FlyingAl

Another: To keep the thread on track, I expect this service will be very similar to NGC and PCGS, while trying to ride on CAC's success and premiums in the market. The stickers will be eventually phased out over time by CAC raising prices for that service to a level where it becomes too expensive for the majority of coins, and then I expect it will end.

They exist.

The scratches appear to be on the plastic to me.

Can we all, just for a second, appreciate that we have an OP that actually took the time to resubmit and share the results? I know that the results were positive, but the fact that he actually resubmitted and was right is to be commended.

And what exactly makes you think this is a sandblast proof?

Thank you Kurt. I was trying to communicate this the best way I could. This is exactly what I was saying - like it or not its here to stay.

You can probably look up "1937 proof nickel pcgs" and a certified example in a video will pop up. I know there's a video from a well respected video of a CAM example on Youtube.

On the contrary, I'd say that answer is pretty satisfying. It pretty much sums up what I was thinking, with the possible exception fo the '36 Satin Buff.

Roger, you are correct that the true value of a coin must be decided by buyer and seller. However, you cannot deny that the grade assigned by a TPG sets the baseline for what the coin will sell for. Look at all of the examples of the exact same coin in a different TPG grade that sell for wildly different prices - and all that changed was the number on the label. The value changed based on the grade assigned, did it not? Several TPG graders have openly admitted that the grading services grade based upon the market valuation of a coin in certain instances. For example, a coin that would grade 65 today was previously graded 64 a decade ago because the market value of a 64 then is what the market value of a 65 is today. Like it or not, that's how it goes. Inherently, using your system will end up valuing a coin as well. No matter what, a collector will always pay more for a MS65 example over a VG10. By stating the surface preservation as a number, you've just placed the coin into a price category where a collector will likely buy it for. Is that category fixed? No. But does that price range exist? Absolutely. The grade sets the baseline. Why do I embrace this view? It's how I survive in the hobby. There's no way I could have any collection anywhere near what I have today if there wasn't this value change based on a TPG grade. It's why crackouts work. It's why cherrypicking works. It's how I finance my collection, because the system favors those who have the knowledge and experience to play the game. Do I collect this way - absolutely not! I almost never take grade into consideration when buying a coin for my 1936-42 proofs collection. Grade is the last element on my list of attributes I want in a coin. I do this because I know how the system works. I make the system work for me, not against me.

I am nearly positively certain they currently reside in Fort Knox.

I can understand why you have your differences with Roger (whether or not I agree with those reasons). I, for one, don't have any issue with the majority of his opinions. This is one difference. Roger's grading in general is decades behind where the market is, so his opinions on grading will also be decades behind. I won't buy a book Roger writes on grading, but you sure can bet I'll buy a book of his on mint history. I am sure that eventually, we will all disagree on something. After all, if you are holding for everyone to think positively of you, you'll be waiting for a very long time indeed.

This is great, thank you! The original is the best IMO.

As much as I generally agree with you Roger, I cannot disagree more with this statement. First, grading comes down to valuing a coin. It is valuation in the simplest sense. Since stars increase the value someone would pay for a coin, it most certainly is part of a grade as much at CAM, DCAM, PL, DPL and others are. We all know grades fluctuate and they always will.

Update - the coin was cracked out and sent to NGC. When viewed outside of plastic, my determination fo a star grade was confirmed, and the reverse frost popped a bit more. I remember thinking that it had an outside shot at CAM (though I doubt it would ever go CAM). I graded it 67*, with a point bump for the frost. The submission was marked as delivered by the USPS on Thursday, but the package hasn't yet shown up in the find package feature or submission tracking. I figure this is due to the hurricane delays and wish the best for all at NGC who have been affected.

I see that we have stooped low enough to allow personal insults into the mix. This thread contributes nothing to this forum. All it is succeeding in doing is lowering the reputation of those who choose to continue to participate. Let the thread die.

Quintus, quite the opposite in fact. I really like the date styling on the 1938 coins and the 8 seems to be exactly the right size to me. This could just be me though. However, the date style shifts slightly over the years and I like it less and less the more it changes. My 1942 Jefferson has quite the difference when compared to the 1938. I can only assume that over the years the hubs had to be altered slightly or some other occurrence.

I had posted about this coin over at the PCGS forums but I figured I'd pop in over here as well and share with you guys. I had recently picked up this nice 1938 nickel with gorgeous frosted obverse devices, the deepest contrast I've seen on a 1938-42 Jefferson nickel. I was blown away by it. The mirrors are super deep as well, though the reverse lacks in frost. I think this will be the perfect candidate for a star when I submit it to NGC. The coin is the FS-402 obverse and the reverse with the die cracks across "FIVE" and "AMERICA". Only three cameos have been certified by NGC and PCGS, and only seven NGC star coins. Any contrasted 1938 nickel is a rare coin indeed. The pictures are hard to get right, but I assure you the whole bust is frosted and the mirrors are jet black and very reflective. The obverse has more contrast than my 1942 CAM cent. The reverse is nice, but not quite there for CAM.

@numisport, I have considered sending it for a regrade but I'd need it to go 66CAM or 65DCAM to justify it, so it's probably going to stay in it's holder. It's a solid 65, but a 66 is probably pushing my luck.

Man, the mint was raking in the seigniorage!

I believe I did something to the effect of 20+ revisions before the final product was complete, with about a month and a half of research and putting it all together. The help with revisions both here and ATS was amazing to see. Looking at my original post here, I find that even my original assumptions were woefully wrong. I'm certainly happy with it and the work put into it, but we will see if the editors like it as much as I did .

The charts shown here are the best of the best for NARA documents. I assure you there are pieces out there that are downright unreadable. Sometimes the writing seems to be better or worse for the same person, perhaps based on how they felt that day or how much work they had to do.

Yes! I was able to compete a long and arduous revision to this piece and it was sent off to the editor of The Numismatist in July. At that point, I was informed that article review takes longer than PCGS regular grading, that is to say 4-6 months. Should the article be published I will update this thread with those details.

While it is indeed history, it doesn't make the actions committed any less wrong. History is there so that we may perhaps avoid the tragedies that have already occurred, and hopefully learn enough to avoid more. I thought this had to be acknowledged, though I have not doubt you likely knew this.