Coinbuf

MD with a touch of MAD (misaligned die) on the obv.

Only the phantom knows.

Is there some reason that you are so interested in this "woody" look on Lincoln cents? I have been collecting Lincolns for 40+ years and while a nice woody can be attractive and interesting at some level, these are not widely or aggressively collected by most Lincoln collectors. I read your other thread and in fact I would consider that coin as a woody, much more so than I would this coin which appears to be stained as opposed to an improper alloy mixture which is what causes the visual look of a woody. Obviously if you enjoy this look there is nothing wrong with collecting them, but there is no real value to a coin with a woody appearance over the numismatic (or lack thereof) value of the coin. If this look is of interest to you, I suggest that you look at the early years, 1909 to around the late teens as those are the years where you will see this look most often.

Yes CAC is still accepting submissions for stickering in NJ, the grading and slabbing happens at the VA facility. No coins graded by CACG receive a bean in the form of a sticker applied to the outside of the slab. The bean you see on the label is printed on the label, think of this as a brand symbol just as you would the scales on an NGC label. JA was originally planning to use the same bean sticker on the label, but decided that there could be some concern about outgassing of the adhesive for the sticker and the decision was made to print the bean and treat it as a logo. You will be way ahead of the curve to not think of CACG graded coins in the A, B, C vernacular that you may have been accustomed to hearing with regard to CAC stickers. JA and Grader John Buttler have been very clear that there are no C coins in CACG holders. If you read my reply on the thread in the US coin section I think I did a good job of explaining this. This is incorrect, CAC is in fact accepting new members. If anyone desires to, they can go the CAC website, setup an account and will be placed on a wait list. From what I am hearing it is taking around two or three months from the time you are placed on the wait list to the time you receive your welcome letter. Obviously this fluctuates depending on how long the wait list is at any given time.

Looks to be the beginning of a clip as well, cool find.

Welcome to the forum, your first instinct was the correct one, this coin has led a hard life and what you see is just damage. As to how it became this damaged nobody knows, damage is just damage however it happens, it has no value over the face value of one cent.

No I'm not off, you need to listen again, JA has been very consistent in his approach overall. That does not mean that companies do not evolve or that a person may not change his mind or direction over time in response to new information or changes to the market, that interview was 16 years ago. You are applying what was said for CAC 16 years ago to CACG today, that is incorrect. I agree that CACG buyers do expect a CACG holdered coin to be at the level of a stickered A or B coin. That is because; and this has been thoroughly hashed out on the CAC forum in recent months; JA and John Buttler have made it clear that there are no "C" coins at CACG. Again the whole A, B, C thing was an easy way for the market to digest how JA approached the sticker business, the grading side of the business doesn't use that analogy when grading coins. However, because the market is used to the A, B, C line of reasoning, when a coin is graded as MS65 at CACG it is easier right now for the market to equate that to an A or B coin as the market understands the sticker side of the business with the standout A coins possibly getting a + grade. If a coin fails to meet the standard that CACG has set for the MS65 grade it will be graded lower, that does not make it a C coin just an A or B coin at a lower grade. For example, if you have a coin that has a CAC green bean it is almost guaranteed to cross into a CACG holder at the same grade. I say almost because it could upgrade, or in the case that the coin has changed or deteriorated in the TPG holder it may get declined as a cross at same grade. An easy to understand example of this could be where a previously red graded copper coin has mellowed and now looks more red brown. But if you have a coin that failed at CAC (stickering) in the past because it was thought to be in the C coin bucket, it can still be crossed but would be given a lower grade than the MS65 the previous TPG graded it, as a result there are no C coins. The concept is to end up with stellar and solid for the grade coins only for that grade in a CACG holder, period. Of course, over time because people are not perfect, and often opinions differ, there will be coins that some will consider as low end (or C coins if you like) for the grade in a CACG MS65 holder, it is inevitable.

That video was already posted on the PCGS forum, what a joke, I'll say the same thing I said there. "Ok here is what I took away from this video. First the guy doing the talking states he is not bashing, but he clearly is, even the video title is worded as bashing and click bait to get views. Second we have no idea who sent in those coins, but if he is actually a coin dealer he needs to find a new job; quickly. I only saw two or three of the coins that were shown that I would question the CAC grade, really the bigger question is why in the world would anyone submit coins that were already ugly and damaged pocket change to start with and/or have turned in the holder unless you hoped to game the system or to purposely bash CACG. Whoever sent those coins in deserved the grades he got, plain and simple. And the guy doing the talking just looks foolish defending those junk coins." Basically this video was done to garner likes and views in an attempt to besmirch and bash CAC, total hack job. I have not looked but I would not be surprised to find that the guy who did the video is a CAC hatter, perhaps he has other older videos bashing CAC stickering.

Appears to be just some worthless strike doubling and perhaps a few contact marks along the sides of a few letters, does not look like any type of hub doubling to me.

A bit late to my replies on this thread and to return to the original thrust of the thread I believe your statement is only partially correct. When JA first started CAC his goal was to find really nice, original, unmolested (or as close as can be) or "rare" coins that he would like to buy then resell to other dealers. The bean was a way for him to identify those coins as they would come to the market via auctions or be offered directly to him. Very quickly as more and more dealers and collectors started to submit to CAC the market adopted the A, B, C concept which was an easy concept for people to understand and accept. A coins being the cream of the crop and those he felt were undergraded are a mix of gold and green beans. The B coins are (in theory all green beaned) considered by JA as solid for the grade. The C coins being a mixture of coins that are correctly graded but more lower end of the grade, overgraded (in his opinion), and those straight graded coins with surface issues or that have been doctored. Once those CAC approved coins began to hit the market with dealers hyping them, collectors salivating over them, and both the PCGS and NGC registries recognizing those coins as better than average the market for these coins really took off and CAC became something other than the original intention. And while I do not know this for fact, I think it may have become difficult for JA to buy CAC beaned coins, at levels where he could then resell for a profit as the collector demand really drove up the prices. That last part is just speculation on my part but makes sense to me. To return to the first part of my reply, because JA was looking for coins to buy and resell, some coins that might not meet the A or B concept may have been beaned simply because he wanted to be able to identify those coins for buying not necessarily because it was a true A or B coin. For those who don't understand the original purpose of CAC it is those coins that may not look like an A or B coin but with a bean that confuse some collectors. This is an extension of my reply above, the answer is yes JA did indeed buy CAC coins as they came to market. Often through auction venues, but I do know a few collectors that have sold directly to JA. Something to keep in mind, JA has himself said that he is/was not the highest paying buyer, which makes sense as his goal was to buy then resell to dealers via the wholesale side of the business. So as CAC matured and the prices for beaned coins began to rise I would expect that fewer and fewer sold directly as it would have be smarter to sell your CAC beaned coins through an auction venue to realize the best selling price.

No big deal for me, I have never bought any coins from Legend or her auction company.

As already mentioned these are just harshly cleaned normal coins, not SMS and not worth the cost to submit.

The I of Liberty does not have enough raised metal to take a hit and displace that much metal without showing serious deformity of the initial I. The photo from the op shows the left side of the I to be full and distinct, and the area of extra metal between the I and B is raised to almost the same level (or above) as the I was when struck. It could not be that clear, distinct and raised from a hit to displace the amount of metal that is now in between the I and B. To move that much metal the I would have to have been obliterated, either extra metal was added to fake an error or it is a die chip.

I am also of the opinion that this was caused by a die chip that occurred next to the letter I, this (along with some wear and tear) gives the appearance of a different letter.

That would be correct under technical grading, however, it is less true under the current market grading that the TPG's use. Under market grading the TPG's will grade on a curve (so to speak) and will/have given coins from years or mints that are known for weak strike issues grades that are higher than they should have received under technical grading.

I would be very hesitant to use a tool that is meant for use on a power tool to polish automotive wheels, it would be very easy to catch the edge of a slab and sling that at high speed into a wall possibly injuring yourself or another and breaking the slab. And if anyone takes the time to read the thread I linked you will see that it is quite possible to remove even very deep scratches with the use of sandpaper and the plastix product. Naturally any slab that has so much damage that the integrity of the plastic slab has been compromised should be sent in for a reholder.

I have read several reports ats of people that have been able to read a PCGS tag with their smartphone while still inside some shipping packaging. This brings up the question, would having an RFID tag in your slabs make your coins more at risk of theft from a shipping agent than a slab without such a tag. The only thing the tag does is bring up the TPG website/registry via that TPG's app, does that really help you or does it help the TPG more?

@GoldFinger1969 I don't follow Saints, but ultra gems in any series can have wild swings in value that depend less on guides and more on the coin itself. Yes you can buy MS67's for less than guide prices, currently PCGS coinfacts shows a guide price of $9,000 but most recent non CAC beaned auctions are selling for less than the guide price. But how do you decide how much the bean affects prices, again looking at only coinfacts there has been only one CAC approved coin to sell (an MS68 graded PCGS coin) and that was back in 2020 before prices were run well up. So while the CAC guide price of $16,200 for an MS67 may be a bit high (just as the PCGS guide price is high), it is difficult to pin down pricing on an item that is seldom seen in the marketplace. Keep in mind there likely have been other sales, perhaps at GC or private sales, I only looked quickly at coinfacts for some fast data points as I don't collect Saints and don't follow pricing trends for the series.

An old thread with Product information and some helpful tips. NGC slabs are more difficult to work with than PCGS slabs are, different plastic. Link

I hope everyone has a merry Christmas and a happy new year! Be safe everyone!

@LILpitik the 1878CC in your op looks to grade in the AU range and I personally would give it a details grade due to that staple scratch on the obv cheek. The only thing going for it is it does appear to be genuine; I do not follow pricing for damaged coins so I will refrain from quoting a price. I will say that the obv scratch would be an automatic pass for me. If it were to slide into an MS grade it would be MS61 at best. This is my PCGS MS64 example for comparison. While at first glance my coin may look a bit rough the lines in front of the obv bust are toning streaks not contact marks. Notice the difference in the cotton bolls on my coin to the one you posted. Notice the lack of scruffiness in the fields on both the obv and rev of my coin but not the one you posted. Anytime you see wear and contact marks in the fields the chances are very high of a circulated grade at the major grading companies like NGC.

It is not a windfall, it is self insurance against the eventual payout for the grading guarantee. If you are the TPG that has to eat an expensive coin because the graders missed something; and this has happened; you have to have the monies to make the payout or you will be out of business.

Beware stock photos, this is a common tactic for ebay sellers who have hundreds or thousands of these to sell and don't want to photograph each one.

Opinions will vary, but my opinion closely emulates what @powermad5000 and @Fenntucky Mike wrote. These are just gimmicks to try and differentiate what is the same old same old ASE. Take it out of the holder and you have $25 worth of silver, so is the holder worth $500+ to you? It is not to me but without a doubt it is to some.