MarkFeld

Forget about the weight and size, which are sometimes correct on copies. Look no further than the feathers on the eagle. They, among other differences, are among the most conspicuous.

For the following reasons, I think your post gives the wrong impression. it was just a two coin sample size. The one that sold in February was graded by NGC and brought $3.6 million (not really “close” to $3.0 million). The more recent, privately sold one was a PCGS/CAC example. And not surprisingly, I think it had been several years since one had sold.

I’m confident that it’s been dipped. Beyond that, I can’t tell.

Not everyone would know that you weren’t being serious and that might give them false hope.

“Lightly cleaned” can mean different things to different people. A great many lightly cleaned (and some, more than lightly cleaned) coins are in straight grade holders. If, in my opinion, an AU+ coin has been lightly enough cleaned to still merit a straight grade, I’d grade it AU50, 53 or 55, but not 58. If, on the other hand, I feel that the cleaning is severe enough to warrant a details grade, I’d grade it AU details cleaned (or AU details, harshly cleaned). As I’ve posted several times on various forums over the years - often, the decision whether to award a straight vs, a details grade can be just as difficult and subjective as the decision regarding what numerical grade to assign to a straight grade coin.

In answer to your questions, I can’t speak for the grading companies, but here are my thoughts... When a coin has a problem such as cleaning, polishing, severe scratches, etc. that problem is far more significant than whether, in terms of wear, a coin would otherwise grade AU50, 53, 55 or 58. Likewise, for example, XF details grade coins aren’t classified as XF45 vs. XF40 details either. ANACS does specify specific numerical grades, even for details grade coins, however.

In addition to the degree of cleaning, other factors to consider are the value of the coin, if not cleaned, as well as the value of the coin in lower grades, if not cleaned. Often, a cleaned example in one state of preservation has a value that’s roughly equivalent to an uncleared one that’s a grade or two lower. For example, an uncirculated details, cleaned piece might have a value similar to an AU or XF that hasn’t been cleaned.

NGC hasn’t attributed certain examples as Proofs because they “looked spectacular”. If you do a search of auction archives, you should be able to find the characteristics, that in the words of NGC, the coins display. And both the sandblast and satin/Roman Finish Proofs from 1908-1915 look markedly different from business strikes,

Yes, NGC and some others believe that some High Reliefs were produced as Proofs. Roger and some others disagree. If I remember correctly, NGC has designated some 1921 Peace Dollars as Satin Proofs, while PCGS does not recognize any as such.

That search would not make sense. Because even though you obviously strongly disagree with the Proof designation, it exists and shows as such in the population reports and auction archives.

I found it in the archives. https://coins.ha.com/c/search-results.zx?Nty=1&Ntk=Description&Ns=Price|1&N=51+403+790+231&Ntt=Proof&ic4=SortBy-071515 It appears that you looked under under business strikes, rather than Proofs.

The various unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations by the initiator of this thread serve as a textbook example of how NOT to build credibility.

Agreed. While it’s possible that they paid to be able to grade the coin, publicizing the event certainly isn’t any sort of proof that they did so. For all we know, they charged a boat load to grade it.

As mentioned above, the coin is a Proof (from a Proof set) not a business strike (from a mint set) as was originally posted. Seeing as how 1962 Proofs are very common and it doesn’t look like a Cameo or Ultra Cameo, chances of it grading high enough to justify the grading and postage fees are extremely slim.

Yes.

If someone wants to own a 1933 Saint legally, this is their only option. And that’s regardless of who grades it, what the assigned grade is and whether it has a CAC sticker. CAC loses nothing, other than a small fee to review it.

If you post some clear pictures, you will probably get some good feedback. Don’t make the mistake that many others do, in thinking about the upside if the coin grades such and such, while ignoring the reality that only a tiny percentage achieve such grades.

“Stars” as in exceptional eye-appeal (or the lack of them) can be quite subjective.

If you think the concept of “a small boost in price to the next grade” is tawdry, I take it you’re opposed to plus grades (which can lead to even larger price boosts) as well.

I don’t remember hearing any debates or claims that the major grading services practice technical, as opposed to market grading.

There should be no more (or less) confidence in the grades of coins with those labels than for any other coins graded by NGC. And such coins should have just as much chance to grade higher (or lower) than other coins graded by NGC. Also, if NGC is of the opinion that they deserve a “star”, I’m confident that one will be awarded. There’s no implied “star”.

Why do you think “the detail alone seems sufficient to justify the price”? To my eyes, the detail isn’t special, much less worthy of multiples of what a typical example of that grade brings.

A gold CAC sticker indicates that in the opinion of CAC, the coin grades a minimum of a point higher. Many owners of coins with gold stickers choose not to crack them out, because they typically sell at very strong levels - often higher than what a coin at the next grade up would bring.

You didn't miss much of anything. It sounds as if that poster might like to toss out the word "scam" and exaggerate. He has also posted on numerous occasions that he grades Saints differently than CAC does. So far, it doesn't appear to have crippled CAC's business.

And yet, you indicated that you liked his post.🤭