CAC help.

[nk1nk]

I know it's always risky to start a CAC thread but I am thinking about having 8 or so coins reviewed. Can you guys recommend a dealer that could submit them for me and how much they charge. Thanks in advance.

 

Nick

[Deerefan8420]

There should be a dealer locator feature on the CAC website. It will provide you with the nearest dealer to your area and if the information is available, a way to contact that dealer in order to set everything up with the submission to CAC.

 

Check this link here: http://www.caccoin.com/submission-centers/

[coinman_23885]

PM sent.

[nk1nk]

I tried that, not a single place came up for the state of Utah.

 

Nick

[Mozin]

If you need a CAC dealer, hold out for a CAC dealer that submits a LOT of coins. Many CAC dealers hardly know what CAC is. Too bad.

[FishyOne]

You can PM me if you need help and would like me to submit them for you. I would do it at cost.

[coinman_23885]

You can PM me if you need help and would like me to submit them for you. I would do it at cost.

 

Great minds think alike; I offered to do the same by PM.

[nk1nk]

Huge thanks to Kenny (coinman_23885) for helping me submitt 8 coins to CAC, he was a tremendous help and I appreciated it. Also thanks to the others who offered to help.

 

I have had mixed feelings about CAC and have even been very critical of them in the past but I came to realize I mostly had an issue with the CAC or die people and even the CAC is the devil people and I really wanted to try out their service for myself.

 

I don't want this thread to turn into a big debate but I thought I would share my results and also add I had a very postive experience with CAC.

 

I received 4 green beans,1 gold bean and 3 did not sticker. I realize my pictures are horrible and makes it difficult to asses the coins for yourselves but its the best i can do.

 

I sent in this 1885 CC because I felt it was solid for the grade and a sure green bean, which it received.

 

This 1884 O is a common date and common grade but I just love his coin and thought the green sticker would go nice with the yellow and purple.

 

I thought this '84 O would get a gold sticker, looks like a solid 64 to my eye and I wanted to test the older holders are conservatively graded theory.

 

I was really worried this one would not sticker, several people i have shown this coin to have hated it. But I figured a sticker on a toned peace was worth the risk.

 

This Oregon I knew had to get a gold sticker but I almost didn't send it becase the price bump to 64 is practically nothing but I think it's a 65 and I really just wanted a gold sticker.

 

I have been seeing a ton of dark toned morgans with beans so I thought I would send this one in but wasn't sure it would make it. It has great luster, a strip of textile and some awesome pull away. No sticker.

 

 

this coin is super attractive but did not make it, I was a little surprised.

 

And the huge shocker I can't beleive this coin did not sticker. I bought this coin from mkman and sent it in for a designation review and got it into a PL holder. Not sure what CAC saw or did not see on this one.

 

Thanks for looking.

 

Nick

 

 

[Coagman]

Overall, a very good submission.

CAC is tough on PL coins since the reflective fields exaggerate even the smallest imperfections. The three-cent silver looks nice based on the images.

 

[FishyOne]

Thanks for sharing your results. You can get feedback from CAC if requested on the submission form.

 

I'd be curious to know if the the toned pieces were deemed AT.

[coinman_23885]

For whatever it's worth, here are my thoughts based on the images:

 

Coin # 1 - 1885 CC NGC MS64 Morgan Dollar - I agree with CAC that this is a very nice coin for the grade, and it has cleaner surfaces than many 64s I have seen. It's probably at the higher end of the 64s that I have seen.

 

Coin #2 - 1884-O PCGS MS64 Morgan Dollar - Nice coin, great color, and solid for the grade.

 

Coin #3 - 1884-O PCGS MS63 Morgan Dollar in Doiley - I think this coin is borderline at MS64. For a gold bean, it would have to sticker as a solid 64. I agree with CAC.

 

Coin #4 - 1923 NGC MS64 Peace Dollar - I find the toning attractive personally, and I am not sure why anyone would question it. It looks completely acceptable and attractive to me. I'm guessing that it probably looks much better than the bottom photograph.

 

Coin #5 - 1926-S Oregon NGC MS63 - The image makes it hard to tell (and the reverse is missing), but the coin definitely looks like it might have full gem potential. I agree with the gold bean.

 

Coin #6-1880-S NGC MS65 Morgan Dollar - Based solely on the obverse photo, I am betting that there is more luster and the colors are a bit more vibrant in hand. I have no problems with the coin as a NT example, and I find it attractive. I also do not think the toning is what kept this coin from receiving a sticker. There appears to be sufficient chatter on the cheek and obverse field to keep it from being a solid 65. In fact, had you posted this as a guess the grade, I would have guessed that it was MS64 based on the contact marks. I am thinking that NGC may have not awarded the star for the darker toning, but might have bumped it up a half a grade or so. Regardless, the grade really doesn't matter here; the color makes this coin more valuable than a generic 65 (if I am interpreting the images correctly). I would be proud to have a toned coin like this in my collection.

 

Coin #7 - 1882-S PCGS MS65 Morgan Dollar - While many would call it market acceptable, I think an equal number would call it questionable. I am not surprised that the coin did not bean, but I find it attractive personally regardless.

 

Coin #8 - 1862 3CS NGC MS63 PL - I know that CAC is tough in reviewing PL coins, but I would have thought that the coin would have been a slam dunk for a green sticker. I wonder what held them back. Maybe CAC didn't think the mirrors were strong enough for a PL designation (which it is my understanding that this is considered). It looks fine to me.

 

Overall, I agree with CAC's decision on 6 out of the 7.

 

[MarkFeld]

For whatever it's worth, here are my thoughts based on the images:.

 

Coin #8 - 1862 3CS NGC MS63 PL - I know that CAC is tough in reviewing PL coins, but I would have thought that the coin would have been a slam dunk for a green sticker. I wonder what held them back. Maybe CAC didn't think the mirrors were strong enough for a PL designation (which it is my understanding that this is considered). It looks fine to me...

 

I don't think CAC considers the PL designation from NGC on type coins, when deciding whether to sticker a coin. Ditto for the NGC star.

 

The coin looks dipped/unoriginal to me. And my guess is that CAC thought it had too many flaws/hairlines for the grade and/or was over-dipped.

[coinman1794]

 

Coin #8 - 1862 3CS NGC MS63 PL - I know that CAC is tough in reviewing PL coins, but I would have thought that the coin would have been a slam dunk for a green sticker. I wonder what held them back. Maybe CAC didn't think the mirrors were strong enough for a PL designation (which it is my understanding that this is considered). It looks fine to me.

 

 

I can't tell why the 1862 PL did not sticker, either. It looks better than MS63 in the pictures. In hand, there could be something making it seem low-end for the grade that we just can't see.

 

 

[coinman1794]

For whatever it's worth, here are my thoughts based on the images:.

 

Coin #8 - 1862 3CS NGC MS63 PL - I know that CAC is tough in reviewing PL coins, but I would have thought that the coin would have been a slam dunk for a green sticker. I wonder what held them back. Maybe CAC didn't think the mirrors were strong enough for a PL designation (which it is my understanding that this is considered). It looks fine to me...

 

I don't think CAC considers the PL designation from NGC on type coins, when deciding whether to sticker a coin. Ditto for the NGC star.

 

The coin looks dipped/unoriginal to me. And my guess is that CAC thought it had too many flaws/hairlines for the grade and/or was over-dipped.

 

I have been under the impression, based on personal experiences submitting, that the PL and DMPL designations are considered by CAC on NGC-graded, non-Morgan dollar type coins. It is the Star and Plus that they do not care about. The PL designation can be vital on some NGC type coins.

 

Maybe you have better information.

 

[MarkFeld]

For whatever it's worth, here are my thoughts based on the images:.

 

Coin #8 - 1862 3CS NGC MS63 PL - I know that CAC is tough in reviewing PL coins, but I would have thought that the coin would have been a slam dunk for a green sticker. I wonder what held them back. Maybe CAC didn't think the mirrors were strong enough for a PL designation (which it is my understanding that this is considered). It looks fine to me...

 

I don't think CAC considers the PL designation from NGC on type coins, when deciding whether to sticker a coin. Ditto for the NGC star.

 

The coin looks dipped/unoriginal to me. And my guess is that CAC thought it had too many flaws/hairlines for the grade and/or was over-dipped.

 

I have been under the impression, based on personal experiences submitting, that the PL and DMPL designations are considered by CAC on NGC-graded, non-Morgan dollar type coins. It is the Star and Plus that they do not care about. The PL designation can be vital on some NGC type coins.

 

Maybe you have better information.

 

CAC does not typically place higher bids for plus coins, star coins or PL type coins than they do for coins without those designations. So, my understanding is, that when deciding whether to sticker a coin, they ignore those designations. I might be mistaken, however.

[RWB]

Hmmmm...do you mean that what you really wanted was a bunch of colored stickers?

 

Did you learn anything new for your $135 expenditure? Are the coins any different than before sending them away?

 

If you like the stickers, that’s all that counts…..still, I wonder about a better use for the money.

 

Just an opinion ---

 

[coinman_23885]

The coin looks dipped/unoriginal to me. And my guess is that CAC thought it had too many flaws/hairlines for the grade and/or was over-dipped.

 

I definitely can see that the coin has been dipped, but do you think that it is over-dipped? It looked like the coin had nice luster/mirrors and it was not a lifeless piece like I would expect from an over-dipped coin. I am really curious on your thoughts here since I know that you have cameoed as a CAC reviewer at times. I have seen CAC sticker plenty of dipped coins.

[jom]

On the 3 Cent I'd guess that didn't pass due to hairlines (or some other surface issue) we can't see in the photo. Although over-dipped might be an issue as well.

 

The Morgan looks a bit funny but if PCGS graded then....who knows?

 

On the PL designation being reviewed by CAC: I tried to find the info on their site to no avail. I did look through the POP report and they list MSPL as a designation and they have CAC'd 4 Type 3 3CS pieces so far. Whether that means they check for that I don't know...however, if they didn't why list it in their POP report? Just a thought....

 

jom

[MarkFeld]

The coin looks dipped/unoriginal to me. And my guess is that CAC thought it had too many flaws/hairlines for the grade and/or was over-dipped.

 

I definitely can see that the coin has been dipped, but do you think that it is over-dipped? It looked like the coin had nice luster/mirrors and it was not a lifeless piece like I would expect from an over-dipped coin. I am really curious on your thoughts here since I know that you have cameoed as a CAC reviewer at times. I have seen CAC sticker plenty of dipped coins.

 

In the top image of the obverse of the 3CS, the coin appears to be quite washed out looking - possibly over-dipped. But I don't know whether the image is accurate.

 

I only reviewed coins for CAC on one occasion - at a Coinfest show, a number of years ago.

[Mark T]

The coin looks dipped/unoriginal to me. And my guess is that CAC thought it had too many flaws/hairlines for the grade and/or was over-dipped.

 

I definitely can see that the coin has been dipped, but do you think that it is over-dipped? It looked like the coin had nice luster/mirrors and it was not a lifeless piece like I would expect from an over-dipped coin. I am really curious on your thoughts here since I know that you have cameoed as a CAC reviewer at times. I have seen CAC sticker plenty of dipped coins.

 

In the top image of the obverse of the 3CS, the coin appears to be quite washed out looking - possibly over-dipped. But I don't know whether the image is accurate.

 

I only reviewed coins for CAC on one occasion - at a Coinfest show, a number of years ago.

 

So you were the guy who gave me all those Green Beans

 

[MarkFeld]

The coin looks dipped/unoriginal to me. And my guess is that CAC thought it had too many flaws/hairlines for the grade and/or was over-dipped.

 

I definitely can see that the coin has been dipped, but do you think that it is over-dipped? It looked like the coin had nice luster/mirrors and it was not a lifeless piece like I would expect from an over-dipped coin. I am really curious on your thoughts here since I know that you have cameoed as a CAC reviewer at times. I have seen CAC sticker plenty of dipped coins.

 

In the top image of the obverse of the 3CS, the coin appears to be quite washed out looking - possibly over-dipped. But I don't know whether the image is accurate.

 

I only reviewed coins for CAC on one occasion - at a Coinfest show, a number of years ago.

 

So you were the guy who gave me all those Green Beans

 

Yes, "green beans", string beans and lima beans, but no CAC stickers.

 

[physics-fan3.14]

Yes, "green beans", string beans and lima beans, but no CAC stickers.

 

Green beans are best served with bacon. Lima beans are best not served at all.

[coinman1794]

The coin looks dipped/unoriginal to me. And my guess is that CAC thought it had too many flaws/hairlines for the grade and/or was over-dipped.

 

I definitely can see that the coin has been dipped, but do you think that it is over-dipped? It looked like the coin had nice luster/mirrors and it was not a lifeless piece like I would expect from an over-dipped coin. I am really curious on your thoughts here since I know that you have cameoed as a CAC reviewer at times. I have seen CAC sticker plenty of dipped coins.

 

The coin is just SO white that it looks out of place for its age. I can't tell from the pictures if the luster is impaired or not. I have not seen CAC reject a coin like this due to dipping, however; and my guess would be that they simply felt it was not an A or B coin for the assigned grade.

 

[physics-fan3.14]

I'm not sure, from those pictures, why the 3CS didn't sticker. In hand, it may be easier to see.

 

The dark toned Morgan is just too dark. The pictures also make it look like there is a lot of surface chatter.

 

I am not surprised that the 82S didn't make it - that toning looks highly questionable to me. Sure, PCGS waved their magic wand and blessed it - but it still looks suspect. I'm guessing that's why it didn't bean.

[breakdown-migration]

Thanks for taking the time to post these coins and results. Photos are better than you give yourself credit for.

[nk1nk]

Thanks everyone for the comments, I really appreciate it.

 

Nick