What is your opinion of this Bust Half?

[mkman123]

I don't get it..........the coins Hard Times posted, they looked great and didn't have anything distracting like a scratch,etc and no CAC. This has a prominent scratch and gets a CAC.

 

Is CAC biased towards NGC coins?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

HT: does the scratch on this coin bother you as well? It should if the one on the bust half does.

 

How about here?

 

Yes, both of those scratches are big enough that I would pass on them, much less call them premium for the grade. The dollar's pictures are taken in such a way as to emphasize the toning - surface condition is nearly impossible to tell. However, I'll bet if the pictures were taken from a different lighting angle, or viewed in hand, the scratch is much more significant than it appears here.

 

Concerning the original coin you posted, and the questions and opinions concerning same, why is the coin not deserving of a Grade of 45? Why is CAC incorrect?

 

Is a scratch not allowed on a 45? Is the scratch to long? If it were a few shorter scratches, would that be acceptable for a 45? Without the scratch, what would the Grade of the coin be? You may not like the coin...fair enough. But, why is PCGS and CAC incorrect, other than some people don't like the scratch at the Grade of 45? You were somewhat adamant that CAC was wrong, by your phrasing. There is nothing wrong with your opinion. But, why is the Grade wrong?

 

Does the CAC evaluation signify it is the best of the best at that Grade? Is that what the CAC evaluation is supposed to mean with the color sticker it received?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I don't get it..........the coins Hard Times posted, they looked great and didn't have anything distracting like a scratch,etc and no CAC. This has a prominent scratch and gets a CAC.

 

Is CAC biased towards NGC coins?

 

I don't interpret any bias.

[Hard Times]

Mkman, that is why I gave up posting my coins that went to CAC, it is nothing to do with NGC vs. PCGS, but they have decided what types of toning they are going to bean, and many of the coins I have, which to me have tremendous eye appeal, did not bean. Be forewarned, we are going to probably hear from many informed numismatists that this coin below could not have toned under natural conditions and look like this. I can't say one way or the other given all of the variables in surroundings a coin is exposed to during a coins lifetime whether this is natural or not. PCGS considered it to be market acceptable, JA probably did not. But no major scratches

 

Best, HT

 

 

 

 

[coinman1794]

HT: does the scratch on this coin bother you as well? It should if the one on the bust half does.

 

How about here?

 

Yes, both of those scratches are big enough that I would pass on them, much less call them premium for the grade. The dollar's pictures are taken in such a way as to emphasize the toning - surface condition is nearly impossible to tell. However, I'll bet if the pictures were taken from a different lighting angle, or viewed in hand, the scratch is much more significant than it appears here.

 

 

 

Does the CAC evaluation signify it is the best of the best at that Grade? Is that what the CAC evaluation is supposed to mean with the color sticker it received?

 

CAC gives a green sticker to coins that are center for the grade, as well as those that are high-end for the grade...another word for center is average

[MarkFeld]

Mkman, that is why I gave up posting my coins that went to CAC, it is nothing to do with NGC vs. PCGS, but they have decided what types of toning they are going to bean, and many of the coins I have, which to me have tremendous eye appeal, did not bean. Be forewarned, we are going to probably hear from many informed numismatists that this coin below could not have toned under natural conditions and look like this. I can't say one way or the other given all of the variables in surroundings a coin is exposed to during a coins lifetime whether this is natural or not. PCGS considered it to be market acceptable, JA probably did not. But no major scratches

 

Best, HT

 

 

 

 

It sounds as if you're assuming CAC would not or did not sticker the coin, due to its toning. I would bet that they would not or did not have a problem with the toning.

 

And speaking of problems, unless you hear from CAC precisely why they declined to sticker a coin, you're merely guessing. And you might be way off base on our guess.

[MarkFeld]

HT: does the scratch on this coin bother you as well? It should if the one on the bust half does.

 

How about here?

 

Yes, both of those scratches are big enough that I would pass on them, much less call them premium for the grade. The dollar's pictures are taken in such a way as to emphasize the toning - surface condition is nearly impossible to tell. However, I'll bet if the pictures were taken from a different lighting angle, or viewed in hand, the scratch is much more significant than it appears here.

 

Concerning the original coin you posted, and the questions and opinions concerning same, why is the coin not deserving of a Grade of 45? Why is CAC incorrect?

 

Is a scratch not allowed on a 45? Is the scratch to long? If it were a few shorter scratches, would that be acceptable for a 45? Without the scratch, what would the Grade of the coin be? You may not like the coin...fair enough. But, why is PCGS and CAC incorrect, other than some people don't like the scratch at the Grade of 45? You were somewhat adamant that CAC was wrong, by your phrasing. There is nothing wrong with your opinion. But, why is the Grade wrong?

 

Does the CAC evaluation signify it is the best of the best at that Grade? Is that what the CAC evaluation is supposed to mean with the color sticker it received?

 

One of the things I learned as a grader and have kept in mind, is that a coin can be accurately graded and you need not like it. Likewise, just because you don't like a coin does not mean that it's graded incorrectly.

[Buffalo Head]

GORGEOUS!!

[Hard Times]

Mkman, that is why I gave up posting my coins that went to CAC, it is nothing to do with NGC vs. PCGS, but they have decided what types of toning they are going to bean, and many of the coins I have, which to me have tremendous eye appeal, did not bean. Be forewarned, we are going to probably hear from many informed numismatists that this coin below could not have toned under natural conditions and look like this. I can't say one way or the other given all of the variables in surroundings a coin is exposed to during a coins lifetime whether this is natural or not. PCGS considered it to be market acceptable, JA probably did not. But no major scratches

 

Best, HT

 

 

 

 

It sounds as if you're assuming CAC would not or did not sticker the coin, due to its toning. I would bet that they would not or did not have a problem with the toning.

 

And speaking of problems, unless you hear from CAC precisely why they declined to sticker a coin, you're merely guessing. And you might be way off base on our guess.

 

YOu are absolutely correct Mark. One dealer told me it was the toning, one said they had no idea, and of course, CAC does not list why on the invoice so I could be way off base, which is frustrating....

 

Best, HT

[coinman1794]

I wonder if it could be a touch of hidden friction on the cheek, under the toning, near that apparent tick mark?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

HT: does the scratch on this coin bother you as well? It should if the one on the bust half does.

 

How about here?

 

Yes, both of those scratches are big enough that I would pass on them, much less call them premium for the grade. The dollar's pictures are taken in such a way as to emphasize the toning - surface condition is nearly impossible to tell. However, I'll bet if the pictures were taken from a different lighting angle, or viewed in hand, the scratch is much more significant than it appears here.

 

 

 

Does the CAC evaluation signify it is the best of the best at that Grade? Is that what the CAC evaluation is supposed to mean with the color sticker it received?

 

 

 

CAC gives a green sticker to coins that are center for the grade, as well as those that are high-end for the grade...another word for center is average

 

I think I may have been aware of this, or some version of same.

 

However, I was, and still am, interested in why the OP is adamant that this is not the case. Adamancy of a position is a wonderful thing, especially when it is logical. When it is not, then it is reasonable to question the reason for the position.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

HT: does the scratch on this coin bother you as well? It should if the one on the bust half does.

 

How about here?

 

Yes, both of those scratches are big enough that I would pass on them, much less call them premium for the grade. The dollar's pictures are taken in such a way as to emphasize the toning - surface condition is nearly impossible to tell. However, I'll bet if the pictures were taken from a different lighting angle, or viewed in hand, the scratch is much more significant than it appears here.

 

Concerning the original coin you posted, and the questions and opinions concerning same, why is the coin not deserving of a Grade of 45? Why is CAC incorrect?

 

Is a scratch not allowed on a 45? Is the scratch to long? If it were a few shorter scratches, would that be acceptable for a 45? Without the scratch, what would the Grade of the coin be? You may not like the coin...fair enough. But, why is PCGS and CAC incorrect, other than some people don't like the scratch at the Grade of 45? You were somewhat adamant that CAC was wrong, by your phrasing. There is nothing wrong with your opinion. But, why is the Grade wrong?

 

Does the CAC evaluation signify it is the best of the best at that Grade? Is that what the CAC evaluation is supposed to mean with the color sticker it received?

 

One of the things I learned as a grader and have kept in mind, is that a coin can be accurately graded and you need not like it. Likewise, just because you don't like a coin does not mean that it's graded incorrectly.

 

I think I may have known that, also, or some version of it.

 

What you learned and keep in mind is logical.

 

Adamancy of a position that is absent of reason and logic is, well.... is not logical.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

GORGEOUS!!

 

The coin, the scratch, the Grade, the OP....or all of these?

[yonico]

GORGEOUS!!

 

The coin, the scratch, the Grade, the OP....or all of these?

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Mkman, that is why I gave up posting my coins that went to CAC, it is nothing to do with NGC vs. PCGS, but they have decided what types of toning they are going to bean, and many of the coins I have, which to me have tremendous eye appeal, did not bean. Be forewarned, we are going to probably hear from many informed numismatists that this coin below could not have toned under natural conditions and look like this. I can't say one way or the other given all of the variables in surroundings a coin is exposed to during a coins lifetime whether this is natural or not. PCGS considered it to be market acceptable, JA probably did not. But no major scratches

 

Best, HT

 

 

 

 

It sounds as if you're assuming CAC would not or did not sticker the coin, due to its toning. I would bet that they would not or did not have a problem with the toning.

 

And speaking of problems, unless you hear from CAC precisely why they declined to sticker a coin, you're merely guessing. And you might be way off base on our guess.

 

YOu are absolutely correct Mark. One dealer told me it was the toning, one said they had no idea, and of course, CAC does not list why on the invoice so I could be way off base, which is frustrating....

 

Best, HT

 

Considering this answer to Mr. Feld, is it possible that the same kind of logical thought could apply to the scratched coin, and it may just be that a Grade of 45 is not unreasonable for the coin?

[$ilverHawk]

HT: does the scratch on this coin bother you as well? It should if the one on the bust half does.

 

 

How about here?

 

 

Ankur, I don't agree with you regarding the two examples you posted. The first example has a field scratch in the right Obverse field, not as deep as the example coin. The second example has a scratch on the Reverse. Primary focus for field issues is usually the left, facing field. Reverse field/device issues are secondary.

 

That being said, It is my understanding that most posters are missing the reason for a CAC green sticker. The CAC green sticker means that CAC is willing to make a market in the coin that they stickered. That means CAC will actively bid to buy. Nothing more.

 

If there are surface issues, fine. At the grade assigned and stickered, CAC is an active buyer.

 

Anyone can disagree with the TPG grade and the CAC sticker for technical reasons. The CAC sticker says that this is a marketable coin at the assigned grade.

 

BTW, I would not buy this coin. I find the Obverse scratch to be distracting.

 

Carl

 

 

 

 

[Hard Times]

I wonder if it could be a touch of hidden friction on the cheek, under the toning, near that apparent tick mark?

 

The dealer I asked about this coin is pretty astute to what CAC likes and does not, he said it was the toning. I looked at it again, besides the tick, no other apparent friction. So despite Mark being correct that we don't know why it failed, I agree with the one dealer who suggested the toning is not what CAC generally likes.

 

Best, HT

[Hard Times]

Mkman, that is why I gave up posting my coins that went to CAC, it is nothing to do with NGC vs. PCGS, but they have decided what types of toning they are going to bean, and many of the coins I have, which to me have tremendous eye appeal, did not bean. Be forewarned, we are going to probably hear from many informed numismatists that this coin below could not have toned under natural conditions and look like this. I can't say one way or the other given all of the variables in surroundings a coin is exposed to during a coins lifetime whether this is natural or not. PCGS considered it to be market acceptable, JA probably did not. But no major scratches

 

Best, HT

 

 

 

 

It sounds as if you're assuming CAC would not or did not sticker the coin, due to its toning. I would bet that they would not or did not have a problem with the toning.

 

And speaking of problems, unless you hear from CAC precisely why they declined to sticker a coin, you're merely guessing. And you might be way off base on our guess.

 

YOu are absolutely correct Mark. One dealer told me it was the toning, one said they had no idea, and of course, CAC does not list why on the invoice so I could be way off base, which is frustrating....

 

Best, HT

 

Considering this answer to Mr. Feld, is it possible that the same kind of logical thought could apply to the scratched coin, and it may just be that a Grade of 45 is not unreasonable for the coin?

 

Absolutely not, because I don't like scratches that are that bad, whether PCGS and CAC does or does not, it appears that they do sometimes accept bad scratches, and therefore I have to pay attention even more when a bean is on the coin since my tastes and theirs in this don't merge. I think they made a big mistake on this coin and I think alot of other astute collectors agree. In the long run, the more mistakes they make, the more their control on the market is going to diminish as collectors have less confidence in what the bean means. That is why I like the idea of PQ stickers, to get a different 4th party grading perspective.

 

I am sure CAC apologists will completely disagree with what I just said, no worries.

 

Best, HT

[MarkFeld]

Mkman, that is why I gave up posting my coins that went to CAC, it is nothing to do with NGC vs. PCGS, but they have decided what types of toning they are going to bean, and many of the coins I have, which to me have tremendous eye appeal, did not bean. Be forewarned, we are going to probably hear from many informed numismatists that this coin below could not have toned under natural conditions and look like this. I can't say one way or the other given all of the variables in surroundings a coin is exposed to during a coins lifetime whether this is natural or not. PCGS considered it to be market acceptable, JA probably did not. But no major scratches

 

Best, HT

 

 

 

 

It sounds as if you're assuming CAC would not or did not sticker the coin, due to its toning. I would bet that they would not or did not have a problem with the toning.

 

And speaking of problems, unless you hear from CAC precisely why they declined to sticker a coin, you're merely guessing. And you might be way off base on our guess.

 

YOu are absolutely correct Mark. One dealer told me it was the toning, one said they had no idea, and of course, CAC does not list why on the invoice so I could be way off base, which is frustrating....

 

Best, HT

 

Considering this answer to Mr. Feld, is it possible that the same kind of logical thought could apply to the scratched coin, and it may just be that a Grade of 45 is not unreasonable for the coin?

 

Absolutely not, because I don't like scratches that are that bad, whether PCGS and CAC does or does not, it appears that they do sometimes accept bad scratches, and therefore I have to pay attention even more when a bean is on the coin since my tastes and theirs in this don't merge. I think they made a big mistake on this coin and I think alot of other astute collectors agree. In the long run, the more mistakes they make, the more their control on the market is going to diminish as collectors have less confidence in what the bean means. That is why I like the idea of PQ stickers, to get a different 4th party grading perspective.

 

I am sure CAC apologists will completely disagree with what I just said, no worries.

 

Best, HT

 

And what will happen when, probably inevitably, eventually, you disagree with a "PQ" sticker? If you see enough of them, it's an excellent bet that you will disagree with some of them - that is the nature of coin grading.

[coinman1794]

I wonder if it could be a touch of hidden friction on the cheek, under the toning, near that apparent tick mark?

 

The dealer I asked about this coin is pretty astute to what CAC likes and does not, he said it was the toning. I looked at it again, besides the tick, no other apparent friction. So despite Mark being correct that we don't know why it failed, I agree with the one dealer who suggested the toning is not what CAC generally likes.

 

Best, HT

 

I send between 20 and 30 coins to CAC every month. I vote tick mark in prime focal area, and potential friction. I love the toning, and have seen similar ones CAC'ed.

[MarkFeld]

I wonder if it could be a touch of hidden friction on the cheek, under the toning, near that apparent tick mark?

 

The dealer I asked about this coin is pretty astute to what CAC likes and does not, he said it was the toning. I looked at it again, besides the tick, no other apparent friction. So despite Mark being correct that we don't know why it failed, I agree with the one dealer who suggested the toning is not what CAC generally likes.

 

Best, HT

 

I send between 20 and 30 coins to CAC every month. I vote tick mark in prime focal area, and potential friction. I love the toning, and have seen similar ones CAC'ed.

 

My guess was possible friction on Liberty's face. Of course, we are at a huge disadvantage, having to assess the coin, based just on images.

[mkman123]

If I'm correct you can search up a cert number to see if the coin was cacd or not cacd right?

 

JA needs to do a database in which you can type in a coin and their is a short paragraph on why it failed or made the sticker.

[robec1347]

If I'm correct you can search up a cert number to see if the coin was cacd or not cacd right?

 

JA needs to do a database in which you can type in a coin and their is a short paragraph on why it failed or made the sticker.

 

The website only lists coins that passed, not those that were submitted and failed.

[coinman1794]

Yes, we are at a huge disadvantage without seeing it in-hand.

[reid1836]

A nice example of an 1811 punctuated date Bust half. I'd give it a VF 30-35. The obverse is VF 25-30 ish ,while the reverse has slightly stronger details in the VF 35-EF 40 ish range. Hence my avg grade of VF30 -35.

[MarkFeld]

A nice example of an 1811 punctuated date Bust half. I'd give it a VF 30-35. The obverse is VF 25-30 ish ,while the reverse has slightly stronger details in the VF 35-EF 40 ish range. Hence my avg grade of VF30 -35.

 

Upon what grading standards do you base that? I don't understand how you could grade the coin only VF, with all of the detail that is apparent on both sides.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Mkman, that is why I gave up posting my coins that went to CAC, it is nothing to do with NGC vs. PCGS, but they have decided what types of toning they are going to bean, and many of the coins I have, which to me have tremendous eye appeal, did not bean. Be forewarned, we are going to probably hear from many informed numismatists that this coin below could not have toned under natural conditions and look like this. I can't say one way or the other given all of the variables in surroundings a coin is exposed to during a coins lifetime whether this is natural or not. PCGS considered it to be market acceptable, JA probably did not. But no major scratches

 

Best, HT

 

 

 

 

It sounds as if you're assuming CAC would not or did not sticker the coin, due to its toning. I would bet that they would not or did not have a problem with the toning.

 

And speaking of problems, unless you hear from CAC precisely why they declined to sticker a coin, you're merely guessing. And you might be way off base on our guess.

 

YOu are absolutely correct Mark. One dealer told me it was the toning, one said they had no idea, and of course, CAC does not list why on the invoice so I could be way off base, which is frustrating....

 

Best, HT

 

Considering this answer to Mr. Feld, is it possible that the same kind of logical thought could apply to the scratched coin, and it may just be that a Grade of 45 is not unreasonable for the coin?

 

Absolutely not, because I don't like scratches that are that bad, whether PCGS and CAC does or does not, it appears that they do sometimes accept bad scratches, and therefore I have to pay attention even more when a bean is on the coin since my tastes and theirs in this don't merge. I think they made a big mistake on this coin and I think alot of other astute collectors agree. In the long run, the more mistakes they make, the more their control on the market is going to diminish as collectors have less confidence in what the bean means. That is why I like the idea of PQ stickers, to get a different 4th party grading perspective.

 

I am sure CAC apologists will completely disagree with what I just said, no worries.

 

Best, HT

 

I understand. I am not referring to whether you personally like or dislike the coin. It is whether or not a Grade of 45 is unreasonable, and if so, why?

 

Your tastes and their tastes can certainly be different, I get it. But that does not mean a coin can't be a 45 with a scratch. You maintain a Grade of 45 is absolutely not logical and unreasonable. Other than your tastes, why not? That is the issue that I don't understand. The OP and you believe it is not a 45 because it has a scratch, and a sticker is somehow not reasonable with a scratch on the coin. Why?

 

What Grade would you give the coin? A 12, a 15, an 8? If it is worthy of some Grade would it be worthy of the sticker at that Grade?

 

I am not an apologist for CAC or PCGS or NGC or any other entity, if that is what may be on your mind, or may be the way you are interpreting my Posts.

I don't have any type of monetary or influential interest in these entities.

 

What is the big mistake made? What confidence is lost? What will be cured by a FPG PQ sticker? Think for a moment- you are advocating a 4th party premium quality review service. Why? If so many astute collectors agree and know it is not a 45, how would that change with a 4th or 5th or 6th party? If the coin you believe should have a sticker and it wasn't given one, but you know it should have one, then why do you care? You have graded it, and satisfied yourself. How is the going to change with a 4th, 5th, or 6th party?

 

What do you want to see on the Holder: Warning...this coin has a scratch?

 

In other words, why is the scratched coin not a 45, other than you and the OP and other astute collectors don't like it?

[Hard Times]

Mkman, that is why I gave up posting my coins that went to CAC, it is nothing to do with NGC vs. PCGS, but they have decided what types of toning they are going to bean, and many of the coins I have, which to me have tremendous eye appeal, did not bean. Be forewarned, we are going to probably hear from many informed numismatists that this coin below could not have toned under natural conditions and look like this. I can't say one way or the other given all of the variables in surroundings a coin is exposed to during a coins lifetime whether this is natural or not. PCGS considered it to be market acceptable, JA probably did not. But no major scratches

 

Best, HT

 

 

 

 

It sounds as if you're assuming CAC would not or did not sticker the coin, due to its toning. I would bet that they would not or did not have a problem with the toning.

 

And speaking of problems, unless you hear from CAC precisely why they declined to sticker a coin, you're merely guessing. And you might be way off base on our guess.

 

YOu are absolutely correct Mark. One dealer told me it was the toning, one said they had no idea, and of course, CAC does not list why on the invoice so I could be way off base, which is frustrating....

 

Best, HT

 

Considering this answer to Mr. Feld, is it possible that the same kind of logical thought could apply to the scratched coin, and it may just be that a Grade of 45 is not unreasonable for the coin?

 

Absolutely not, because I don't like scratches that are that bad, whether PCGS and CAC does or does not, it appears that they do sometimes accept bad scratches, and therefore I have to pay attention even more when a bean is on the coin since my tastes and theirs in this don't merge. I think they made a big mistake on this coin and I think alot of other astute collectors agree. In the long run, the more mistakes they make, the more their control on the market is going to diminish as collectors have less confidence in what the bean means. That is why I like the idea of PQ stickers, to get a different 4th party grading perspective.

 

I am sure CAC apologists will completely disagree with what I just said, no worries.

 

Best, HT

 

I understand. I am not referring to whether you personally like or dislike the coin. It is whether or not a Grade of 45 is unreasonable, and if so, why?

 

Your tastes and their tastes can certainly be different, I get it. But that does not mean a coin can't be a 45 with a scratch. You maintain a Grade of 45 is absolutely not logical and unreasonable. Other than your tastes, why not? That is the issue that I don't understand. The OP and you believe it is not a 45 because it has a scratch, and a sticker is somehow not reasonable with a scratch on the coin. Why?

 

What Grade would you give the coin? A 12, a 15, an 8? If it is worthy of some Grade would it be worthy of the sticker at that Grade?

 

I am not an apologist for CAC or PCGS or NGC or any other entity, if that is what may be on your mind, or may be the way you are interpreting my Posts.

I don't have any type of monetary or influential interest in these entities.

 

What is the big mistake made? What confidence is lost? What will be cured by a FPG PQ sticker? Think for a moment- you are advocating a 4th party premium quality review service. Why? If so many astute collectors agree and know it is not a 45, how would that change with a 4th or 5th or 6th party? If the coin you believe should have a sticker and it wasn't given one, but you know it should have one, then why do you care? You have graded it, and satisfied yourself. How is the going to change with a 4th, 5th, or 6th party?

 

What do you want to see on the Holder: Warning...this coin has a scratch?

 

In other words, why is the scratched coin not a 45, other than you and the OP and other astute collectors don't like it?

 

I don't really care what is on the holder, but my view of CAC giving a bean to a coin with such obvious detracting scratch that is at least 20% the length of the diameter of the coin, in a 45 grade just raised a red flag about the whole beannie deal. Especially when I have a half dime that is drop dead gorgeous, correct in market grade, but according to some, may be non-beaned for a small tick that is barely noticeable on the chin (see above)? C coin, really? JA hello - eye appeal - does it matter? Any reward there for eye appeal mate? Yet an XF45 half with such a scratch is bean worthy? Wear of an AU50 grade overcomes that scratch? Really? Yikes. And this is what is driving the market right now, one man's opinion. Yikes again. Okay I will keep my mouth shut from hereon since I am still submitting coins to them. JA you da best man! We be friends you and I and I am only fooliin' ya by what I am saying above. (thumbs u

 

Best, HT

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Mkman, that is why I gave up posting my coins that went to CAC, it is nothing to do with NGC vs. PCGS, but they have decided what types of toning they are going to bean, and many of the coins I have, which to me have tremendous eye appeal, did not bean. Be forewarned, we are going to probably hear from many informed numismatists that this coin below could not have toned under natural conditions and look like this. I can't say one way or the other given all of the variables in surroundings a coin is exposed to during a coins lifetime whether this is natural or not. PCGS considered it to be market acceptable, JA probably did not. But no major scratches

 

Best, HT

 

 

 

 

It sounds as if you're assuming CAC would not or did not sticker the coin, due to its toning. I would bet that they would not or did not have a problem with the toning.

 

And speaking of problems, unless you hear from CAC precisely why they declined to sticker a coin, you're merely guessing. And you might be way off base on our guess.

 

YOu are absolutely correct Mark. One dealer told me it was the toning, one said they had no idea, and of course, CAC does not list why on the invoice so I could be way off base, which is frustrating....

 

Best, HT

 

Considering this answer to Mr. Feld, is it possible that the same kind of logical thought could apply to the scratched coin, and it may just be that a Grade of 45 is not unreasonable for the coin?

 

Absolutely not, because I don't like scratches that are that bad, whether PCGS and CAC does or does not, it appears that they do sometimes accept bad scratches, and therefore I have to pay attention even more when a bean is on the coin since my tastes and theirs in this don't merge. I think they made a big mistake on this coin and I think alot of other astute collectors agree. In the long run, the more mistakes they make, the more their control on the market is going to diminish as collectors have less confidence in what the bean means. That is why I like the idea of PQ stickers, to get a different 4th party grading perspective.

 

I am sure CAC apologists will completely disagree with what I just said, no worries.

 

Best, HT

 

I understand. I am not referring to whether you personally like or dislike the coin. It is whether or not a Grade of 45 is unreasonable, and if so, why?

 

Your tastes and their tastes can certainly be different, I get it. But that does not mean a coin can't be a 45 with a scratch. You maintain a Grade of 45 is absolutely not logical and unreasonable. Other than your tastes, why not? That is the issue that I don't understand. The OP and you believe it is not a 45 because it has a scratch, and a sticker is somehow not reasonable with a scratch on the coin. Why?

 

What Grade would you give the coin? A 12, a 15, an 8? If it is worthy of some Grade would it be worthy of the sticker at that Grade?

 

I am not an apologist for CAC or PCGS or NGC or any other entity, if that is what may be on your mind, or may be the way you are interpreting my Posts.

I don't have any type of monetary or influential interest in these entities.

 

What is the big mistake made? What confidence is lost? What will be cured by a FPG PQ sticker? Think for a moment- you are advocating a 4th party premium quality review service. Why? If so many astute collectors agree and know it is not a 45, how would that change with a 4th or 5th or 6th party? If the coin you believe should have a sticker and it wasn't given one, but you know it should have one, then why do you care? You have graded it, and satisfied yourself. How is the going to change with a 4th, 5th, or 6th party?

 

What do you want to see on the Holder: Warning...this coin has a scratch?

 

In other words, why is the scratched coin not a 45, other than you and the OP and other astute collectors don't like it?

 

I don't really care what is on the holder, but my view of CAC giving a bean to a coin with such obvious detracting scratch that is at least 20% the length of the diameter of the coin, in a 45 grade just raised a red flag about the whole beannie deal. Especially when I have a half dime that is drop dead gorgeous, correct in market grade, but according to some, may be non-beaned for a small tick that is barely noticeable on the chin (see above)? C coin, really? JA hello - eye appeal - does it matter? Any reward there for eye appeal mate? Yet an XF45 half with such a scratch is bean worthy? Wear of an AU50 grade overcomes that scratch? Really? Yikes. And this is what is driving the market right now, one man's opinion. Yikes again. Okay I will keep my mouth shut from hereon since I am still submitting coins to them. JA you da best man! We be friends you and I and I am only fooliin' ya by what I am saying above. (thumbs u

 

Best, HT

 

I do really understand.

 

I am not stating that you are incorrect or that your personal opinion of the coin does not matter. I am simply suggesting that it is possible that the TPG and FPG services are not incorrect either.

 

As to what or who is making a market, well, I really don't see how that particularly changes the physical nature of a coin. The coin is what it is....to you, regardless of the opinion of another. If your position is that you want the FPG evaluation to favor the coins you own, so that the market can accept your coins for a certain monetary amount, then you simply have to keep buying and selling and submitting until you achieve that goal. Be prepared to be disappointed. Be prepared to be happy.

 

But, don't waste your own precious time disparaging the source of what you seek. That is not a very reasonable method to maintain mental stability, which you will need in pursuit of your goal. It is not very logical, either.

 

If you live another 20 years, you will probably experience another method or 2 of opinion graded/market graded/technical graded/ astute collector graded/ gorgeous graded Models come and go. But, the physical coin will still be the physical coin.

 

Or, you could start your own Market Model. It may be fun and satisfying to do, and maybe even economically rewarding.

[MarkFeld]

Mkman, that is why I gave up posting my coins that went to CAC, it is nothing to do with NGC vs. PCGS, but they have decided what types of toning they are going to bean, and many of the coins I have, which to me have tremendous eye appeal, did not bean. Be forewarned, we are going to probably hear from many informed numismatists that this coin below could not have toned under natural conditions and look like this. I can't say one way or the other given all of the variables in surroundings a coin is exposed to during a coins lifetime whether this is natural or not. PCGS considered it to be market acceptable, JA probably did not. But no major scratches

 

Best, HT

 

 

 

 

It sounds as if you're assuming CAC would not or did not sticker the coin, due to its toning. I would bet that they would not or did not have a problem with the toning.

 

And speaking of problems, unless you hear from CAC precisely why they declined to sticker a coin, you're merely guessing. And you might be way off base on our guess.

 

YOu are absolutely correct Mark. One dealer told me it was the toning, one said they had no idea, and of course, CAC does not list why on the invoice so I could be way off base, which is frustrating....

 

Best, HT

 

Considering this answer to Mr. Feld, is it possible that the same kind of logical thought could apply to the scratched coin, and it may just be that a Grade of 45 is not unreasonable for the coin?

 

Absolutely not, because I don't like scratches that are that bad, whether PCGS and CAC does or does not, it appears that they do sometimes accept bad scratches, and therefore I have to pay attention even more when a bean is on the coin since my tastes and theirs in this don't merge. I think they made a big mistake on this coin and I think alot of other astute collectors agree. In the long run, the more mistakes they make, the more their control on the market is going to diminish as collectors have less confidence in what the bean means. That is why I like the idea of PQ stickers, to get a different 4th party grading perspective.

 

I am sure CAC apologists will completely disagree with what I just said, no worries.

 

Best, HT

 

I understand. I am not referring to whether you personally like or dislike the coin. It is whether or not a Grade of 45 is unreasonable, and if so, why?

 

Your tastes and their tastes can certainly be different, I get it. But that does not mean a coin can't be a 45 with a scratch. You maintain a Grade of 45 is absolutely not logical and unreasonable. Other than your tastes, why not? That is the issue that I don't understand. The OP and you believe it is not a 45 because it has a scratch, and a sticker is somehow not reasonable with a scratch on the coin. Why?

 

What Grade would you give the coin? A 12, a 15, an 8? If it is worthy of some Grade would it be worthy of the sticker at that Grade?

 

I am not an apologist for CAC or PCGS or NGC or any other entity, if that is what may be on your mind, or may be the way you are interpreting my Posts.

I don't have any type of monetary or influential interest in these entities.

 

What is the big mistake made? What confidence is lost? What will be cured by a FPG PQ sticker? Think for a moment- you are advocating a 4th party premium quality review service. Why? If so many astute collectors agree and know it is not a 45, how would that change with a 4th or 5th or 6th party? If the coin you believe should have a sticker and it wasn't given one, but you know it should have one, then why do you care? You have graded it, and satisfied yourself. How is the going to change with a 4th, 5th, or 6th party?

 

What do you want to see on the Holder: Warning...this coin has a scratch?

 

In other words, why is the scratched coin not a 45, other than you and the OP and other astute collectors don't like it?

 

I don't really care what is on the holder, but my view of CAC giving a bean to a coin with such obvious detracting scratch that is at least 20% the length of the diameter of the coin, in a 45 grade just raised a red flag about the whole beannie deal. Especially when I have a half dime that is drop dead gorgeous, correct in market grade, but according to some, may be non-beaned for a small tick that is barely noticeable on the chin (see above)? C coin, really? JA hello - eye appeal - does it matter? Any reward there for eye appeal mate? Yet an XF45 half with such a scratch is bean worthy? Wear of an AU50 grade overcomes that scratch? Really? Yikes. And this is what is driving the market right now, one man's opinion. Yikes again. Okay I will keep my mouth shut from hereon since I am still submitting coins to them. JA you da best man! We be friends you and I and I am only fooliin' ya by what I am saying above. (thumbs u

 

Best, HT

 

If you lost that much faith in CAC for stickering an XF45 Bust Half with a scratch (which some people think might have otherwise graded AU), then you probably had way too much faith in them in the first place. Never mind, that in hand, the scratch might look far less conspicuous.

 

I can't tell from your posts, whether you already submitted your Bust Half Dime or not. But either way, while you state its".correct in market grade", that's just your opinion. Others may or may not agree.

 

Then you proceeded to talk about its eye appeal "hello - eye appeal - does it matter? Any reward there for eye appeal mate?". But if CAC thinks it's AT or cleaned or over-graded, the eye appeal is pretty much a moot point. You seemed to be ignoring that reality.