• 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.

I have a CAC question

Started by copper toning,

57 posts in this topic

$ilverHawk

$ilverHawk

Posted
Posted

Here you go. The Norweb coin, if it is in fact the coin in question was originally graded PR63. I don't believe the coin in question is the Norweb Proof as refereed to by TDN. Coin in question is in an early date PCGS PR64 holder.

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1189&lotNo=6433&type=NGC1189

Link to comment
Share on other sites
$ilverHawk

$ilverHawk

Posted
Posted
Serious collectors don't rely on auction houses to do all their research for them

 

Nice aside. I respectively disagree on your grade assessment of the coin in question and the 1829 NGC PR66 O-108 R8.

 

Care to share with this forum the Norweb pedigree you attribute to the coin in question?

 

"O-108 PR63. Norweb Collection (Bowers and Merena, 11/1988), lot 3095"

 

Perhaps there is another Norweb 1829 Proof?

 

Carl

Link to comment
Share on other sites
$ilverHawk

$ilverHawk

Posted
Posted
Serious collectors don't rely on auction houses to do all their research for them

 

This.

 

Kenny, respectfully, exactly what research has TDN offered to support his statement that the coin in question was in fact from the Norweb collection? More importantly have you looked at any of the example coins that I cited?

 

Carl

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tradedollarnut

Tradedollarnut

Posted
Posted

Ah, I see you know how to use the PCGS auction prices realized. /eyeroll

 

How about it exactly matches the plate in the Norweb catalog - I did that myself because I recognized the look of the coin. Because I have a near photographic memory of what coins I have seen in hand and in all the auction catalogs in my library. It was cataloged as a 63/64 and the price realized at the time corresponds to a superb gem. The CAC gold sticker corresponds to a gem. The price realized tonight corresponds to a gem. Laura thought it was a gem.

 

How many data points do you need before you accept it actually IS a gem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman_23885

coinman_23885

Posted
Posted
Serious collectors don't rely on auction houses to do all their research for them

 

This.

 

Kenny, respectfully, exactly what research has TDN offered to support his statement that the coin in question was in fact from the Norweb collection? More importantly have you looked at any of the example coins that I cited?

 

Carl

 

1. If the coin in question is not the Norweb coin, then I think it compares favorably to the Norweb coin based on images of the coin available in the public domain. The fact that the coin is in a ratter doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility that it is the coin; I believe rattlers were phased out in 1989 well after the 1988 Norweb sale.

 

2. The agreement expressed was with his general statement about not relying on the presence or absence of pedigree information from auction houses. It wouldn't be the first time that a coin from a notable pedigree was sold without including the relevant pedigree in the auction description. For instance, I have known of at least 2-3 coins from the Lovejoy collection of dimes that were not attributed as such by the respective auction house(s) that matched the plates of the coins from the 1990 catalog. Based on this, I agree about one doing his or her homework before buying a coin, to include potential pedigree information. The agreement was not specifically targeted to your post or the coin at hand.

 

Edited to add: Trying to compare images in a web browser is a pain. I actually discovered the source of the images I was comparing the coin to. Upon closer examination, the coins are not an exact match. Also, there are two Norweb coins, see subsequent post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman_23885

coinman_23885

Posted
Posted

1829 Proof Half Dollars

 

O-108 PR 63. Norweb Collection (Bowers and Merena, 11/1988), lot 3095.

 

O-112 PR 63 NGC. Norweb Collection (Bowers and Merena, 11/1988), lot 3097; Bowers and Merena (11/2002), lot 1463.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
See what the gold bean 1829 half sold for in Heritage tonite?

 

Was the Gold Bean the market maker or the fact that this coin was R8 as proof? This coin sold for $102,812.50. PCGS price guide says $110,000 as PR65 R value not stated. Auction records show 9/29/2013 1829 NGC PF65 $55,812 R8 and 1/14/13 1829 NGC PF66 $58,750 R4.

 

I have no idea of what the buyer is thinking. I compared the Heritage images of the coin in question and find the 1829 NGC PF65 R8 more appealing. Just my opinion.

 

Blessings on the buyer. But paying almost double based on a Gold Bean--I don't think so.

 

Carl

 

I think the coin brought the price that it did because, in-hand, it looked like a PR65+ to me. And is one of the finer and more obvious Proof Capped Bust half dollars I have seen.

 

That aside, making comparisons based on images (for Proof coins, among others), will often lead to faulty conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tradedollarnut

Tradedollarnut

Posted
Posted

Note the following:

 

The spot to the upper right of star 7

Three spots in an arc to the right of star $

The dimple to the left of the 1 in the date

The rim toning patterns match exactly

The spot below her clasp

The spot to the bottom left of star 2

Weak strike on star 8

The spot in front of her forehead

All the spots in the right field

 

Need I go on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman_23885

coinman_23885

Posted
Posted
I was there last member.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. I learned about CAC's deadline for closing regular collector submissions and actually requested my form in the afternoon on the last day of the deadline. It was returned a day or two later, and was accepted since it had been requested by the cut-off. I think I may have beat you for that "honor". :roflmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kurtdog

Kurtdog

Posted
Posted
The coin in question IS the Norweb coin. I matched multiple areas of toning, spots and marks. It is absolutely a fact that you can take to the bank.

 

1601049_10201933513992093_1186602778_n.jpg

1017353_10201933559953242_1352633784_n.jpg

I'm seeing the same coin. I'm seeing just a more advanced carbon spot under the knot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jom

jom

Posted
Posted
I joined CAC it self I think NOV. of 2011, what does that have to do when you joined? You lost me on that one

 

I think you just lost me. :D

 

All I said (and it isn't a big deal) I joined CAC itself less than 2 years ago so they must have been open to members LESS than 2.5 years ago which is what you mentioned as being the last time they let in new members. Unless I read your original post incorrectly. BTW, my response earlier had NOTHING to do with their forum.

 

It should be noted that CAC was closed to new members for a time before that, opened up for a short period, then I guess closed it again.

 

Whatever...it isn't a big deal.

 

jom

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
copper toning

copper toning

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Let's say you send a coin to CAC in X grade. In this grade the coin is valued at $1000

 

The said coin gets the coveted gold bean.

 

The next grade up is valued at $5000

 

What is CAC's buying price?

 

Getting a little of topic so let's rephrase the question

 

I always thought that cac was assessing the grade applied by the top tpgs. From some reading I have done recently I am begining to think (right or wrong help me understand) that cac is designating a value that they would buy the coin at.

 

In theory if a coin is valued at $1000 in a NGC holder at 65 . In a pcgs holder the coin is valued a $2000. Will the exact same coin be more likely to green bean in one holder vs the other.

 

We have all seen plenty of coins cross one way or the other at the same grade.

 

Thanks Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites
$ilverHawk

$ilverHawk

Posted
Posted
See what the gold bean 1829 half sold for in Heritage tonite?

 

Was the Gold Bean the market maker or the fact that this coin was R8 as proof? This coin sold for $102,812.50. PCGS price guide says $110,000 as PR65 R value not stated. Auction records show 9/29/2013 1829 NGC PF65 $55,812 R8 and 1/14/13 1829 NGC PF66 $58,750 R4.

 

I have no idea of what the buyer is thinking. I compared the Heritage images of the coin in question and find the 1829 NGC PF65 R8 more appealing. Just my opinion.

 

Blessings on the buyer. But paying almost double based on a Gold Bean--I don't think so.

 

Carl

 

I think the coin brought the price that it did because, in-hand, it looked like a PR65+ to me. And is one of the finer and more obvious Proof Capped Bust half dollars I have seen.

 

That aside, making comparisons based on images (for Proof coins, among others), will often lead to faulty conclusions.

 

You examined the coin in hand and I do not doubt your opinion. I am sure the coin is a gem PF65+. Were you able to see the 1829 NGC PF65 O-108 or 1829 NGC PF66 O-107, in-hand? My comment is based on the selling price of the 1829 NGC PF65 O-108 and the 1829 NGC PF66 O-107.

 

Is the coin in question so superior to the other examples that it would bring almost double the price? Are the NGC examples questionable as to whether or not they are true proofs? I mention this because you brought up the point that comparing images of Proof coins will often lead to faulty conclusions. Of course you may also mean that my grading eye may be a bit off. Particularly when it comes to coins of this rarity.

 

Carl

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
Let's say you send a coin to CAC in X grade. In this grade the coin is valued at $1000

 

The said coin gets the coveted gold bean.

 

The next grade up is valued at $5000

 

What is CAC's buying price?

 

Getting a little of topic so let's rephrase the question

 

I always thought that cac was assessing the grade applied by the top tpgs. From some reading I have done recently I am begining to think (right or wrong help me understand) that cac is designating a value that they would buy the coin at.

 

In theory if a coin is valued at $1000 in a NGC holder at 65 . In a pcgs holder the coin is valued a $2000. Will the exact same coin be more likely to green bean in one holder vs the other.

 

We have all seen plenty of coins cross one way or the other at the same grade.

 

Thanks Jim

 

If the coin meets CAC's standards, they will stricker it. And that's regardless of any (perceived) differences in value between NGC and PCGS examples of that coin.

 

All things being equal, I don't think CAC is more predisposed to sticker a PCGS coin that it is an NGC one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
See what the gold bean 1829 half sold for in Heritage tonite?

 

Was the Gold Bean the market maker or the fact that this coin was R8 as proof? This coin sold for $102,812.50. PCGS price guide says $110,000 as PR65 R value not stated. Auction records show 9/29/2013 1829 NGC PF65 $55,812 R8 and 1/14/13 1829 NGC PF66 $58,750 R4.

 

I have no idea of what the buyer is thinking. I compared the Heritage images of the coin in question and find the 1829 NGC PF65 R8 more appealing. Just my opinion.

 

Blessings on the buyer. But paying almost double based on a Gold Bean--I don't think so.

 

Carl

 

I think the coin brought the price that it did because, in-hand, it looked like a PR65+ to me. And is one of the finer and more obvious Proof Capped Bust half dollars I have seen.

 

That aside, making comparisons based on images (for Proof coins, among others), will often lead to faulty conclusions.

 

You examined the coin in hand and I do not doubt your opinion. I am sure the coin is a gem PF65+. Were you able to see the 1829 NGC PF65 O-108 or 1829 NGC PF66 O-107, in-hand? My comment is based on the selling price of the 1829 NGC PF65 O-108 and the 1829 NGC PF66 O-107.

 

Is the coin in question so superior to the other examples that it would bring almost double the price? Are the NGC examples questionable as to whether or not they are true proofs? I mention this because you brought up the point that comparing images of Proof coins will often lead to faulty conclusions. Of course you may also mean that my grading eye may be a bit off. Particularly when it comes to coins of this rarity.

 

Carl

 

 

Carl, I did not view the other examples you asked about, so I cannot comment on them.

 

And I was not speaking about your grading eye. But rather, the fact that of all coins, Proofs are probably the most difficult/futile to grade/assess from images.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
Mark do you know if CAC has its own price guide or a published set of standards?

 

I am going to assume no since I did not find this information on the website.

 

Thanks Jim

 

Jim, they do not have a published set of standards. Nor do they have their own price guide. They do, however, post a multitude of bids for CAC coins on one or more electronic trading networks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
$ilverHawk

$ilverHawk

Posted
Posted
Let's say you send a coin to CAC in X grade. In this grade the coin is valued at $1000

 

The said coin gets the coveted gold bean.

 

The next grade up is valued at $5000

 

What is CAC's buying price?

 

Getting a little of topic so let's rephrase the question

 

I always thought that cac was assessing the grade applied by the top tpgs. From some reading I have done recently I am begining to think (right or wrong help me understand) that cac is designating a value that they would buy the coin at.

 

In theory if a coin is valued at $1000 in a NGC holder at 65 . In a pcgs holder the coin is valued a $2000. Will the exact same coin be more likely to green bean in one holder vs the other.

 

We have all seen plenty of coins cross one way or the other at the same grade.

 

Thanks Jim

 

First, let me apologize for side tracking your thread.

 

Second, It is my understanding that the CAC bean (Green or Gold) means that CAC will be an active bidder in the market for the stickered coin. If there is a market value difference between a NGC and PCGS coin in the same grade, that will not influence whether the coin receives a green bean. Rather CAC is looking at the marketability of the coin, CAC doesn't care about perceived grading differences between TPG s.

 

In my opinion CAC is the epitome of market grading.

 

Carl

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wheat'swheats

wheat'swheats

Posted
Posted
Let's say you send a coin to CAC in X grade. In this grade the coin is valued at $1000

 

The said coin gets the coveted gold bean.

 

The next grade up is valued at $5000

 

What is CAC's buying price?

 

Getting a little of topic so let's rephrase the question

 

I always thought that cac was assessing the grade applied by the top tpgs. From some reading I have done recently I am begining to think (right or wrong help me understand) that cac is designating a value that they would buy the coin at.

 

In theory if a coin is valued at $1000 in a NGC holder at 65 . In a pcgs holder the coin is valued a $2000. Will the exact same coin be more likely to green bean in one holder vs the other.

 

We have all seen plenty of coins cross one way or the other at the same grade.

 

Thanks Jim

 

First, let me apologize for side tracking your thread.

 

Second, It is my understanding that the CAC bean (Green or Gold) means that CAC will be an active bidder in the market for the stickered coin. If there is a market value difference between a NGC and PCGS coin in the same grade, that will not influence whether the coin receives a green bean. Rather CAC is looking at the marketability of the coin, CAC doesn't care about perceived grading differences between TPG s.

 

In my opinion CAC is the epitome of market grading.

 

Carl

Of all the coins that I have sold to CAC they have been about 10 -15 percent above ask

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing