If the TPG's are so infallable...

[Tradedollarnut]

... [as Carson City suggests] what's wrong with this picture? [click on the big obverse images]

 

Proof??? 1873 Trade Dollar

 

For comparison:

 

Proof 1873 Trade Dollar

 

[hint: if you've ever read Bowers' Encyclopedia regarding proof 1873 trade dollars, you'll get it right away].

 

 

[jesbroken]

While not having access to Bowers' book nor being any kind of expert, I do notice the 5/6 stars being somewhat flattened without detail as is #13 star. The hair over Liberty's forehead is flattened as from wear as is the hair above her headband, her foot is flattened-not likened to a proof strike-the second example has none of these flaws.

[Tradedollarnut]

Has Heritage done something so one can't post their large images anymore?

[cointagious]

You're right, TDN. PL business strike.

[Tradedollarnut]

Here's a shot that shows the 'proof only' feature in question - a die line in Liberty's gown:

 

[James_OldeTowne]

I know nothing about this series. But I might have guessed a prooflike Trade dollar would be more valuable than a proof in the same numeric grade.....

 

Where does one find pricing for PL trade dollars?

[MarkFeld]

I know nothing about this series. But I might have guessed a prooflike Trade dollar would be more valuable than a proof in the same numeric grade.....

 

Where does one find pricing for PL trade dollars?

All other things being equal, a common date PR64 trades at a higher level that a common date MS64. Prooflike examples are scarce enough to command a nice premium, but perhaps not enough to make up the typical difference in value between a Proof and a business strike.

 

PCGS doesn't designate PL's and according to their Census Report, NGC has recognized only 14 for all dates and grades combined, with the date 1876 accounting for half of them.

[NoTwilight]

Notice the blue label coin has a lower sequential number than the green label coin so it was sent in for a regrade or reslab or something and didn't get a new number.

 

Of course both of these auctions are 5+ years old so who knows were the coins are now and what holders they are in. --Jerry

[jesbroken]

Here's the coin in question, TDN.

 

[Tradedollarnut]

yoo hoo - Carson City - where arrrrrre you?!?!

[carson city]

I'll let you solve your own problems !

[Tradedollarnut]

What - the fat lady's not singing for this coin?

[bsshog40]

I'd sing for that proof trade dollar. haha

[Bruceswar]

I'd sing for that proof trade dollar. haha

 

The point is this is not a Proof coin.. Rather Proof like...

[bsshog40]

Ok, I'll rephrase. I'll sing for that prooflike! haha

[BillJones]

The reasonable response here is “so what?”

 

Everyone knows that the major TPGs have made mistakes over time. The worst one I’ve heard was an instance where one of them, I think it was PCGS, slabbed a 1793 Flowing Hair cent in high grade that turned out to be an electrotype. PCGS acknowledged the mistake and paid out the big bucks for the error.

 

Everyone makes mistakes. An expert EAC collector was once fooled by a “new” variety of early large cent. Only later was it found that the “coin” question was a Gallery Mint product that been worn down to VG condition with the word “COPY” filled in. The question is do they back up their work with guarantees?

 

One big problem with CAC is that they are not sticking their neck out for anything. They kibitz about the accuracy of the grade that appears on the slab, but they are not guaranteeing the grade or even the authenticity of the piece. And you get this abbreviated service for a price schedule that is very similar to that of the TPGs charge for far fewer services and no guarantees.

 

If CAC wants respect, CAC needs to become a grading service that offers all of the services and assumption of risks that the certification market entails. The CAC founders know that their company would not survive as a grading service, and so they have chosen to become a consulting service. As such they offering advice, not certification, and that clearly places them in a lower position in the numismatic services market.

 

[MarkFeld]

One big problem with CAC is that they are not sticking their neck out for anything

I think that most people would consider the placing of competitive sight-unseen bids on coins to be "sticking their neck out" for something.

[kryptonitecomics]

Is the CAC planning on coming to the FUN show in rlando and doing so free evaluations? If so I will be there with my box of 20 coins to see what they say about my old NGC holdered coins (thumbs u

 

It won't change my opinion of my coin but it would be interesting if they agree with my assertion that most of these coins in old holders are at least solid for the grade in today's market if not upgrade material

[James_OldeTowne]

One big problem with CAC is that they are not sticking their neck out for anything

I think that most people would consider the placing of competitive sight-unseen bids on coins to be "sticking their neck out" for something.

Mark,

 

This whole "sight unseen" bit has me a little confused as well. Suppose I look at a certified coin and put a sticker on it and then sell it. It disappears for a couple of years, then reappears on the market. If I now make a bid on it, that's a sight-seen bid, not sight-unseen.

 

For that matter, if I have auction representation from someone who bids on coins for me based on his personal evaluation, I think that qualifies as sight-seen as well.

 

For a bid on a coin to be truly sight-unseen would require me to have no prior knowledge of the coin's appearance, and to be bidding merely on the grade assigned by an anonymous third-party. But if I'm part of a conglomerate that is physically reviewing coins prior to bidding on them, I just don't think that qualifies as "sight-unseen".

 

Just my humble (and probably wrong) thoughts.

[BillJones]

One big problem with CAC is that they are not sticking their neck out for anything

I think that most people would consider the placing of competitive sight-unseen bids on coins to be "sticking their neck out" for something.

 

Strong honest dealers have been willing to buy back the good stuff they have sold for many years. In fact I've known some of the old timers who kept lists of what they sold to whom. When a want list came in for coin X, they would contact the previous buyer to see if they were ready to sell.

 

CAC is no different in that regard. The only risk they are taking is if the coin "goes bad" beween the time they stickered it and the time they offer to buy it back in a "blind bid." Otherwise they are risking nothing because if they maintain their standards they know a fair amount about the coins upon which they are bidding.

 

In the mean time they will have collected grading fees for their work.

 

Who are the possible losers? Guys like me who have paid grading fees for coins, and now face having to pay yet again to get the CAC seal of approaval. That sucks.

[MarkFeld]

One big problem with CAC is that they are not sticking their neck out for anything

I think that most people would consider the placing of competitive sight-unseen bids on coins to be "sticking their neck out" for something.

Mark,

 

This whole "sight unseen" bit has me a little confused as well. Suppose I look at a certified coin and put a sticker on it and then sell it. It disappears for a couple of years, then reappears on the market. If I now make a bid on it, that's a sight-seen bid, not sight-unseen.

 

For that matter, if I have auction representation from someone who bids on coins for me based on his personal evaluation, I think that qualifies as sight-seen as well.

 

For a bid on a coin to be truly sight-unseen would require me to have no prior knowledge of the coin's appearance, and to be bidding merely on the grade assigned by an anonymous third-party. But if I'm part of a conglomerate that is physically reviewing coins prior to bidding on them, I just don't think that qualifies as "sight-unseen".

 

Just my humble (and probably wrong) thoughts.

James, many CAC affiliated dealers who have never seen the coins will be posting sight unseen bids on CAC coins. Additionally, contrary to rumors started by some detractors, CAC will not simply be stickering coins and then selling them. Rather, they will be buying a number of the coins which have received stickers, then offering them for sale - big difference. Lastly, if I sell a coin to you, you offer it back to me 2 years later and I make an offer on it without seeing it (again), I'd call it a sight unseen offer, but you are free to call it sight-seen.

 

Edited to add: If CAC is loose in its approvals of coins, even if you choose to label bids for CAC coins as sight seen as opposed to sight unseen, bidders will be on the hook for not-so-nice coins.

[Tradedollarnut]

The reasonable response here is “so what?”

 

Ya hear that, Mark - 'so what' that your TPG certified 1945 merc dime you bought off ebay didn't have full bands. !

 

[gmarguli]

The reasonable response here is “so what?”

 

Ya hear that, Mark - 'so what' that your TPG certified 1945 merc dime you bought off ebay didn't have full bands. !

 

So you're saying that if that coin got stickered - lets call it a "mechanical error" - that CAC would have been happy to buy it back at Full Bands price, even if it were an obvious clerical error?

[DC Dawg]

One big problem with CAC is that they are not sticking their neck out for anything

I think that most people would consider the placing of competitive sight-unseen bids on coins to be "sticking their neck out" for something.

Mark... I think this point is that the buyer, not the CAC, is taking the risks. I am not sure the CAC offers any type of guarantee.

 

As someone else said, I do not understand the "sight unseen" market. I would want to at least see an image of a coin, especially if the the potential sale is final after the transaction is completed. I don't buy other expensive items like this (cars, houses, etc.), why should I buy rare coins in this manner? Maybe it's just me, but should this fall under the category of caveat emptor.

 

Scott

[MikeInFL]

Scott,

 

I don't want to speak for Mark, but the point is, I believe, that CAC (unlike the TPGs), put their money where their mouth is.

 

Rather than the wishy-washy grading guarantee of the TPGs, the CAC (if I'm understanding things correctly) will have sight-unseen bids for the coins.

 

While you many not want to buy coins like this (and neither would I!), the fact that the CAC will provide and publish these bids provides a level of price support that the TPGs do not. So part of the value of getting your coin stickered by CAC is to provide this price support/sight unseen bid.

 

Therefore, Bill's comment that the CAC isn't sticking out their necks is incorrect, in my opinion, and Mark is very much correct in pointing it out.

 

Respectfully...Mike

[MarkFeld]

One big problem with CAC is that they are not sticking their neck out for anything

I think that most people would consider the placing of competitive sight-unseen bids on coins to be "sticking their neck out" for something.

Mark... I think this point is that the buyer, not the CAC, is taking the risks. I am not sure the CAC offers any type of guarantee.

 

As someone else said, I do not understand the "sight unseen" market. I would want to at least see an image of a coin, especially if the the potential sale is final after the transaction is completed. I don't buy other expensive items like this (cars, houses, etc.), why should I buy rare coins in this manner? Maybe it's just me, but should this fall under the category of caveat emptor.

 

Scott

Scott, some of the bidders/buyers will be affiliated with CAC and as such CAC will be taking the risk. I have never recommended sight unseen bids for collectors and I don't now. But that doesn't mean that there won't be competitive sight unseen bids posted by dealers.

[DC Dawg]

Scott, some of the bidders/buyers will be affiliated with CAC and as such CAC will be taking the risk. I have never recommended sight unseen bids for collectors and I don't now.

How will CAC be taking the risk? Are they backing their "certification" with refunds for their mistakes?

 

But that doesn't mean that there won't be competitive sight unseen bids posted by dealers.

Just because it occurs it doesn't make it right!

 

Scott

[MarkFeld]

Scott, some of the bidders/buyers will be affiliated with CAC and as such CAC will be taking the risk. I have never recommended sight unseen bids for collectors and I don't now.

How will CAC be taking the risk? Are they backing their "certification" with refunds for their mistakes?

 

But that doesn't mean that there won't be competitive sight unseen bids posted by dealers.

Just because it occurs it doesn't make it right!

 

Scott

They are taking the risk of getting stuck with bad coins at costs which are too high if/when their bids get hit.

 

What problem ("Just because it occurs it doesn't make it right!") do you have with dealers making competitive sight-unseen bids? I don't understand your thinking on this.

[Tradedollarnut]

The reasonable response here is “so what?”

 

Ya hear that, Mark - 'so what' that your TPG certified 1945 merc dime you bought off ebay didn't have full bands. !

 

So you're saying that if that coin got stickered - lets call it a "mechanical error" - that CAC would have been happy to buy it back at Full Bands price, even if it were an obvious clerical error?

 

If I have anything to say about it - absolutely. That's what 'sight unseen' bid means. A guarantee isn't worth much if you can weasel out of it by claiming 'mechanical error'.

[IGWT]

They are taking the risk of getting stuck with bad coins at costs which are too high if/when their bids get hit.

 

It will be interesting to see the sight-unseen bid levels for CAC-stickered slabs compared to both (1) sight-unseen bid levels for unstickered slabs, and (2) sight-seen bid levels. In any event, won't a dealer who buys the "bad" coin sight-unseen simply dump it at auction, where some collector will spot the coveted green sticker and bid accordingly, i.e., at some level above the sight-unseen bid? Is there really all that much risk for affilliated dealers?