Coinbuf

@Lem E is correct, this is a $4 gold Stella, it was sold by a firm called Leonard Auctions located in Chicago.   Here is a link to their site where you can see the coin.
Linky

Nowhere, what you seek is not available, graders generally do not make notes of coins they grade and the grading companies do not publish any information related to any individual coin or the grading of any individual coin.
Welcome to the forum.

Thanks, that is an interesting bit to read, I agree with you that it seems more like some less than honorable folks that were looking to profit from the gullibility of some market participants.   The more things change, the more they stay the same.  

@Lem E is correct, this is a $4 gold Stella, it was sold by a firm called Leonard Auctions located in Chicago.   Here is a link to their site where you can see the coin.
Linky

CB, here's the link to the entire article and the key paragraph: 
"...I’ve had discussions, arguments with Joe O’Connor, Warren Mills, guys like that, these boutique dealers that really have stricter standard and will have discussions about grading and they’re saying, “John, you’re wrong about this and you’re wrong about that.” I’m like, “Well, I don’t know if I’m wrong and I’m not saying you’re wrong either. You just have a different standard.” So, it’s a certain standard.
It’s probably unfortunate, Charles, because there seems to be… again, I’ve been a very large buyer over the years of rare coins as well. So, it’s almost like those who have the money rule.
I remember going back to 1985 when the hottest part of the market, the white-hot part of the market was the gold type sets. Marketing companies were selling them as MS63. And there are certain coins in gold type sets, certain coins that were really the toughest ones, like Type-2 $1 gold pieces, and five Indians, for example. All of a sudden, literally, what is today’s $800 to $1,000 super slider Type-2 $1 gold piece was an MS63. It was $15,000 and people are paying $12,000 or $13,000, selling them for $15,000. To me, it was a head scratcher.
I remember sitting down with a large group of– it was probably the 32 original guys that made markets– and the guys at PCGS. We talked about grading status. I remember saying, “Hey, these are 58.” And some said, “You can’t call those 58. They’re worth $15,000. They’re selling at 63.” I said, “Yeah, but that’s now. There could be a day when they’re going to be AU again.”
Fortunately, I think that the more technical rules prevail because PCGS never got into that trap in 1986 upgrading AU Type-2 ones 63. Fortunately by then, that market had collapsed. For those dealers, sales came way down and then all of sudden, grading got conservative.
But it is a fact. I remember laughing about it as a teenager, whether it was MTB (Manfra, Tordella & Brookes) or A-Mark or the large houses, would always have a disclaimer on their invoices saying that “Grading standards can change with market conditions.”
That’s crazy. That’s BS. That’s impossible. How can that be?
I could never figure it out. But they were right.
There have been times in our coin market, I’ve seen it many times, where 2+2=5. And in this case, a slider Type-2 $1 gold piece, whether you liked it or not, it’s sold for 63 money. Therefore, it was 63 for that period of time, maybe for that year. The same with five Indians. Sliders were $2,000 and they became 63s. You could argue all you want and do no business or you can just go with the flow.
The point is, I’ve always said, unfortunately, there almost is no real standard, and it does change with market conditions.
Now, we hope to change that....."
https://coinweek.com/a-cac-grading-service-coinweek-interview-with-john-albanese/
 
Yes, PCGS and NGC didn't start for another year or two.  I think JA is talking about generic grading by dealers and the change in grading standards during this Gold Type Bubble was not 1 or 2 increments but apparently mid-AU's to Choice MS.  Probably very forgiving of more than minute wear it would seem.
Veterans I've followed all seem to agree with your market grading timeline.  First cracks by late-1990's/early-2000's....by 2004 it was in full swing. 

Looks like a Stella.

I have not read that article, however I do not see how he could have used 1985 as a reference point given that neither PCGS nor NGC began operations until 1986.   Again, not having read the article I am flying blind here but the only grading services at that time would have been some of the very early grading firms that are mostly all out of business like ACG, ANACS (under ANA ownership until 1989), Blanchard, Hallmark, and a couple of others.   I was not buying coins in slabs back then; I did not buy my first slab (my 09-SVDB in a rattler PCGS holder) until 1999.   I own some of those older slabs, and with the exception of ACG most of those I mentioned were graded pretty conservatively, comparing to what we see leave the grading rooms today anyway.
And everything is relative, for me market grading happened more recently, after NGC and PCGS began operations, that is why you see old early holders of both NGC and PCGS sell for so much in recent years, because those coins were (or at least are considered to be) graded far more conservatively than coins are graded today.   But JA has been in the numismatic business side for a long time and so perhaps for him there may have been a "shift" in grading that I am/was not aware of.
So for me when I reference market grading I'm talking about grading as it has changed from a more conservative tighter ANA biased standards of the late 80's to early 2000's, to the far more loose grading that is seen in today's grading room.
Just a couple of knuckleheads new to the forum, the kind that show up with outrageous claims of owning millions dollar coins and then immediately start to fight with members who give them correct information.    I just cannot have any respect for people like that.

As can be seen above, the second quarter shown has a large sea turtle walking in the bushes and a white tail deer hiding in the trees.

Welcome to the NGC chat board.  Please post photos of both sides of a coin about which you have questions.
   The "cut" you describe is exactly that--a cut or scratch--possibly made by a roll wrapping machine, after the coin left the mint. Such post-mint damage is by definition not a mint error and adds no value. Assuming that the coin has a filled mintmark, whether "as made" or from subsequent wear or damage, this would also add no value.  A circulated 1972-D quarter (over 311 million issued) presently has no collector value and is worth its face value of 25 cents.
    

My thoughts are basically the same as they have been all along with regards to CACG, I have only made one submission for grading.   But from my results and those that I have read about, CACG is grading much closer to the historical ANA standards and less like the top two TPG's who are all-in on market grading.   There have been a few entertaining threads recently on the PCGS forum with a very recently former PCGS grader weighing in on those discussions, his comments and thought processes make it very clear just how much PCGS has embraced market grading.   Oddly while NGC did some damage to its reputation by being the first to embrace market grading, I would say that PCGS leads the charge in that respect today.
While it is far too early to make any long-term calls, as I explain in my comments above CACG's grading is not like the big two.   CACG does put a stronger emphasis on not rewarding rub, be it from circulation of from stacking/cabinet friction, with MS grades which is a very different strategy than the big two.   Likewise unoriginal surfaces are not rewarded at CACG where the big two have been prone to looking the other way in the past.
That is not to say that there will be zero MS coins with rub in a CACG MS holder, nothing is ever 100%.   And it is way too early to know if CACG will be able to continue to adhere to these standards moving forward or for how long.   But I for one am happy to see a TPG service that values originality and unmolested surfaces over the many processed and worked on coins that you see.
I 100% agree with you that the coin hobby/business has been heavily financialized and that has in part been facilitated by market grading.   In all honesty, the people we see like mustacheman, and vasquez are the products of this financialization, and that is partly why I give them no quarter or respect.   People like them do not present, to me at least, that they are here to learn or collect only strip-mine.

Not cuds, blobs of extra metal on a coin are only called cuds when it happens around the rim.   Here is the definition of a cud quoted from error-ref.com, "Definition:  A cud is a die break that involves the rim and at least a little bit of the adjacent field or design.".   It could be the result of die chips, but I seem to recall reading about a similar looking issue that was given a different cause/name.   I'll see if I can find that and link to it if I can locate it.
 

Not cuds, blobs of extra metal on a coin are only called cuds when it happens around the rim.   Here is the definition of a cud quoted from error-ref.com, "Definition:  A cud is a die break that involves the rim and at least a little bit of the adjacent field or design.".   It could be the result of die chips, but I seem to recall reading about a similar looking issue that was given a different cause/name.   I'll see if I can find that and link to it if I can locate it.
 

All the photos show the same thing, common worthless strike doubling.   If you like it keep it, but it's not valuable and not worth sending to NGC.

My thoughts are basically the same as they have been all along with regards to CACG, I have only made one submission for grading.   But from my results and those that I have read about, CACG is grading much closer to the historical ANA standards and less like the top two TPG's who are all-in on market grading.   There have been a few entertaining threads recently on the PCGS forum with a very recently former PCGS grader weighing in on those discussions, his comments and thought processes make it very clear just how much PCGS has embraced market grading.   Oddly while NGC did some damage to its reputation by being the first to embrace market grading, I would say that PCGS leads the charge in that respect today.
While it is far too early to make any long-term calls, as I explain in my comments above CACG's grading is not like the big two.   CACG does put a stronger emphasis on not rewarding rub, be it from circulation of from stacking/cabinet friction, with MS grades which is a very different strategy than the big two.   Likewise unoriginal surfaces are not rewarded at CACG where the big two have been prone to looking the other way in the past.
That is not to say that there will be zero MS coins with rub in a CACG MS holder, nothing is ever 100%.   And it is way too early to know if CACG will be able to continue to adhere to these standards moving forward or for how long.   But I for one am happy to see a TPG service that values originality and unmolested surfaces over the many processed and worked on coins that you see.
I 100% agree with you that the coin hobby/business has been heavily financialized and that has in part been facilitated by market grading.   In all honesty, the people we see like mustacheman, and vasquez are the products of this financialization, and that is partly why I give them no quarter or respect.   People like them do not present, to me at least, that they are here to learn or collect only strip-mine.

Because it was minted at Philadelphia.   Do you have a copy of the red book?

If you plan to collect coins you need one.   If your plan is to not get one and ask a billion questions that can easily be answered by using a simple reference book, like a red book, you might find that some members (myself included) will become tired and may start to ignore your posts.   Give a man a fish fed him for a day, teach a man to fish and he can feed himself, a Guide Book of United States Coins, commonly referred to as a red book (due to the red cover) is an invaluable tool for a coin collector.   I've been collecting for 40+ years and still use my red book often.

I think the Op is just upset that nobody believes him and that's understandable. He knows nothing about the members here or their skills. He is new to the hobby and knows just enough to start making stupid costly mistakes. Everyone goes thru that stage. There are many members in this thread that have learned over a lifetime of study and much of that was before there was even an internet. 
This is a giant hobby with thousands of directions a person can go. In my opinion, learning to grade is the number one most important thing. Without that skill, many mistakes will be made. Even with good grading skills, mistakes will be made.  

My thoughts are basically the same as they have been all along with regards to CACG, I have only made one submission for grading.   But from my results and those that I have read about, CACG is grading much closer to the historical ANA standards and less like the top two TPG's who are all-in on market grading.   There have been a few entertaining threads recently on the PCGS forum with a very recently former PCGS grader weighing in on those discussions, his comments and thought processes make it very clear just how much PCGS has embraced market grading.   Oddly while NGC did some damage to its reputation by being the first to embrace market grading, I would say that PCGS leads the charge in that respect today.
While it is far too early to make any long-term calls, as I explain in my comments above CACG's grading is not like the big two.   CACG does put a stronger emphasis on not rewarding rub, be it from circulation of from stacking/cabinet friction, with MS grades which is a very different strategy than the big two.   Likewise unoriginal surfaces are not rewarded at CACG where the big two have been prone to looking the other way in the past.
That is not to say that there will be zero MS coins with rub in a CACG MS holder, nothing is ever 100%.   And it is way too early to know if CACG will be able to continue to adhere to these standards moving forward or for how long.   But I for one am happy to see a TPG service that values originality and unmolested surfaces over the many processed and worked on coins that you see.
I 100% agree with you that the coin hobby/business has been heavily financialized and that has in part been facilitated by market grading.   In all honesty, the people we see like mustacheman, and vasquez are the products of this financialization, and that is partly why I give them no quarter or respect.   People like them do not present, to me at least, that they are here to learn or collect only strip-mine.

I love this guy, he was kind enough to send me this little love letter today.  

I have seen nothing of your posts here to be jealous of duck man.     But maybe if you give the forum some better moon shots of this nickel you can get the help you so desperately need.   You would think that someone in their teens would know how to use a cellphone camera.  

Welcome to the forum, and I wish you the best of luck, but the chances that your coin receiving a straight grade are very low in my opinion.   If you like that look that is fine, but there is nothing original looking about the coin.
Also, this section of the forum is for member that are selling or looking to buy coins.   Posts like yours should be posted in the newbie or US/world coins sections of the forum.   I have flagged a mod, so they move it to the appropriate area, please do not start a new thread as that will only get confusing if this one gets moved.

If you plan to collect coins you need one.   If your plan is to not get one and ask a billion questions that can easily be answered by using a simple reference book, like a red book, you might find that some members (myself included) will become tired and may start to ignore your posts.   Give a man a fish fed him for a day, teach a man to fish and he can feed himself, a Guide Book of United States Coins, commonly referred to as a red book (due to the red cover) is an invaluable tool for a coin collector.   I've been collecting for 40+ years and still use my red book often.

My newest add and a slight upgrade to the 43P slot in my main set. 

The coin has no mintmark because it was struck at the Philadelphia mint.
    As the Philadelphia mint was the original, or "main" U.S. mint, rather than a "branch" mint, it was thought unnecessary for coins of that mint to be identified by a mint mark. (The Philadelphia mint was the only U.S. mint from 1792-1837, and the first mintmarks on U.S. coins appear on coins struck at the branch mints that opened in 1838.)  A "P" mintmark was first used on the wartime alloy five cent coins of 1942-45 to identify them as having been struck in a special alloy. The "P" mintmark was next used on 1979-P Susan B. Anthony dollars and was added to all other denominations of circulating coins except for the cent in 1980. The "P" mintmark was used on cents minted in Philadelphia only in 2017 to commemorate the 225th anniversary of the establishment of that mint.
   If you want to understand the coins that you collect, it is absolutely essential that you obtain basic resources, at a bare minimum a current or recent edition of A Guide Book of United States Coins (commonly known as the "Red Book" or the "Redbook", 2025 edition to be published within the next month), a grading guide, and a current price guide.  Please see the following forum topics to identify and obtain these and other vital print and online resources:
    We have an old expression: "Buy the book before the coin!" It is still valid today, especially if "book" is interpreted as including legitimate websites.

Because it was minted at Philadelphia.   Do you have a copy of the red book?