FROM THE CAC GRADING ROOM...... PART 4

[Kurtdog]

From the photo, it looks like an ordinary EF. BTW - "price" should have no bearing on assigning a "grade."

The subject at hand is whether or not the coin received a CAC sticker - which has a lot to do with how the market values said coin...ie price. If JA wants to buy it at the value assigned, he's gonna sticker it.

Roger addressed the subject at hand in his first sentence when he called this coin an ordinary EF. In his second sentence, he just said what he thinks should be.

 

Go pick on your own experts, we protect ours over here.

[FishyOne]

From the photo, it looks like an ordinary EF. BTW - "price" should have no bearing on assigning a "grade."

 

I agree completely that price should have no bearing on assigning a "grade". As tradedollarnut noted, and the reality of market grading is, price does influence the assigned grade.

 

No need to reiterate the market vs. technical grading argument but when technical grading price has almost no bearing when assigning a grade.

[Coinbuf]

I say this did not bean, the toning looks like secondary toning and might indicate an old cleaning. I know that old cleanings for coins like this are viewed differently but that could have an impact on beanability.

[Kurtdog]

From the photo, it looks like an ordinary EF. BTW - "price" should have no bearing on assigning a "grade."

I agree completely that price should have no bearing on assigning a "grade". As tradedollarnut noted, and the reality of market grading is, price does influence the assigned grade.

 

No need to reiterate the market vs. technical grading argument but when technical grading price has almost no bearing when assigning a grade.

In my view, grading is about one thing, condition. Or, it should be. You put tarnish on a coin, it doesn't change the grade. You put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. I may pay a little more for it, but that's it. For the coin, I mean.

[Hard Times]

Well folks, nice debate. Here is how I determine where I think a coin's grade should be in a holder. I go to auction records for the same type, mint and year, and look at the coins in grades above, below, and within the same grade. Then I go to PCGS photograde online. What I am striving to find out is how the TPG's have graded the related coins. With this in mind, having done this for this coin, there is no question, for how the TPG's are grading 1843-O mint quarters, this is a solid XF45, not a 40, or a 50. In fact, I would take this XF45 over pretty much all the others for 1843-O in NGC and PCGS holders for this grade on heritages auction records. That is why I bought because I think it is a fine coin for the grade for that type, mint, and year.

 

The other point to make and repeat here, one can't judge luster very well from images of circulated coins. There are several photographers who seem to be able to do this perfectly, I can't, yet. Sometimes I capture it correctly, sometimes I don't. So you will have to take my word for the luster when I describe it. In most cases I place two lights at 45 degrees left and right of north. If you look carefully at the 1843-O in the first post of this thread, you will see more 'sparkle' near the rims at 90 degree intervals consistent with this light set up - that is the luster coming through.

 

Finally, FYI, this coin DID NOT PASS. I simply don't know why, it was one that I was a shoe in for a bean.

 

I think Bruce has said if perfectly, if JA would buy a coin, he would bean it. So what we are trying to do here is strive to determine what JA would buy. It is clear after going through this, there are consistent traits for which JA and his team like in a coin. It is not always the same traits I like as I am finding out. Sometimes it is though.

 

I will post another XF45 O mint seated quarter this weekend, right now I am at FUN (yippee!) and will focus on that.

 

Best, HT

[Kurtdog]

I believe they're a little more particular, now, than when they started out. I believe they're doing more "branding," now, than simply, "good for the grade." If that makes sense...

[FishyOne]

 

...Finally, FYI, this coin DID NOT PASS. I simply don't know why, it was one that I was a shoe in for a bean...

 

Best, HT

 

Good comments all. Thanks HT. I've had 2 coins out of around 100 submitted to CAC that I disagreed with the non-bean and there's been a few that I thought were very iffy that did bean. My "success" rate at CAC is around 70% and all the other coins that did not pass I could agree with whether I liked it or not.

 

I agree it's more about what they like rather than true A & B coins in some cases.

 

 

[orifdoc]

Interesting. As I said before, I'd be happy to own this particular coin.

 

I agree that the whole "We sticker A & B coins for grade" is a bunch of baloney......

 

Perhaps stated more correctly, CAC might sticker coins they consider to be A or B, but their definition of A & B is different than many others, including that of graders at PCGS and NGC (there are plenty of "plus" grade coins that don't sticker).

 

Personally, I think they either like a coin or don't. If they "like" it, they will sticker it within a reasonable grade window. A coin they don't like would often not sticker at a grade or even two grades lower. A coin they do like would sometimes sticker even at a grade or possibly two grades higher. There's anecdotal evidence to support this.

 

It's a potential weakness IMO to be dependent on such a small pool of graders. Little personal biases can exert a greater than intended effect on the market, especially at the upper end where most coins get CAC reviewed.

[RWB]

I think Bruce has said if perfectly, if JA would buy a coin, he would bean it. So what we are trying to do here is strive to determine what JA would buy.

 

Curious approach - highly biased and subjective.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I think Bruce has said if perfectly, if JA would buy a coin, he would bean it. So what we are trying to do here is strive to determine what JA would buy.

 

Curious approach - highly biased and subjective.

 

...which some would say is the definition of Grading.

[RWB]

...not a value judgement - just a statement.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

...not a value judgement - just a statement.

 

...you still managed to sneak in "value" judgment in the statement...

[Kurtdog]

I think Bruce has said if perfectly, if JA would buy a coin, he would bean it. So what we are trying to do here is strive to determine what JA would buy.

 

Curious approach - highly biased and subjective.

Well sure it is. But that's "market grading." How do you "grade" tarnish, Roger, but by pure emotions? I know they try to intellectualize the experience, but really. When we're grading on condition, we at least have our heads in the game. I'll bet I can pick any untarnished MS64 Morgan Dollar off Heritage right now and show it and nine out of ten of us will get the grade right on the bean. Add tarnish, and it's anybody's guess.

 

The bottom line, like I said, is CAC is a brand. NGC and PCGS are brands. Brands represent expectations of quality. Emeril Lagasse starts cutting corners on quality and who is going to continue to pay a premium for his frying pans? The same goes, here. This is the CAC brand. CAC determines the level of quality that goes into the brand. Not you, I, or anybody else. We don't like it, don't buy the brand. Certainly don't pay a premium for it.

[mkman123]

HT, I believe that its possible to call and talk to JA and ask why a coin didnt pass........how about you call them and ask and then post their response?

[Hard Times]

mkman, while that is a good idea by now they have seen probably another 1000 coins, I would guess by now any particular example that far back would be gone out of their minds.

 

I am just back from FUN. I discussed with several prominent dealers what it takes to CAC and it is very clear that JA and his team are very particular with respect to types of toning. One dealer very close and working with the CAC grading team told me that only 20% of all seated coinage passing through CAC are beaned. So I don't feel too bad. This dealer also said that only 40% of all coinage passing through CAC are being beaned. This dealer himself is batting 95%. I won't mention his name because this information is second hand.

 

My first 10 coins to CAC we have been talking about here are back in my hands.

 

I will add the following:

 

1877-CC dime - some folks thought it was poor in luster from the image of mine (sorry about that). It has luster that flashes brightly as a cartwheel under the light clearly worthy of 64. Better luster than the 1857-O dime in the same grade that beaned. Why it did not bean is still a mystery to me. JA I am told is generally not liking near blast white 19th century silver unless it has particular characteristics. This one apparently did not meet that.

 

1843-O quarter in this thread. YES MARK FELD, I SAID CARTWHEEL LUSTER UNDER THE LIGHT, AND I STAND BY THAT AFTER SEEING IT IN HAND AGAIN.

 

What some of the prominent dealers told me is that coins with nice toning like this one get beaned if they are reslabbed a grade down, in this case, that would be 45 to 40. What some of were concerned about was that it was likely a 40 in wear. That seems to be the reason why this one did not bean - overgraded perhaps.

 

I will post the next 45 seated quarter this weekend.

 

Best, HT