My CAC submission

[MikeInFL]

Here are the Gold coins from the submission:

 

1854 Type 2 Gold Dollar - PCGS AU 58 - No Sticker (Prediction: No Sticker)

As predicted.

 

1835 Quarter Eagle - PCGS XF 45 - Green Sticker (Prediction: No Sticker)

A bit surprised this one stickered. I had my doubts about this coin tone-wise and grade-wise.

 

1899 Eagle Ex:Bass - NGC MS 63 - No Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

A bit disappointing, but I can understand why this coin didn't sticker.

 

1913 Eagle - PCGS MS 63 - No Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

This was the biggest surprise of the gold coins. This is one of the top 5 coins in my collection, and I am disappointed it didn't sticker.

[MikeInFL]

Here are the Copper coins from the submission:

 

1828 Half Cent - PCGS MS 64 - Green Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

As expected.

 

1793 Chain Cent - PCGS FR 02 - Green Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

As expected. This is both my dream coin and the most expensive coin in my collection, so I am a bit relieved it received a sticker.

 

1798 Large Cent - PCGS VF 25 - Green Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

As expected.

 

1810/09 Large Cent - PCGS VF 25 - No Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

1819/8 Large Cent - PCGS MS 61 BN - No Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

JA is nuts! Show me a better 61.

 

1821 Large Cent - NGC XF 45 - Green Sticker (Prediction: No Sticker)

I was quite surprised this coin stickered, as I was concerned with the color and how this weakly-struck coin would grade. CAC awarded this coin a sticker.

 

1827 Large Cent - PCGS AU 58 - Green Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

As expected.

 

1843 Large Cent Ex: Reiver - NGC MS 62 BN - No Sticker (Prediction: No Sticker)

This was a setup coin. I thought this coin had no chance to sticker. IMO, it is recolored, brushed, oiled, and overgraded. CAC did not award the sticker.

 

1850 Large Cent - PCGS MS 65 RB - Green Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

As expected. Ex: LeeG.

 

1852 Large Cent - PCGS MS 65 RB - Green Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

As expected.

 

1853 Large Cent - PCGS MS 65 RB - Green Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

As expected.

 

1858 Small Letters FEC - PCGS MS 63 - Green Sticker (Prediction: No Sticker)

I was a bit surprised this coin got the sticker. I'm not that fond of it to begin with, and it was purchased early in my numismatic renaissance, so it may have been my heart not my eye that predicted no sticker. CAC disagreed and the coin got a sticker. I would also add that this would be a coin, in retrospect, I would describe as "solidly graded and worthy of a sticker but unappealing".

 

1880 IHC - NGC PF 64 RB - No Sticker (Prediction: No Sticker)

I suspected this coin wouldn't sticker because of QT.

 

1905 IHC - NGC PF 65 RB - Green Sticker (Prediction: No Sticker)

Clearly a nice 65, I was concerned with the toning being QT. CAC disagreed and the coin got a sticker.

 

1869 - PCGS PF 65 RB - Green Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

A coin I was on the fence about as the color (similar to the 1905 IHC) concerned me. CAC disagreed and the coin got a sticker.

[MikeInFL]

Here are the nickel coins from the submission:

 

1885 3CN - NGC PF 66 - Green Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

As expected.

 

1883 Shield Nickel - NGC MS 65 - No Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

This one came as a bit of a surprise. It was one of my newer purchases.

 

1904 Liberty Nickel - PCGS PF 66 - Green Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

As expected.

 

1905 Liberty Nickel - NGC PF 65 - Green Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

As expected.

 

1936 Satin Proof Buffalo Nickel - NGC PF 67 - No Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

This is one of my favorite coins, and the second most expensive coin in my collection, so it was a disappointment it didn't sticker, but hasn't changed my opinion on the coin, which I love.

[MikeInFL]

Here are the silver coins from the submission:

 

1853 w/Arrows Dime - PCGS MS 64 - No Sticker (Prediction: No Sticker)

As predicted.

 

1905 Barber Dime - PCGS PF 66 - Green Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

As predicted.

 

1940 Mercury Dime - NGC PF 67 - No Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

No Pics

Another recent purchase, I was a but surprised by a lack of sticker.

 

1841-O Seated Quarter - PCGS AU 55 - No Sticker (Prediction: No Sticker)

As predicted.

 

1869 Seated Quarter - PCGS PR 64 - No Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

I predicted a sticker for this coin, but am not entirely surprised it didn't sticker.

 

1892 Isabella - PCGS MS 64 - Green Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

As expected. Ex: LeeG.

 

1905 Barber Quarter - PCGS PF 64 - Green Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

As expected.

 

1805 Draped Bust Half Dollar - PCGS VF 20 - Green Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

As expected.

 

1890 Seated Half Dollar - NGC PF 64 - Green Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

As expected.

 

1874 Trade Dollar - PCGS XF 45 - Green Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

As expected. Ex: Michael

 

1921 Peace Dollar - NGC AU 58 - No Sticker (Prediction: Green Sticker)

I've always wondered why it didn't grade low MS, so I was rather surprised to hear it didn't sticker. Regardless, this coin was always intended to be broken out and added to my Dansco 7070, and the lack of sticker has just sealed its fate. At $230, this was the cheapest coin submitted to CAC.

 

[TomB]

That was one heck of an effort on your part, Mike. Very cool thread.

[michael]

That was one heck of an effort on your part, Mike. Very cool thread.

 

(thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u

[DirtyGoldMan]

Mike,

 

Excellent presentation of the data. Thanks for posting the follow-up.

 

RYK

[Catbert]

Mike - absolutely wonderful coins with or without the sticker (you already know this). You are da man.

[James_OldeTowne]

My comments, based on images:

 

- the stickered 1798 cent does not look "solid" for VF-25

- the stickered 1821 is VERY nice for the issue, though I think overgraded for the type

- the stickered 1827 large cent looks recolored, but could be the image

- the stickered 1905 IHC looks fully natural and deserving

- agree with CAC that the 1883 shield is not deserving

- CAC blew it on the 1936 proof buffalo, which is an awesome coin based on the images

- completely disagree with a sticker on the 1805 half

 

 

[MikeInFL]

Please note I made two mistakes in the original list (incorrectly listed the 1843 LC and 1841-o quarter as stickering, when they did not). The mistakes have been corrected and the statistics have been updated.

[BankNote1]

Very interesting!

[DirtyGoldMan]

My comments, based on images:

 

- the stickered 1798 cent does not look "solid" for VF-25

- the stickered 1821 is VERY nice for the issue, though I think overgraded for the type

- the stickered 1827 large cent looks recolored, but could be the image

- the stickered 1905 IHC looks fully natural and deserving

- agree with CAC that the 1883 shield is not deserving

- CAC blew it on the 1936 proof buffalo, which is an awesome coin based on the images

- completely disagree with a sticker on the 1805 half

I disagree with James disagreement of the stickering of the 1805 half.

[DC Dawg]

CAC blew it on the 1936 proof buffalo, which is an awesome coin based on the images

- completely disagree with a sticker on the 1805 half

Does this mean we need a fifth party grading service to monitor the actions of the fourth party grading service who ties to oversee the third party grading service? This is making me dizzy! Actually, this was interesting. Although it would be nice to see this kind of detailed statistics from CAC, I doubt they would release them--I think it would show how Bravo Sierra the concept of the grading of the graders really is.Buy the coin, not the holder!Scott

[MikeInFL]

Scott,

 

You are entitled to your opinion, but speaking from first-hand experience and not second-hand cynicism...

 

A single problem pointed out in a single coin will likely save me in excess of $1,000 after I subtract all my costs -- so to me, the "grading the graders" is anything but Bravo Sierra. To the contrary, I will likely end up with not only an education, a second opinion on my coins, and potential increased value/liquidity on those stickered, but also materially gaining through the exercise.

 

To you that may be BS, but to me it is very vauable indeed.

 

Respectfully....Mike

[michael]

- CAC blew it on the 1936 proof buffalo, which is an awesome coin based on the images

 

(thumbs u

[DC Dawg]

I don't buy coins for their liquidity or their value. I don't buy a coin because it is worth something or may be worth something more if it is in one holder versus another, one grade versus another, or is stickered over another. I buy the coin because it will fit my collection and is the best I can afford. I enjoy the ownership and am willing to show it off to anyone interested--not because the coin is worth anything, because I like the coin.

 

I do marvel at the changing values of some of my better coins. But I am not collecting for the coin's value. I want a complete set of Lincoln Cents at the highest grade I can afford. My goal is all red cents, but I know I cannot do that. So I have a 1909-S VDB in VF30BN and enjoy that I own it. The coin is bought and probably not be sold until I can afford a better coin or I die, which ever comes first. Whether the CAC approves or disapproves the grade is so irrelevant to my enjoyment of the coin, that I gristle when some have suggest I submit the coin.

 

I think you misread my response. My comment calling the CAC "Bravo Sierra" was not directed at you. I called your report interesting and enlightening. I called the concept of fourth party services like this Bravo Sierra based on anecdotal evidence. I would love the prove what I am saying is correct using quantitative evidence, but that will never happen. It is not in their interest to publish full statistics because it will either cause problems with NGC and PCGS that has the potential to be very messy or prove my point. It bothers me that aspects of this industry is genuflecting to this service without substantiated reasons other than alleged "feelings" or their alleged faith with those involved. Sorry, I don't have those feelings and I do not know those involved. I need proof. I want numbers. I may not be from Missouri but I am an engineer by trade. Show me!

 

Scott

[MikeInFL]

I don't buy coins for their liquidity or their value. I don't buy a coin because it is worth something or may be worth something more if it is in one holder versus another, one grade versus another, or is stickered over another. I buy the coin because it will fit my collection and is the best I can afford. I enjoy the ownership and am willing to show it off to anyone interested--not because the coin is worth anything, because I like the coin

 

I do marvel at the changing values of some of my better coins. But I am not collecting for the coin's value. I want a complete set of Lincoln Cents at the highest grade I can afford. My goal is all red cents, but I know I cannot do that. So I have a 1909-S VDB in VF30BN and enjoy that I own it. The coin is bought and probably not be sold until I can afford a better coin or I die, which ever comes first. Whether the CAC approves or disapproves the grade is so irrelevant to my enjoyment of the coin, that I gristle when some have suggest I submit the coin.

Scott,

 

FWIW, I agree 100% with everything you said here (well, except the Lincoln Cent and gristle comments ), I would like to think I feel and act the same way, and I hope including some pricing information wouldn't lead you to believe otherwise.

 

Take care...Mike

[James_OldeTowne]

I don't buy coins for their liquidity or their value. I don't buy a coin because it is worth something or may be worth something more if it is in one holder versus another, one grade versus another, or is stickered over another. I buy the coin because it will fit my collection and is the best I can afford.

Very adroitly put. It is too bad more collectors don't understand how to enjoy what is supposed to be a hobby,

[leeg]

Very valuable information and effort in this thread Mike. I appreciate you sharing it with us. (thumbs u Did your submitting dealer also pre-screen this group and provide his thoughts on the coins? Did you remove/add coins to this submission based on those thoughts? I'm very happy to see two of the coins that you and I thought were very PQ got the sticker.

[IGWT]

Very interesting and educational. Thanks, Mike.

[MikeInFL]

Did your submitting dealer also pre-screen this group and provide his thoughts on the coins?

 

Yes, Mark provided his thoughts on the coins before sending them along to CAC.

 

Did you remove/add coins to this submission based on those thoughts?

 

No, the 35 coins listed in the opening of this post were all submitted, regardless of what Mark said about them.

 

I'm very happy to see two of the coins that you and I thought were very PQ got the sticker.

 

Me too!

[IGWT]

Did CAC provide an explanation for those coins that didn't pass muster, e.g., low-end for the grade v. doctoring.

[MarkFeld]

- CAC blew it on the 1936 proof buffalo, which is an awesome coin based on the images

They didn't blow it at all. It's absolutely gorgeous, but noticeably spotted.

[MikeInFL]

Did CAC provide an explanation for those coins that didn't pass muster, e.g., low-end for the grade v. doctoring.

Yes, they did, although I understand this information is not typically available.

[MikeInFL]

They didn't blow it at all. It's absolutely gorgeous, but noticeably spotted.

 

I tend to agree with Mark. Here are larger photos:

 

 

The fields are free of hits and commensurate with a 67. I can't find a nick or a hairline anywhere.

The eye appeal is off the charts, and the coin is much more impressive and colorful in hand.

The the coin's luster glows, which isn't shown in the photos at all.

The carbon spots are a detractor (although they attest to the coin's originality to me and are hard for me to see without magnification), and Mark and I (who have both seen this coin-in hand) both agree this is the feature which holds this coin back. If the CAC agrees with us is something I'm not at liberty to discuss.

 

The funny thing with this coin is you can call it a low-end 67, or even a 66, and I still would have paid what I did for the coin....Mike

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

For me, the spots on the Buffalo nickel add to its appeal, not detract. They are an absolutely convincing argument (for me) contending that this coin has never been cleaned or manipulated in any way. I do not trust many coins that have a total absence of carbon spots, as their original quality would always be in question for me. But I would feel completely confident that those surfaces have survived 72 years and never felt the coin doctor's touch.

 

Even disregarding this argument, the spots that are there are sparse, and are easily compensated for by the extraordinary tone.

 

It's all a matter of opinion, but the CAC blew it on an opportunity to designate a properly graded coin as also being an original coin. I thought that at the inception of the service, that was their primary motivation.

 

I know that most would disagree with me, and I'm OK with that.

[CHABSENTIA]

OK, I have recieved the preliminary results of my submission, and here is some analysis of the submission:

 

 

A few objective observations from the above numbers:

 

1) 60% of the coins got a green sticker; 40% did not.

2) The % of stickered coins was lower than I expected/predicted -- and I thought I was hard on the coins.

3) My more expensive coins did slightly better than my cheaper coins.

4) PCGS coins fared much better than NGC coins (70% vs 42%).

5) My trend over time was exactly opposite what I would have thought.

6) I did the best with coins I have the most experience with -- copper (73%) which also included two "set-up" coins I though wouldn't grade and another coin I thought was QT, or I would have been in excess of 90%.

7) I did the worst with coins I have the least experience with -- gold (25%).

 

Only 1/3 of the coins you submitted were NGC coins or 12/35.If I flip a coin then the more times I flip it I will get more heads or tails in a random sample, Who knows what percentage you would have received had you submitted 18 NGC slabs and 17 PCGS slabs?

 

You also picked specific coins that you wanted to submit to CAC instead of just picking 35 coins at random so your subjectivity went into the mix.

[MikeInFL]

Chasbentia,

 

Thanks for your response.

 

Your comment on sample size is, in my opinion, a valid one. Although time (and future CAC submissions) will tell, I suspect the remainder of my NGC coins will not fare as well as those I've already submitted and expect the gap between PCGS and NGC to widen. For instance, I have a number of relatively inexpensive XF-AU NGC large cents I expect to do poorly. However, given my relatively poor performance to date in predicting CAC stickers, I really can't say with any confidence one way or the other. Stay tuned....

 

However, you comment on subjectivty is off-base, in my opinion. With one exception -- the NGC Peace Dollar I thought would sticker -- I simply (and objectively) chose the most expensive 34 NGC/PCGS slabbed coins in my collection.

 

Take care...Mike

[CHABSENTIA]

Chasbentia,

 

Thanks for your response.

 

Your comment on sample size is, in my opinion, a valid one. Although time (and future CAC submissions) will tell, I suspect the remainder of my NGC coins will not fare as well as those I've already submitted and the gap to widen. For instance, I have a number of relatively inexpensive XF-AU NGC large cents I expect to do poorly. However, given my relatively poor performance to date in predicting CAC stickers, I really can't say with any confidence one way or the other. Stay tuned....

 

However, you comment on subjectivty is off-base, in my opinion. With one exception -- the NGC Peace Dollar I thought would sticker -- I simply (and objectively) chose the most expensive 34 NGC/PCGS slabbed coins in my collection.

 

Take care...Mike

 

My comment on subjectivity was not meant as a personal one. If I or anybody else picked a coin or coins to submit to CAC and instead of just submitting all of the coins to CAC there were only certain coins submitted then they wouldn have to be based on some "subjectivity".

 

I have to agree with Scott on most of it. I can think of three reasons for submitting a coin to CAC.

 

1. I want to see if CAC agrees with my assessment .

2. I am a Novice and need the opinion of another party.

3. I want the CAC sticker because I might feel that it will increase the value of the coin.

 

None of these reasons have anything to do with a Buyer of even limited experience buying the coin because it appeals to them. It was even stated that " I loved the coin even though it did not receive the sticker"While I do not collect the others and won't comment on them I would have to agree that I loved the Buffalo and the CAC opinion would not matter,So why would CAC be a factor in this case?

 

The other problem I have is that Albanese has said many times that "Graders do make mistakes". Why would you need another party that makes mistakes to evaluate another party that makes mistakes?

 

I see no problem with CAC concerning #1-3 above . I just don't see paying another premium otherwise.

[michael]

For me, the spots on the Buffalo nickel add to its appeal, not detract. They are an absolutely convincing argument (for me) contending that this coin has never been cleaned or manipulated in any way. I do not trust many coins that have a total absence of carbon spots, as their original quality would always be in question for me. But I would feel completely confident that those surfaces have survived 72 years and never felt the coin doctor's touch.

 

Even disregarding this argument, the spots that are there are sparse, and are easily compensated for by the extraordinary tone.

 

It's all a matter of opinion, but the CAC blew it on an opportunity to designate a properly graded coin as also being an original coin. I thought that at the inception of the service, that was their primary motivation.

 

(thumbs u touche (thumbs u