type of coin that I would likely walk past because of the negative eye appea.
I agree with the awarding of a gold sticker because the coin looks better than a 65 notwithstanding the spotting on the obverse. With this said, I completely agree with you that I would never buy this piece as I don't care for the spotting personally. There is no need to compromise with a common date that are readily available with no additional premium.
_________________________
-Kenny
Areas of Interest: Original classic gold coins from the Southern mints (New Orleans, Charlotte, and Dahlonega); Carson City minted Morgan Dollars, early copper; high end, quality U.S. type coinage; proof like and deep mirror prooflike coinage; toners including Peace Dollars and classic gold; and cameo and deep/ultra cameo proof coins from 1936-1942.
#5637269 - 04/29/1212:07 AMRe: My CAC visit today
[Re: coinman_23885]
AnkurJAnkurJ
If you have a dream about out-posting me, you better wake up and apologize.
Registered: 02/18/09
Posts: 2909
The spotting is not noticeable in hand. As you are aware, the sticker is based on the grade, not eye appeal. I agree the coin itself is not worth a premium. But I'm sure we also know that the buyers of this coin will buy it solely for the sticker.
#5637293 - 04/29/1212:31 AMRe: My CAC visit today
[Re: AnkurJ]
jomjom
Posting Traumatic Stress Disorder
FACT if I stop posting, trillions and trillions of transistors would be out of work.
Registered: 01/29/02
Posts: 4728
Originally Posted By: AnkurJ
The spotting is not noticeable in hand. As you are aware, the sticker is based on the grade, not eye appeal. I agree the coin itself is not worth a premium. But I'm sure we also know that the buyers of this coin will buy it solely for the sticker.
In another thread I brought a similar point up about eye-appeal and a gold CAC sticker. It was TomB who said that eye-appeal is part of the grade. OK...so...which is it?
As to CAC, I've seen coins they've put a gold sticker on that I could help but laugh at. There was a certain proof Liberty Nickel I saw in a Stacks auction last summer that was in a Rattler PR65 they put a gold sticker on. With hairlines on the cheek I couldn't believe they thought the coin was really a 66. Even the auction catalog mentioned the lines. So, IMO, CAC ain't perfect.
#5637368 - 04/29/1201:06 AMRe: My CAC visit today
[Re: jom]
FishyOneFishyOne
Bid more or post more... tough one...
Registered: 09/24/10
Posts: 995
Loc: Iowa
Originally Posted By: jom
Originally Posted By: AnkurJ
The spotting is not noticeable in hand. As you are aware, the sticker is based on the grade, not eye appeal. I agree the coin itself is not worth a premium. But I'm sure we also know that the buyers of this coin will buy it solely for the sticker.
In another thread I brought a similar point up about eye-appeal and a gold CAC sticker. It was TomB who said that eye-appeal is part of the grade. OK...so...which is it?
As to CAC, I've seen coins they've put a gold sticker on that I could help but laugh at. There was a certain proof Liberty Nickel I saw in a Stacks auction last summer that was in a Rattler PR65 they put a gold sticker on. With hairlines on the cheek I couldn't believe they thought the coin was really a 66. Even the auction catalog mentioned the lines. So, IMO, CAC ain't perfect.
jom
Eye appeal is, of course, part of the grade. Strike, luster, and contact marks together weigh far more heavily than eye appeal though. I realize you know this.
_________________________
ANA R-3154474 -------------------------------- "Hoping to learn a little every day"
#5637379 - 04/29/1201:13 AMRe: My CAC visit today
[Re: jom]
AnkurJAnkurJ
If you have a dream about out-posting me, you better wake up and apologize.
Registered: 02/18/09
Posts: 2909
Originally Posted By: jom
Originally Posted By: AnkurJ
The spotting is not noticeable in hand. As you are aware, the sticker is based on the grade, not eye appeal. I agree the coin itself is not worth a premium. But I'm sure we also know that the buyers of this coin will buy it solely for the sticker.
In another thread I brought a similar point up about eye-appeal and a gold CAC sticker. It was TomB who said that eye-appeal is part of the grade. OK...so...which is it?
As to CAC, I've seen coins they've put a gold sticker on that I could help but laugh at. There was a certain proof Liberty Nickel I saw in a Stacks auction last summer that was in a Rattler PR65 they put a gold sticker on. With hairlines on the cheek I couldn't believe they thought the coin was really a 66. Even the auction catalog mentioned the lines. So, IMO, CAC ain't perfect.
jom
I will agree that CAC is not perfect. But I wouldnt be quick to dismiss their opinion on that said coin based solely on images and a description. Until you see it in hand, its pointless to jump to a conclusion. They obviously saw it in hand, and gave their opinion.
The spotting is not noticeable in hand. As you are aware, the sticker is based on the grade, not eye appeal. I agree the coin itself is not worth a premium. But I'm sure we also know that the buyers of this coin will buy it solely for the sticker.
In another thread I brought a similar point up about eye-appeal and a gold CAC sticker. It was TomB who said that eye-appeal is part of the grade. OK...so...which is it?
As to CAC, I've seen coins they've put a gold sticker on that I could help but laugh at. There was a certain proof Liberty Nickel I saw in a Stacks auction last summer that was in a Rattler PR65 they put a gold sticker on. With hairlines on the cheek I couldn't believe they thought the coin was really a 66. Even the auction catalog mentioned the lines. So, IMO, CAC ain't perfect.
jom
I will agree that CAC is not perfect. But I wouldnt be quick to dismiss their opinion on that said coin based solely on images and a description. Until you see it in hand, its pointless to jump to a conclusion. They obviously saw it in hand, and gave their opinion.
And, like the TPGs they are here to police, CAC is human and makes mistakes. JA might be incredibly knowledgeable and one of the best graders out there - but that doesn't mean he gets 100% right.
_________________________
I reserve the right to change my mind with new facts, experience, opinions, or viewpoints.
...i wonder if some of these coins were stickered before the spots appeared on some of the coins discussed here. that might explain the discrepancies pointed out.
_________________________
"you won't know when but you'll know why"
I think that CAC is a real boon for type collectors. It would be nice to study and know every nuance of every US type issue in order to avoid being burned, or just to know that you have a coin that is good for the grade. However, we can't all be Bill Jones! They provide an additional layer of security for those who want a single, choice example for their set.
#5638293 - 04/29/1202:17 PMRe: My CAC visit today
[Re: jom]
coinman_23885coinman_23885
FACT if I stop posting, trillions and trillions of transistors would be out of work.
Registered: 11/13/10
Posts: 4859
Originally Posted By: jom
Originally Posted By: AnkurJ
The spotting is not noticeable in hand. As you are aware, the sticker is based on the grade, not eye appeal. I agree the coin itself is not worth a premium. But I'm sure we also know that the buyers of this coin will buy it solely for the sticker.
In another thread I brought a similar point up about eye-appeal and a gold CAC sticker. It was TomB who said that eye-appeal is part of the grade. OK...so...which is it?
jom
It is both. Eye appeal is very much a part of market grading, but I will add that the coin still looks MS66 notwithstanding the spotting which is likely much less conspicuous in hand. Just because a coin is a MS66 doesn't meant that is must be a ravishing beauty. The coin may have negative aspects, but be acceptable at the graded level. Also, not all MS66s are created equally, and I wouldn't expect the market to treat them equally as well. Absent the gold sticker, I don't think the coin would fetch MS66 money. It will be interesting to see how much, if any, "gold bean premium" Ankur receives for this coin. For the record, I don't like this coin either, and I wouldn't buy it given that superior specimens could be had for little or no additional premium.
Edited by coinman_23885 (04/29/1202:20 PM)
_________________________
-Kenny
Areas of Interest: Original classic gold coins from the Southern mints (New Orleans, Charlotte, and Dahlonega); Carson City minted Morgan Dollars, early copper; high end, quality U.S. type coinage; proof like and deep mirror prooflike coinage; toners including Peace Dollars and classic gold; and cameo and deep/ultra cameo proof coins from 1936-1942.
#5638411 - 04/29/1202:50 PMRe: My CAC visit today
[Re: coinman_23885]
jomjom
Posting Traumatic Stress Disorder
FACT if I stop posting, trillions and trillions of transistors would be out of work.
Registered: 01/29/02
Posts: 4728
Originally Posted By: AnkurJ
I will agree that CAC is not perfect. But I wouldnt be quick to dismiss their opinion on that said coin based solely on images and a description. Until you see it in hand, its pointless to jump to a conclusion. They obviously saw it in hand, and gave their opinion.
Yeah, I saw the coin and a couple of other "rattler" gold stickers in the same auction and I had to laugh. I got the immediate impression that CAC loved putting gold stickers on older slabs. Every one I saw was questionable at best. Green stickers would have been fine in all the cases...I should point out...but I thought the gold (implying higher grade) was not.
Originally Posted By: coinman_23885
It is both. Eye appeal is very much a part of market grading, but I will add that the coin still looks MS66 notwithstanding the spotting which is likely much less conspicuous in hand. Just because a coin is a MS66 doesn't meant that is must be a ravishing beauty. The coin may have negative aspects, but be acceptable at the graded level. Also, not all MS66s are created equally, and I wouldn't expect the market to treat them equally as well. Absent the gold sticker, I don't think the coin would fetch MS66 money. It will be interesting to see how much, if any, "gold bean premium" Ankur receives for this coin. For the record, I don't like this coin either, and I wouldn't buy it given that superior specimens could be had for little or no additional premium.
I should have qualified my statement above. In the earlier thread I referred to someone responded to a coin photo and said basically "it's very pretty and deserves the sticker" (green in this case). I then responded by saying I had thought that CAC stickers were to solidify the grade being dead center or a bit better (top 50% or something). But the poster implied it got the green sticker because it was "pretty". I was confused so I asked why should eye-appeal matter. The coin could be beautiful but still grade lower (and hence no CAC). TomB then said eye-appeal was part of the grade. Now AnkurJ implies otherwise. So that led me to the above statement to AnkurJ.
