• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Not a good start for the PQ "sticker".

Started by Shamika-migration,

54 posts in this topic

TomB

TomB

Posted
Posted

That's pretty funny. However, it certainly could be argued that PCGS was incorrect in the previous grading of the coin and, therefore, that the sticker is deserved for this piece afterall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
I wonder if the sticker was personally applied by the seller.
There is no cause to wonder, other than to take an unwarranted/cheap shot. The seller does not work for CAC and wouldn't have stickers to apply.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
michael

michael

Posted
Posted

buy the coin not the sticker

 

and maybe the ms63 coin at heritage would have one of the rare gold CAC stickers that says the coin is definately undergraded

 

as at the first coin fest where CAC stickered coins for free for collector submitters ; gold rarities approx. two weeks ago their e mail listing and coin market report said that CAC stickered many many many green CAC labels but they only stickered with the coveted gold label 4 coins that signified in their opinion the coin was a definate undergrade/next grade higher

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamminJ

JamminJ

Posted
Posted
I wonder if the sticker was personally applied by the seller.
There is no cause to wonder, other than to take an unwarranted/cheap shot. The seller does not work for CAC and wouldn't have stickers to apply.

 

Isn't Albanese a founding member of the CAC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
IGWT

IGWT

Posted
Posted
I wonder if the sticker was personally applied by the seller.
There is no cause to wonder, other than to take an unwarranted/cheap shot. The seller does not work for CAC and wouldn't have stickers to apply.

 

Isn't Albanese a founding member of the CAC?

 

You're confusing John Albanese with Dave & Dean Albanese of Albanese Rare Coins. There's no relation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BillJones

BillJones

Posted
Posted

I'm not a big fan of nickels with obvious “carbon” spots. This coin has three of them, which would knock it down to MS-63, with perhaps a “PQ” because of the strike. The coin has a nice strike for the date, but I’d hardly call it “PQ” when the base grade is MS-64.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BillJones

BillJones

Posted
Posted
buy the coin not the sticker

 

and maybe the ms63 coin at heritage would have one of the rare gold CAC stickers that says the coin is definately undergraded

 

as at the first coin fest where CAC stickered coins for free for collector submitters ; gold rarities approx. two weeks ago their e mail listing and coin market report said that CAC stickered many many many green CAC labels but they only stickered with the coveted gold label 4 coins that signified in their opinion the coin was a definate undergrade/next grade higher

 

Interesting ... hm

 

So we now have a green and gold CAC sticker. I've owned my first CAC approaved coin (an 1836 Gobrecht Dollar in PCGS PR-62) for a little over two weeks, and it's already been upstaged. meh

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tradedollarnut

Tradedollarnut

Posted
Posted

I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:

 

this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64

 

With regard to the 'solid for the grade' vs 'PQ' issue, I reiterate John's stance that because coins in TPG holders can be all over the place quality-wise it's his belief that solid for the grade means PQ these days. He is going to add a link to the website to discuss this issue - but the bottom line is that he is stickering solid for the grade coins as being PQ to the general sight unseen quality that's out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Arizonadesertrat

Arizonadesertrat

Posted
Posted

How many Buffalo nickel collectors with $5K+ to spend would want this coin? The carbon spots are a big turn-off (MS64+ otherwise), IMO (as an ex-Buff collector).

 

I think the regrade got it right, but a spotted coin like this isn't PQ in my view. On the other hand, finding an nice, alternative MS64 coin would take lots of searching. I'm a bit conflicted with respect to judging this coin, but my gut feeling is that stickering this coin was a mistake.

 

Is a buyer in the CAC consortium really going to be pleased to see something like this in a sight-unseen deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
physics-fan3.14

physics-fan3.14

Posted
Posted
I had an email conversation with John Albanese regarding this and other issues. Here is his response regarding this coin:

 

this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64

 

With regard to the 'solid for the grade' vs 'PQ' issue, I reiterate John's stance that because coins in TPG holders can be all over the place quality-wise it's his belief that solid for the grade means PQ these days. He is going to add a link to the website to discuss this issue - but the bottom line is that he is stickering solid for the grade coins as being PQ to the general sight unseen quality that's out there.

 

I was previously undecided about CAC, leaning towards the negative. This comment and the philosophy behind it puts me solidly in the disapproving camp. I totally disagree with this comment and everything it implies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MikeInFL

MikeInFL

Posted
Posted

p.s. to me, that coin's surfaces look 65+, the strike is well above average for the date, and the spots netted the coin down to a 64 -- but that's just my opinon based on the photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmarguli

gmarguli

Posted
Posted
With regard to the 'solid for the grade' vs 'PQ' issue, I reiterate John's stance that because coins in TPG holders can be all over the place quality-wise it's his belief that solid for the grade means PQ these days. He is going to add a link to the website to discuss this issue - but the bottom line is that he is stickering solid for the grade coins as being PQ to the general sight unseen quality that's out there.

 

So John is calling a coin PQ if it is average for the grade. Is English John's second language? If so, that would explain a lot.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
With regard to the 'solid for the grade' vs 'PQ' issue, I reiterate John's stance that because coins in TPG holders can be all over the place quality-wise it's his belief that solid for the grade means PQ these days. He is going to add a link to the website to discuss this issue - but the bottom line is that he is stickering solid for the grade coins as being PQ to the general sight unseen quality that's out there.

 

So John is calling a coin PQ if it is average for the grade. Is English John's second language? If so, that would explain a lot.

No, John is not "calling a coin PQ if it is average for the grade". The language from TDN reads "solid for the grade", not "average for the grade". I will resist the temptation to ask you if English (and comprehension thereof) is your first language or not. :baiting::devil:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
physics-fan3.14

physics-fan3.14

Posted
Posted
Physics-fan, While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, would you care to elaborate your rationale? Thanks in advance...Mike

 

Sure. There are two important things that ticked me off.

 

1. It's his belief that solid for the grade means PQ.

 

To me, this sounds like gradeflation. Solid for the grade means it should be middle of the road - a standard MS64. PQ to me means the upper range of the grade, a 64/65 coin that might have something that tipped the balance towards 64. Yes, the holders are all over the place. But there should be a set of standards, and that was the whole point of the CAC. If you start saying that the solid MS64s are actually PQ, almost 65, then you are inflating things. If you then get an actual PQ 64, you are far more likely to inflate that to 65. And I really don't see how saying that the holders are all over the place implies that solid for the grade actually means PQ.

 

2. this coin brought 5x ms63 bid in 2005 and brought over double bid for an ms64 !!, clearly the market demonstrated that this coin was indeed a pq ms64

 

This is market grading! I am against market grading. If the coin is an MS-63 against a certain set of standards, then it should be an MS-63 no matter what price it brings. Yes, it might have nice eye appeal. Yes, it might bring 64 or 65 money, but if according to the set of standards it is MS-63, that shouldn't change based on how much some person is willing to pay for it.

 

According to what TDN said that Albanese said, he stickered the coin because it brought alot more money than it should have. Thus it must be PQ. There is no set of standards involved here, there is no criteria for establishing what is PQ besides the fact that some collector was willing to pay more for it. To me, this is completely arbitrary and not something worth investing time or money in. There might have been alot of advertising for the auction it was sold in, there might have been some crazy guy that wanted it, there are a whole lot of reasons why it could have sold for more than it should have besides just being PQ. What happens if a truly PQ coin sells for less than it should have? Is this coin thus not worthy of the sticker?

 

Thus, I have made up my mind that the CAC is not all that it is cracked up to be. Please, discuss, and tell me what you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DirtyGoldMan

DirtyGoldMan

Posted
Posted

I have zero expertise in Buffalo nickels (the uncs all look circ to me :( ), and am admittedly turned off by the spots that are obvious at high magnification. It is not a coin that I would look to add to my collection at any grade or cost.

 

That said, I find it hard to confirm/condemn the TPG or CAC grade of a coin based on an image as I have been fooled both ways (and every which way until Sunday) in the past in series in which I am competent and knowledgeable. If it were easy and definitive to grade a coin by photo, we would all be submitting our photos to the TPGs, not the coins themselves.

 

Okay, back to the pile on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted

According to what TDN said that Albanese said, he stickered the coin because it brought alot more money than it should have
He absolutely did not say that. There was no indication given that at the time the coin was stickered, CAC had any idea regarding what the coin had sold for.

 

I would bet that the price realized was examined AFTER this thread was started, not at the time the coin was stickered. When the coin was reviewed for the sticker CAC wouldn't have known its previous history to look up the price realized even if they wanted to.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MikeInFL

MikeInFL

Posted
Posted

To your point #1 -- it may sound like gradeflation, or it might sound like a reaction to gradeflation on the part of the TPGs. To me it sounds like the latter, but I won't draw any conclusions without seeing the coin in-hand.

 

To your point #2 -- if you don't like market grading, you must not like TPG grading.

 

Lastly, I wouldn't make any judgement based on a single coin which you've not seen in-hand -- particularly if the market has seemed to support the CAC position.

 

More later, gotta run...Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Arizonadesertrat

Arizonadesertrat

Posted
Posted

The coin in question is very nice IMO, absent the carbon spots. However, many posts here, and across the street, have slammed this coin because of these spots. There are less than 300 or so certified coins in MS64---is this coin PQ among this group? Possibly, but I wouldn't feel too comfortable about citing an auction result to make this call definitive.

What did the coins that brought less money look like?

 

One possible mistake is no reason to slam the whole CAC concept as unworkable. People should expect that there will be mistakes, so the real issue is what the consortium will do about them. Will stickers on coins that aren't PQ be taken off, and who will pay for these 'downgrades'? The only way for the CAC philosophy to work is if the end-users (i.e., collectors/investors) trust the product quality and this means that the consortium will have to police itself when necessary.

 

It will be interesting to see if this coin 'makes the rounds' during the next 2 years or so.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing