Coinbuf

Tough to impossible to determine CAM or DCAM based on photos, too many ways to make the fields look dark and have the details stand out more in an image. You'd have to see a coin like this in person to truly make a determination.
Definitely a looker though. 

Yep, I've a whole jar of cents like this. What is different about yours?
Welcome to the forum. 

If you are talking about the appearance, it looks like someone has attempted to clean it, or the surfaces have been messed with some other way. If you're referring to something else, please specify.

That thread was started a couple of weeks ago and I do not recall every comment, but from my memory your statement is incorrect.   I do not recall a single comment where anyone claimed to have sent a beaned P or N coin for crossover that was downgraded.   If you want to sift back through that thread and find one I welcome your correction, every coin that Rexford (the guy who claims to have been a grader at PCGS) posted had not previously been beaned.   And the one PCGS coin with a bean that I recall him posting was posted as a reference example not as an example of a beaned coin crossed at a lower grade.   My opinion is that every coin that Rexford posted which was downgraded by CACG had to have been submitted raw or as cross at any grade and none of those he posted were previously beaned.    When you submit coins for crossover (at any TPG) you have the option to choose cross at grade only (or higher) or at any grade.   Some people like to roll the dice and will chose cross at any grade, but that is a gamble and one that doesn't always pay off as we know.
Notice that the guy in the video never identifies how those coins were submitted, nor does he ever mention that any of those coins in the video were previously beaned.   What I do know is that none of the CACG holders he shows in the video has the "L" on the label to signify that these were previously beaned coins (called legacy coins at CACG) submitted for crossover.   So those coins in that video were not previously beaned and either cracked and sent raw or submitted as cross at any grade, as that information was not supplied in the video we don't know.
I do not remember seeing a single example posted anywhere of a previously beaned coin submitted for crossover that was downgraded or refused to cross at grade.   I just know that it can happen if the coin has changed or turned in the holder since it was seen and given a bean.   

...all of this clarification is well n good, but i think it should be pointed out as a matter of additional clarification, that this discussion is directed at mint state coins which r only a part of the cac beaned coins, the cac beaned coins that r in circulated grades were evaluated on metrics that were divorced from au/unc determinations...just saying....

There was a lot of back and forth and photos being posted to that thread with lots of commentary so yes threads that long can get confusing as side discussions or sideways comments can make it difficult to follow the main thrust.   And yes there is (imo) going to be some variation in quality and grade between the crossover legacy coins and coins that are simply graded on the coin's merits, lets dig a bit deeper to find out why.
Let's go back and revisit the initial purpose of the CAC bean, as I said before the point of the bean was a way for JA to have an in hand pre review and identify (sticker) coins that he would like to buy and resell.   Thus, he was not grading those P or N coins, simply picking out coins that he felt were the best so that when or if they showed up for sale he would attempt to purchase those coins.   So because the goal was different for beaning, there must be a few market graded coins from both P and N which have received a bean, and the reality is that there could end up being Legacy coins (those coins that can be identified with the L on the label) that might grade lower if cracked out and sent in raw.
Now I think the number of coins that will fall into this middle area is going to be small, as I think JA has been very consistent in not awarding beans to slider coins that do not hold up to his standards of uncirculated condition.   But during the past 16 years that the bean factory has been operating basic statistics suggest that there have to be a few market graded coins which have slipped thru and received a bean but would be graded lower if submitted raw to CACG.   Those are the coins that will be confusing and will be the coins that the CACG haters will look for and use to demonstrate inconsistencies in CACG grading. 
I don't see this as stranger, and I think you are taking a few examples and blowing them out of proportion.   The sticker factory has only reviewed a very tiny percentage of coins that are eligible to be reviewed and of course we have no real idea of just how many have failed for surface issues like rub.   Let's not forget that both N and P have been churning out market graded coins for at least a couple of decades if not three even.   So that means there is a huge number of coins out in the marketplace where CACG might disagree with the market grades and downgrade if the submitter allows them to, many of which have never been seen by CAC for a bean.

Once again you are right on CACG and I am wrong.      Apparently, with all the posts about submitting TPG-solo and TPG+CAC coins, it is the FORMER which are getting downgraded 1-2 grades and/or going from MS to AU.  TPG+CAC Sticker are crossing with no problems or so I am told and what you are saying.  Thanks, CB !! 
There's a 40-page CACG Grading Thread ATS and I may have been reading at the wee hours of the morning or maybe someone typed confusingly and I jsut got confused.  In any event, you are right, CB.
But...am I correct on this conclusion:  this makes the 80-85% of coins submitted to CAC (at least in the early days) as getting the sticker (A or B coins) even stranger.  Apparently, the CAC people were NOT finding evidence of wear/rub on the high points of most of the submitted coins since most of the coins got a bean.  But what doesn't have a sticker TODAY seems to have a preponderance of high-point wear/rub and these are the coins getting downgraded and/or going from MS to AU.  Is this correct ?
Boy, this gets confusing !!   

Hi no it’s 100% on the coin I’ve looked at it through a magnifying glass.

That thread was started a couple of weeks ago and I do not recall every comment, but from my memory your statement is incorrect.   I do not recall a single comment where anyone claimed to have sent a beaned P or N coin for crossover that was downgraded.   If you want to sift back through that thread and find one I welcome your correction, every coin that Rexford (the guy who claims to have been a grader at PCGS) posted had not previously been beaned.   And the one PCGS coin with a bean that I recall him posting was posted as a reference example not as an example of a beaned coin crossed at a lower grade.   My opinion is that every coin that Rexford posted which was downgraded by CACG had to have been submitted raw or as cross at any grade and none of those he posted were previously beaned.    When you submit coins for crossover (at any TPG) you have the option to choose cross at grade only (or higher) or at any grade.   Some people like to roll the dice and will chose cross at any grade, but that is a gamble and one that doesn't always pay off as we know.
Notice that the guy in the video never identifies how those coins were submitted, nor does he ever mention that any of those coins in the video were previously beaned.   What I do know is that none of the CACG holders he shows in the video has the "L" on the label to signify that these were previously beaned coins (called legacy coins at CACG) submitted for crossover.   So those coins in that video were not previously beaned and either cracked and sent raw or submitted as cross at any grade, as that information was not supplied in the video we don't know.
I do not remember seeing a single example posted anywhere of a previously beaned coin submitted for crossover that was downgraded or refused to cross at grade.   I just know that it can happen if the coin has changed or turned in the holder since it was seen and given a bean.   

To my eye it looks like a small piece of lint that could have landed on the coin during the encapsulation of the coin, that has happened before.   Are you sure it is metal and is on the coin inside the plastic?   I ask because I have seen a few instances where someone had something on the outside of the plastic but mistook it for being on the coin, those proof surfaces can sometimes cast shadows and trick the eye.

That thread was started a couple of weeks ago and I do not recall every comment, but from my memory your statement is incorrect.   I do not recall a single comment where anyone claimed to have sent a beaned P or N coin for crossover that was downgraded.   If you want to sift back through that thread and find one I welcome your correction, every coin that Rexford (the guy who claims to have been a grader at PCGS) posted had not previously been beaned.   And the one PCGS coin with a bean that I recall him posting was posted as a reference example not as an example of a beaned coin crossed at a lower grade.   My opinion is that every coin that Rexford posted which was downgraded by CACG had to have been submitted raw or as cross at any grade and none of those he posted were previously beaned.    When you submit coins for crossover (at any TPG) you have the option to choose cross at grade only (or higher) or at any grade.   Some people like to roll the dice and will chose cross at any grade, but that is a gamble and one that doesn't always pay off as we know.
Notice that the guy in the video never identifies how those coins were submitted, nor does he ever mention that any of those coins in the video were previously beaned.   What I do know is that none of the CACG holders he shows in the video has the "L" on the label to signify that these were previously beaned coins (called legacy coins at CACG) submitted for crossover.   So those coins in that video were not previously beaned and either cracked and sent raw or submitted as cross at any grade, as that information was not supplied in the video we don't know.
I do not remember seeing a single example posted anywhere of a previously beaned coin submitted for crossover that was downgraded or refused to cross at grade.   I just know that it can happen if the coin has changed or turned in the holder since it was seen and given a bean.   

You can add PCGS world coins to your inventory if you use the old registry system found at this link.   Old registry system   It's a bit clunky to add world coins but everything you need is there.   The old system uses the same login name/password as you use here.    You can add any coin, US or world, certified by any company, raw, token, whatever you have by using the old system which allows you to use that as an on-line data base of all your coins.   As you already know you cannot use anything but NGC graded coins in the NGC competitive world registry, however, in the old system you can setup custom sets and use any coin in your inventory.
Hope that helps.

Apologies for the photo clarity, it’s the small blob above the D.

Welcome to the forum, your photo is slightly out of focus and I cannot tell what you are looking at.   Perhaps someone else can.

I'm sorry but your coin looks nothing like an as new mint state 1881-O Morgan dollar looks like.   Your coin has seen some circulation and/or mishandling in its past and would grade either low AU and possibly cleaned and is worth $30-$40 far less than the grading fees.   On the positive side by posting this before you attempted to have it graded you have saved yourself the fees and the anguish of getting the bad news on the grade later.

Yes it is true that JA has expressed that opinion on the CAC forum, and it is not just the cost of the sticker review, postage both ways can be quite expensive even for a group of low or modest value coins.   In the beginning most were selective in what was sent to CAC, however, as the market for beaned coins has picked up and prices for even rather pedestrian coins with a bean have risen, many have begun to send in everything but the kitchen sink to see what sticks.   While I cannot say this for sure, I have a feeling that this may have played a small role in JA's decision to open a TPG.   My unsubstantiated conclusion was further validated recently when CACG announced a very low priced economy grading tier for Morgan and Peace dollars of $15 per coin for coins with a valuation under $500.
Yes it is true that for any wealthy collector the cost of a bean (including the shipping) is of little concern or consequence, however, JA's rational shows just how much he cares and is concerned with the average joe type of collectors, imo.
No that is incorrect, a coin with a bean will cross at the same grade (or potentially higher) unless the coin has degraded in the holder.   This is most likely to be the case with copper which may have changed color, example, the holder says the coin is red but the coin has clearly mellowed and is now a red brown color.   While less likely but also possible a silver or gold coin that could also have turned in the holder since it was stickered.   That is the only reason a P or N graded coin with a bean would be rejected for direct cross, and this is not a change that has been the case since CACG started operations.
Yes that thread ats and the comments from a former P grader in the thread was very reviling and pulled the curtain back on TPG market grading.   I have no doubt that JA knew CACG's stance on rub would "rub" some dealers and collectors the wrong way.

I'm hoping my 2024 is much better than my 2023. 
 

It's not.

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

Agree, heat damage.

You can choose to cross at the same grade only on the submission form.  That way NGC will not downgrade any that do cross.  The downside is you may (likely will have) some that may not cross.
Personally I think too many people are overly hung up on the holder thing, the coin is what really matters 99% of the time.  The only exception is for some older holders where the market adds value for the holder.
Keeping in mind my comments are for US coins, ancient and foreign coins can have other considerations. 

Just damaged.   Blow torch or some type of heat was used to expand the clad layer, when it cooled this is what you get, not an error.

I only recognized one name but congratulations to all the winners!!  

Modern proofs (after 1964) are common in PF69 and PF70 (and busting at the gills in PF66 and above).  The run-of-the-mill proof set will grade ~PF65, so buying individual coins at this grade is truly buying plastic.  Nothing is wrong with buying a slab to match your collection, but know that most raw coins will be in this approximate grade.  
That said, there is usually a noticeable difference b/w a MS69-70 and a MS65.  @Coinbuf gave a good example listing some of the visual defects you can expect at the MS65 level.  However, high populations will make these coins very affordable if you find a nice one.  
I cannot tell the difference between a nice PF69 and PF70 at all - they both look perfect to me.  If I were buying modern proofs, I would avoid the premium on PF70 and buy the 69's where I can't tell the difference..

I believe he thinks he has one of those 1964 SMS Kennedy halves. Who’s going to tell him?