FROM THE CAC GRADING ROOM...............

[Hard Times]

Happy New Year Folks,

I had an opportunity to get 10 free submissions to CAC through a club this year (offer has now expired). I sent them in and just got the results back in an email. Some of my submissions got the green bean while others did not. Some of the 'not CAC' coins really surprised me. I would like to think over the last few years that I have gained more knowledge on how to grade and what a B or an A coin is versus a C coin. However, if the 3 levels of coins within each grade are distributed equally, it means that if CAC had looked at all NGC and PCGS coins for a given grade, denomination, year and variety, then fully 67% of the coins should get the green bean or the hallowed golden fleece (er, I mean bean), right? My guess is that is not actually happening, so either there are less A and B coins, or, CAC is actually only giving the bean out much more frugally than what they describe on their website of what is beanable. Given that right now this is a serious driver of the market, unfortunately if one ever has a hope to make money on the coins they collect (I do), then one has to pay attention and learn when a coin is 'not CAC'. Hence my submission to learn.

 

I have watched this CAC phenomena and what they think is beanable and oft times I don't agree. A recent interview by Ankur with John Albanese posted on the CAC website, has shed light on the issue of toning, what is called originality, and dipped coins. While this is all good and well, I don't believe they JA et al. always practices what they preach to the philosophy of originality vs. dipped, or perhaps there is still some subjectivity applied. In such a case, there is a grey area between 'not CAC' and 'beanie weenie man!' and IMO, which of course is based on much less experience than JA et al., some coins are getting screwed while other are getting to be overvalued by winning this game. For example, I viewed a seated quarter at the Houston Money Show that was in an MS61 holder, had the CAC green bean, and had absolutely no luster or cartwheel in the brightest light I could find. Toned fully dark gray. Yet it had the bean, but JA notes, and in all grading guides, luster is important on an MS coin. So this is one example of where 'originality' with respect to toning is being taken too far by them and from an eye appeal perspective, this coin is dreck (using the term made infamous by an ATS matron) and does not meet the requirements for an MS coin(!), but beaned(!!!). I have seen others like this, taking the original toning idea too far where the coin has negative eye appeal. But in Ankur's interview, JA says (restated in my own words here - so these are not direct quotes go to the website to read verbatim) those who like the blast white dipped coins have mostly been in numismatics for less than 10 years while those that love the darkly natural toned unmessed with (possibly fugly) coins are the experienced folks who have been around in the field for 30 years. Hmm. mebbee so but I am interested in value and eye appeal is part of what makes a coin valued more. Isn't that what CAC is all about? Driving the market and beaning the coins that have more value for a grade?

 

Anyway..... I am going to present images of each of my submissions. I am not going to say which were beaned and which weren't at first. But it would be helpful if folks would comment here about what they think for each coin got the bean or not, and why. This may take some time because I would like each coin to have its time before I go on to the next and reveal the answer. The goal here is to learn, what makes a coin CAC or not? I hope this will help not only me, but others here on the boards.

 

Best, HT

 

Up first, an 1877-CC dime in MS 64. Not quite blast white, some lovely golden brown (re)tone around the outer portions of the obverse and reverse. Nice flashy cartwheel under the light worthy of a 64 IMO. Strike is a tinch weak around the head and cap on the pole of Miss Liberty, and possibly in some of the leaves on the upper reverse. I liked the coin when I bought it, I like now.

 

IS IT CAC WORTHY? WHY? WHY NOT?

 

 

 

[jom]

Great thread. I've had similar experiences with CAC and I'll post a couple later after you've done all of yours...this should be fun.

 

As to the dime: I don't see any reason to not bean that unless there is lack of luster....all else points to a 64/65 coin.

 

jom

[MarkFeld]

"For example, I viewed a seated quarter at the Houston Money Show that was in an MS61 holder, had the CAC green bean, and had absolutely no luster or cartwheel in the brightest light I could find. Toned fully dark gray. Yet it had the bean, but JA notes, and in all grading guides, luster is important on an MS coin"

 

Did the coin display obvious wear?

 

Luster can be important for an MS coin, while at the same time, a dull MS61 example can still be accurately graded and worthy of a CAC sticker. After all, if the coin possessed more luster, it might/would have graded higher. I don't expect an MS61 to look nice.

 

While I appreciate your efforts, I think it can be futile to try to make determinations regarding "what makes a CAC coin or not", based on images. Ditto for attributing philosophy/opinion/comments to Mr. Albanese based on other than direct quotes.

[KeyMan64]

I like your 1877-CC dime for a bean. Nice coin and free of any distractions.

[Tradedollarnut]

The dime has the look of a slightly washed out 63 so I say no bean. Of course, if there's a lot more luster than it looks then it could have beaned.

 

Now that's how you play the picture game!

[Tyler N.]

I say it CAC'd. I don't see anything that would prevent it other than luster (hard to tell by pictures). There might be a rim ding on the bottom right (obverse) where the holder's arm makes contact with the coin.

 

Affirmative on the CAC. Final answer.

[Hard Times]

"For example, I viewed a seated quarter at the Houston Money Show that was in an MS61 holder, had the CAC green bean, and had absolutely no luster or cartwheel in the brightest light I could find. Toned fully dark gray. Yet it had the bean, but JA notes, and in all grading guides, luster is important on an MS coin"

 

Did the coin display obvious wear?

 

Luster can be important for an MS coin, while at the same time, a dull MS61 example can still be accurately graded and worthy of a CAC sticker. After all, if the coin possessed more luster, it might/would have graded higher. I don't expect an MS61 to look nice.

 

While I appreciate your efforts, I think it can be futile to try to make determinations regarding "what makes a CAC coin or not", based on images. Ditto for attributing philosophy/opinion/comments to Mr. Albanese based on other than direct quotes.

 

Mark we appear to disagree, no worries though. Dull MS 61 with No Luster at all, only drab heavy grey toning, is not an MS coin, no way......

 

With respect to image futility and the bean, I agree it is not as good as seeing the coin in hand. But we can still learn something and after each series of discussion, I will add more than my brief description that might play into it. I look forward to seeing jom's coins as well. But I agree fully with you that any purchase or full evaluation cannot be done without seeing in hand. I think the person that bought that MS61 dull gray, no luster seated quarter with a bean on it is going to be disappointed if they did not see it in hand and made the decision to buy based on an image. It was on my target list until seeing it in hand and first impression - bluck! aarf, no way jose.

 

Best, HT

[Mr. Smith Guesser]

When was the last time CAC was accepting submissions for new membership? It seems like it's been quite a long time.

[Hard Times]

From the ANA grading guide:

 

MS-65: Shows attractive, high quality luster and strike for the date and mint. May have a few small scattered contact marks, or two larger marks may be present. One or two small patches of hairlines may show. Noticeable light marks may be seen on the high points of the design. Overall quality is above average and eye appeal is very pleasing.

 

MS-64: Has at least average luster and strike for the type. Several small contact marks in groups, as well as one or two moderately heavy marks may be present. One or two patches of hairlines may show. Noticeable light scuff marks or defects might be seen within the design or in the field. Overall quality is attractive, with a pleasing eye appeal.

 

MS-63: Mint luster may be slight impaired. Numerous small contact marks and a few scattered heavy marks may be seen. Small hairlines may be visible without magnification. Several detracting scuff marks or defects may be present throughout the design or in the fields. The general quality is above average, but overall coin is rather attractive.

 

IMO, this coin does not meet the qualifications of either a 63 or a 65. Luster is strong with full rotation of a cartwheel flash under the light, but definitely not bursting out in a bright flash that shocks the eye at the right angle. I think that is what TDN is picking up in the image. Does not have any hairlines or heavy marks except the one on the rim as noted by Tyler, and possibly a small nick in the upper right of the wreath in the reverse (I would have to see the coin to make sure on that one and can't until it comes back, as it might be a play of the light).

 

I hope these additions help the judgement of beaned or not.

 

Best, HT

[Hard Times]

When was the last time CAC was accepting submissions for new membership? It seems like it's been quite a long time.

 

Membership to collectors is closed at present. They offered the Liberty Seated Collectors Club members 10 free submissions in 2013 which I took advantage of by sending in 10 liberty seated coins.

[MarkFeld]

From the ANA grading guide:

 

MS-65: Show attractive, high quality luster and strike for the date and mint. May have a few small scattered contact marks, or two larger marks may be present. One or two small patches of hairlines may show. Noticeable light marks may be seen on the high points of the design. Overall quality is above average and eye appeal is very pleasing.

 

MS-64: Has at least average luster and strike for the type. Several small contact marks in groups, as well as one or two moderately heavy marks may be present. One or two patches of hairlines may show. Noticeable light scuff marks or defects might be seen within the design or in the field. Overall quality is attractive, with a pleasing eye appeal.

M

MS-63: Mint luster may be slight impaired. Numerous small contact marks and a few scattered heavy marks may be seen. Small hairlines may be visible without magnification. Several detracting scuff marks or defects may be present throughout the design or in the fields. The general quality is above average, but overall coin is rather attractive.

 

IMO, this coin does not meet the qualifications of either a 63 or a 65. Luster is strong with full rotation of cartwheel under the light, but definitely not bursting out in a bright flash that shocks the eye at the right angle. I think that is what TDN is picking up in the image. Does not have any hairlines or heavy marks except the one on the rim as noted by Tyler, and possibly a small nick in the upper right of the wreath in the reverse (I would have to see the coin to make sure on that one and can't until it comes back, as it might be a play of the light).

 

I hope these additions help the judgement of beaned or not.

 

Best, HT

 

I don't think that the major grading companies or CAC use the ANA grading standards. Nor do I believe that those standards can be applied consistently and objectively for many or most uncirculated and Proof coins.

[Hard Times]

Interesting, yes I just confirmed on the NGC website that they do not make any claim to using a particular published grading standard. However, if you go to PCGS Photograde, the images for each grade of each type of coin pretty much follow the ANA grading standards best I can tell. If they are not applying such standards, where collectors can go to a book, read them, view the Photograde images online, then how can anyone learn to grade NGC or PCGS style without effectively seeing trillions of coins which is nigh impossible to do as a collector with a full time job? Troubling....

 

Without any other mechanism to evaluate grading, I think I will go by the ANA grading standards. With respect to proofs tho' I have no idea since I don't own a single one.

 

Best, HT

[Raisethis2]

I like the concept of trying to determine whether a coin is bean worthy based upon the known criteria set out by CAC and with the help of the posters observations as a guide. I think we can all learn some through these exercises (photo limitations not withstanding).

 

Accordingly I have an 1877 CC Dime in MS 64 condition. It has golden toning that's stronger near the rims with plenty of luster which is unbroken. I see a tiny bit of disturbance on the left side obverse field and just above and right of the head, a tiny tick. There is an obvious rim hit at 5 o'clock on the obverse. The obverse looks to be a bit PL.

 

The reverse without question is solid and high end MS 64 or MS 65 material with no distracting post minting issues. The area at 12 o'clock in the field is however a little orange peeled.

 

I'd give the coin a green bean because the reverse is MS 65 IMO and the obverse (with issues) is quite attractive and carries more weight than the reverse in most peoples view.

 

If it failed to bean it's because of the rim damage.

 

 

[Raisethis2]

PCGS and NGC used a hybrid grading technique more closely guarded than Col. Sanders Kentucky Fried Chicken recipe.

 

It is WE, the buying public resigned to using the ANA Grading Standards because they won't let us see what's in the vault.

 

hehehehe

[Hard Times]

PCGS and NGC used a hybrid grading technique more closely guarded than Col. Sanders Kentucky Fried Chicken recipe.

 

It is WE, the buying public resigned to using the ANA Grading Standards because they won't let us see what's in the vault.

 

hehehehe

 

Eat mor chikin'?

 

[Hard Times]

Nice evaluation raise2 - if you are referring to the line coming out of the dentils and down to the right above the head, that is a die crack, that is one thing we can't say for sure from images and must verify in hand, but there is a very tiny nick just below the end of the die crack, is that what you are referring to instead?

 

Best, HT

[Tradedollarnut]

I like the concept of trying to determine whether a coin is bean worthy based upon the known criteria set out by CAC and with the help of the posters observations as a guide. I think we can all learn some through these exercises (photo limitations not withstanding).

 

Accordingly I have an 1877 CC Dime in MS 64 condition. It has golden toning that's stronger near the rims with plenty of luster which is unbroken. I see a tiny bit of disturbance on the left side obverse field and just above and right of the head, a tiny tick. There is an obvious rim hit at 5 o'clock on the obverse. The obverse looks to be a bit PL.

 

The reverse without question is solid and high end MS 64 or MS 65 material with no distracting post minting issues. The area at 12 o'clock in the field is however a little orange peeled.

 

I'd give the coin a green bean because the reverse is MS 65 IMO and the obverse (with issues) is quite attractive and carries more weight than the reverse in most peoples view.

 

If it failed to bean it's because of the rim damage.

 

 

I'm sorry, but no. If it failed to bean it was for lackluster luster.

 

I have stated many times that the coins collectors overgrade the most are ones with clean fields but diminished luster and missing mint bloom on the devices.

[MarkFeld]

I like the concept of trying to determine whether a coin is bean worthy based upon the known criteria set out by CAC and with the help of the posters observations as a guide. I think we can all learn some through these exercises (photo limitations not withstanding).

 

Accordingly I have an 1877 CC Dime in MS 64 condition. It has golden toning that's stronger near the rims with plenty of luster which is unbroken. I see a tiny bit of disturbance on the left side obverse field and just above and right of the head, a tiny tick. There is an obvious rim hit at 5 o'clock on the obverse. The obverse looks to be a bit PL.

 

The reverse without question is solid and high end MS 64 or MS 65 material with no distracting post minting issues. The area at 12 o'clock in the field is however a little orange peeled.

 

I'd give the coin a green bean because the reverse is MS 65 IMO and the obverse (with issues) is quite attractive and carries more weight than the reverse in most peoples view.

 

If it failed to bean it's because of the rim damage.

 

 

I'm sorry, but no. If it failed to bean it was for lackluster luster. ....

 

That would be my feeling, as well.

[Catbert]

Obviously, the stated reason for the bean is to mark those coins that JA (and team) believe are A or B coins for the grade. However, it is helpful to also consider that JA is making a determination whether he will "make a market" for that coin (buy the coin if presented to him). Perhaps then it may not always be a strict interpretation of the coin's grade assessment involved for a particular coin but may also include whether he's willing to commit to buying a coin based on his perception of its value on the market against his buy price if stickered.

[lcoopie]

grading cannot be accurately done by photograph IMO

 

and

 

subtleties of grading certainly cannot IMO

 

 

[BROADSTRUCK]

PCGS and NGC used a hybrid grading technique more closely guarded than Col. Sanders Kentucky Fried Chicken recipe.

 

It is WE, the buying public resigned to using the ANA Grading Standards because they won't let us see what's in the vault.

 

hehehehe

 

Sounds more like the Krabby Patty Formula

 

[BROADSTRUCK]

HT,

 

Below is the MS67 77-CC from Coinfacts which has also been dipped but is still somewhat lustrous as it hasn't been dipped out by multiple trips to the jar.

 

This example however wasn't properly neutralized after it was dipped and now has dip brownish residue forming on both sides.

 

Getting back to your example...

 

It isn't so much about right or wrong plastic but understanding which coins fair better grading wise at each of the services due to surface conditions.

 

[JVC]

My understanding is that CAC will give a green bean sticker for A and B coins. From my experience with CAC, A and B coins do not represent 67% of any coin series. I normally submit Morgan Dollars MS 64 to MS 65 and I cherry pick my submissions. My success rate is approximately 60% for MS 65 and 80% for MS 64. The more expensive the coin the more difficult it is to obtain a CAC sticker.

[jom]

It isn't so much about right or wrong plastic but understanding which coins fair better grading wise at each of the services due to surface conditions.

 

Which it makes it all rather incomprehensible when you come down to it. We all try to do our best dealing with all of these potential grading "standards" but sometimes you have to step back and laugh at the whole thing. "What have I gotten myself into" kind of thing.

 

Grading is just an opinion, expert opinion from the TPGs and CAC but an opinion nonetheless. It's not human error that creates these issues...it's human differences in most cases.

 

jom

[Hard Times]

Game, set, match goes to TDN as the first to recognize what was likely the key issue for this 64. Must be the reduced luster because:

 

'Not CAC'

 

For 64's JA and his crew must want more luster than this one gives. Like I said, it has a nice cartwheel but does not boom, either from multiple dips or just wasn't a great booming luster when minted (?). The coin shows evidence for die rust around the edges and one small die break, some clashes on both sides, so the die was not new when the dime was struck - to the experts, would this result in less mint bloom? Look at the image Broadie shows, I am capable of imaging luster like that and mine does not have it and though his example is a 67 I am thinking more luster is necessary for JA and his crew to like it in a 64. This is also a lesson of seeing the coin in hand as the images from the auction house would have never been good enough to determine the state of the luster. Nevertheless I like the coin, and it was one of 3 of the 10 that I did not expect to be beaned but would have been pleasantly pleased if it had - you never know for sure until you send it in.

 

Best, HT

 

I will put up the next one tomorrow.

[AnkurJ]

[dimefreak]

Although I agree with TDN and Mark about the luster aspect in regard to TPG grading I personally put more weight into clean surfaces. Of course this is just my opinion or personal preference. Blazing original luster is your key with TPG's. That's reason number one id never compete in the mercury registry... that's a little coin so marks on the coin make a big impression....over looking marks because of amazing luster is hard for me to accept. But once again, that's my preference and clearly not the preference of TPG's

[Kurtdog]

Interesting, yes I just confirmed on the NGC website that they do not make any claim to using a particular published grading standard. However, if you go to PCGS Photograde, the images for each grade of each type of coin pretty much follow the ANA grading standards best I can tell. If they are not applying such standards, where collectors can go to a book, read them, view the Photograde images online, then how can anyone learn to grade NGC or PCGS style without effectively seeing trillions of coins which is nigh impossible to do as a collector with a full time job? Troubling....

 

Without any other mechanism to evaluate grading, I think I will go by the ANA grading standards. With respect to proofs tho' I have no idea since I don't own a single one.

 

Best, HT

I hope you're sitting down for this. They don't know themselves what standards they're applying. If they did, they could tell you.

[Hard Times]

Interesting, yes I just confirmed on the NGC website that they do not make any claim to using a particular published grading standard. However, if you go to PCGS Photograde, the images for each grade of each type of coin pretty much follow the ANA grading standards best I can tell. If they are not applying such standards, where collectors can go to a book, read them, view the Photograde images online, then how can anyone learn to grade NGC or PCGS style without effectively seeing trillions of coins which is nigh impossible to do as a collector with a full time job? Troubling....

 

Without any other mechanism to evaluate grading, I think I will go by the ANA grading standards. With respect to proofs tho' I have no idea since I don't own a single one.

 

Best, HT

I hope you're sitting down for this. They don't know themselves what standards they're applying. If they did, they could tell you.

 

yup you be right me thinks.

[Kurtdog]

PCGS and NGC used a hybrid grading technique more closely guarded than Col. Sanders Kentucky Fried Chicken recipe.

 

It is WE, the buying public resigned to using the ANA Grading Standards because they won't let us see what's in the vault.

 

hehehehe

So it's a secret? Let me tell you what their only secret is. It's that collectors by and large are still so dense we still don't understand that market grading based on "eye appeal" as opposed to technical grading based on condition is an arbitrary system which takes meaningful collector participation out of the hobby and reduces us to but passive investors. Which, coincidently, is exactly where they want it.