What is your opinion of this Bust Half?

[physics-fan3.14]

Saw this coin at FUN, and thought it may be an interesting coin to discuss. It is not mine, but I'm curious as to what your opinion may be of the coin?

 

[bsshog40]

I'm not sure what you're wanting to here Jason, but I like the looks of it for what I'd say is about EF40-45. The odd blue toning only within the lettering makes me think it's been retoned though. Or is that pvc??

[MBA101]

I just saw this as an upcoming coin @ heritage. Think it looks cool, and am assuming that there is AU luster (looks like it from the pics) and is net graded to 45. I doctored the pics a lil bit to make them look more accurate (i think)

 

[physics-fan3.14]

Yeah, that's the one, Dave. The luster is good, and its an attractive coin for sure. However, it also has a CAC. I'm just having a hard time reconciling these two pictures. It has a huge gouge that would prevent me from even calling it a problem free piece, and yet CAC put a sticker on it. I would be terribly disappointed if I bought this coin sight unseen based upon the PCGS and CAC endorsements!

[bsshog40]

Not pvc, thanks Dave!

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Yeah, that's the one, Dave. The luster is good, and its an attractive coin for sure. However, it also has a CAC. I'm just having a hard time reconciling these two pictures. It has a huge gouge that would prevent me from even calling it a problem free piece, and yet CAC put a sticker on it. I would be terribly disappointed if I bought this coin sight unseen based upon the PCGS and CAC endorsements!

 

Why is it a problem for a technical grade of 45, or a market grade of 45?

 

I understand everyone of course has a different thought of what "huge gouge" means, but I would not have termed (from the picture I am seeing) this as a huge gouge, nor would I term a technical or market grade of 45 to mean a problem free piece, nor would I expect CAC to interpret a technical or market grade of 45 as being problem free, in the sense it is being used by your description.

 

I am not sure that describing the CAC action with the word "yet", is a fair and unbiased view of the reason it did so.

 

I am sure, with your experience which is more than mine, that you have seen many technical MS Morgans with worse issues.

[Walkerfan]

The coin looks original and is a solid XF 45. I don't think that the scratch is inconsistent for the grade but, if you don't like these type of marks, then I'd stay away.

 

I even saw a MS 65 Walker once with a long scratch like this (just thinner) all the way across the eagle's breast. I don't know HOW such a coin could possibly have graded gem 65 but it did.

 

Personally, I don't mind such a mark on an XF coin but it is unacceptable on a MS piece. IMHO

[BillJones]

The coin looks original and is a solid XF 45. I don't think that the scratch is inconsistent for the grade but, if you don't like these type of marks, then I'd stay away.

 

I even saw a MS 65 Walker once with a long scratch like this (just thinner) all the way across the eagle's breast. I don't know HOW such a coin could possibly have graded gem 65 but it did.

 

Personally, I don't mind such a mark on an XF coin but it is unacceptable on a MS piece. IMHO

 

I agree with Walkerfan. The coin is graded EF-45 and it makes the grade. The fact that it has the scratch is a consideration, but if I were buying it it would not stop me up to a certain price level. An old, light scratch is better than having the coin stripped to a bright whitel.

[TonerGuy]

I dont like it with the scratch/gouge either. Whether its reasonable to find such examples in this condition, I too would be upset with the grade and the CAC bean.

 

Why isnt that considered damage and the coin assigned a net grade ?

 

And how can that coin be an A or B coin to CAC ?

 

 

[Hard Times]

That scratch kills it for a grade - it should have a grade following by a listing of 'scratched' and a details or net grade listed on the plastic. No chance this should be CACed if it were me deciding on what gets the bean (obviously it ain't me as my initials are not JA). I have submitted 30 coins to them in the past month, and there are very clear inconsistencies that I am having a hard time with on how they decide what coins are bean worthy. For every coin of mine that gets the green bean, I can show a coin that is nearly identical in every way possible that did not get the green bean. All one can do is step back and go huh? Or in some cases WTF?

 

This is just another example that demonstrates CAC is probably no better than anyone else in their judgements - they blow it often, and many times they don't. Problem is, their sticker gives about 20% more value to a coin - look at greysheet pricing for CAC coins to verify this. But I would be very darn upset if I purchased this 1811 half shown sight unseen and discovered this scratch. Isn't that what JA is trying to do? Dealer to Dealer trades sight unseen based on the green bean? Give confidence to those buying online?

 

Best, HT

[BillJones]

In the eyes of some the coin has been down graded from AU-50 to EF-45 because of the scratch. There is quite a bit of mint surfaces in the protected areas in the reverse lettering and obverse stars. To me the coin is a classic EF-45 with or without the scratch.

 

Would it be a better coin without the scratch? Absolutely, but it is a circulated coins and some marks are to be expected.

[MBA101]

Gus, here is a link to mine, and it has a couple of larger marks, ( above 1 obverse, left of Eagle's leg reverse) and is graded 45. I would not have bought this one if it were not for the originality, but I do believe it is properly graded, and in some ways similar to the above discussed coin.

 

http://100005389.wpb.tam.us.siteprotect.com/1811-over-10-o-101-r1

[Hard Times]

In the eyes of some the coin has been down graded from AU-50 to EF-45 because of the scratch. There is quite a bit of mint surfaces in the protected areas in the reverse lettering and obverse stars. To me the coin is a classic EF-45 with or without the scratch.

 

Would it be a better coin without the scratch? Absolutely, but it is a circulated coins and some marks are to be expected.

 

Bill I agree with this interpretation. But if the TPG net grades it, the holder should say 'AU50, NET XF45 scratched' or something like that. For CAC to bean it, the assumption many would have is there is no problems with the coin. This scratch would be a very serious problem to many, including me. So what it tells me is, that the green bean is not the end all the market it claiming it to be and I can't put any more confidence into their sticker than I can the TPG holder without first seeing the coin in hand.

 

Best, HT

[AnkurJ]

High end xf45. Obverse toning looks a little dark though. The scratch is obviously old an toned over. It doesn't bother me that much.

[Mozin]

I like this coin a lot, and at PCGS 45 CAC. The toning is top notch, and there appear to be few marks on this coin. The scratch would be more important if the PCGS grade said 50, and I would not rule out PCGS calling it a 50, on a good day. Note the second dot, up high just after the second one.

 

Here are scans of my PCGS 45, crossed from an old holder ANACS 45. I like the OP coin better.

 

 

[Hard Times]

High end xf45. Obverse toning looks a little dark though. The scratch is obviously old an toned over. It doesn't bother me that much.

 

Ankur, would buy it sight seen if offered for typical CAC pricing this coin would go for? With that scratch, that is blatantly obvious, that covers a large portion of the left-hand obverse field? Would you be happy you paid strong CAC pricing for it if you bought it sight unseen through the dealer network?

 

Same to everyone else, would you buy it under those conditions? Liking it, or not being bothered by a scratch like that, is very different than actually paying strong money for it.......

 

Best, HT

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

High end xf45. Obverse toning looks a little dark though. The scratch is obviously old an toned over. It doesn't bother me that much.

 

Ankur, would buy it sight seen if offered for typical CAC pricing this coin would go for? With that scratch, that is blatantly obvious, that covers a large portion of the left-hand obverse field? Would you be happy you paid strong CAC pricing for it if you bought it sight unseen through the dealer network?

 

Same to everyone else, would you buy it under those conditions? Liking it, or not being bothered by a scratch like that, is very different than actually paying strong money for it.......

 

Best, HT

 

While not directed to me, adding "everyone else" allows me to give answers for myself.

 

First question: Yes, if sight seen, CAC or not.

 

Second question: I don't interpret the scratch as blatantly obvious and covering a large portion of the left- hand obverse field.

 

Third question: Yes, if purchased from a trusted and honorable source.

 

Fourth question: Answered above in 1,2, and 3, so answer is yes.

 

The fact is, the issue is not, to me, about CAC. The issue is about what I think the coin is, and is worth, to me. CAC provides, without a doubt, a very good and needed service. Whether or not CAC adds value, while maybe important, is not the consideration and decision process I personally use in deciding to purchase a coin. To me, it is strictly about what I think of the coin and whether it meets my criteria for spending the amount being asked for a coin. It is no different a process of decision making for me now, than it was before CAC came to be, or before PCGS or NGC or ANACS came to be.

 

I think using the term "strong money", while I understand the meaning of the term as you are using it- CAC market perception value- is reducing the perception of the coin for its own merits.

[brg5658]

High end xf45. Obverse toning looks a little dark though. The scratch is obviously old an toned over. It doesn't bother me that much.

 

The age of the scratch doesn't make it not a scratch. I would not buy this coin for PCGS XF45 CAC money, and I have seen coins details graded for lesser offenses. But, hey, what do I know. It's in the "right" holder and has a bean, so it must be good, right?

 

 

[Hard Times]

High end xf45. Obverse toning looks a little dark though. The scratch is obviously old an toned over. It doesn't bother me that much.

 

Ankur, would buy it sight seen if offered for typical CAC pricing this coin would go for? With that scratch, that is blatantly obvious, that covers a large portion of the left-hand obverse field? Would you be happy you paid strong CAC pricing for it if you bought it sight unseen through the dealer network?

 

Same to everyone else, would you buy it under those conditions? Liking it, or not being bothered by a scratch like that, is very different than actually paying strong money for it.......

 

Best, HT

 

While not directed to me, adding "everyone else" allows me to give answers for myself.

 

First question: Yes, if sight seen, CAC or not.

 

Second question: I don't interpret the scratch as blatantly obvious and covering a large portion of the left- hand obverse field.

 

Third question: Yes, if purchased from a trusted and honorable source.

 

Fourth question: Answered above in 1,2, and 3, so answer is yes.

 

The fact is, the issue is not, to me, about CAC. The issue is about what I think the coin is, and is worth, to me. CAC provides, without a doubt, a very good and needed service. Whether or not CAC adds value, while maybe important, is not the consideration and decision process I personally use in deciding to purchase a coin. To me, it is strictly about what I think of the coin and whether it meets my criteria for spending the amount being asked for a coin. It is no different a process of decision making for me now, than it was before CAC came to be, or before PCGS or NGC or ANACS came to be.

 

I think using the term "strong money", while I understand the meaning of the term as you are using it- CAC market perception value- is reducing the perception of the coin for its own merits.

 

John I contend you are blind if you can't see that scratch as something that does not seriously detract from the coin and is blatantly obvious and covering a large portion of the left- hand obverse field. .

 

I believe that one should never trust any dealer so blindly, no matter how honorable said dealer is when purchasing a coin, without seeing at least an image and a description from said dealer, and with a return policy.

 

CAC coins go for strong money, just look at the Greysheet pricing for CAC coins and compare that to Greysheet pricing for NGC and PCGS coins without the bean. So yes we are talking strong money for CAC coins even with sight unseen dealer to dealer transactions, even for those with big scratches on them.

 

That scratch would haunt me as long as I owned it no matter whether it had a bean or not. It is not a super rare coin, there are 100s of others to choose from if one desperately needs that type, year, and variety. Why then, buy such an obviously scratched one? Because it has a green sticker? Sheesh.

 

Best, HT

[AnkurJ]

Not all CAC coins go for strong money. If this was a rare date or a tough variety, I am sure everyone here would be forgiving. Since it is not that rare of a date, and I am unsure of its variety, it would not trade at the same levels as other CAC'd examples.

 

HT: This is just a healthy discussion, not need to bury your face in your palm.

[AnkurJ]

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

 

 

How about here?

 

[bsshog40]

Actually, I had to look pretty hard to see your scratches anchor. The half does show much more easier. The scratch doesn't bother me that much but it is very visible right off the bat.

[Hard Times]

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

 

Not as much because at least in those images it is not as bad, however, it would probably keep me from buying the coin given what price the toning would garner.

 

How about here?

 

Yes if those are scratches in the shield I would probably pass. There are too many coins out there to buy scratched ones.

 

So the take home message is that CAC does not mind detracting scratches if they think it is a A or B coin for the grade. Good to know.

 

Best, HT

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

High end xf45. Obverse toning looks a little dark though. The scratch is obviously old an toned over. It doesn't bother me that much.

 

Ankur, would buy it sight seen if offered for typical CAC pricing this coin would go for? With that scratch, that is blatantly obvious, that covers a large portion of the left-hand obverse field? Would you be happy you paid strong CAC pricing for it if you bought it sight unseen through the dealer network?

 

Same to everyone else, would you buy it under those conditions? Liking it, or not being bothered by a scratch like that, is very different than actually paying strong money for it.......

 

Best, HT

 

While not directed to me, adding "everyone else" allows me to give answers for myself.

 

First question: Yes, if sight seen, CAC or not.

 

Second question: I don't interpret the scratch as blatantly obvious and covering a large portion of the left- hand obverse field.

 

Third question: Yes, if purchased from a trusted and honorable source.

 

Fourth question: Answered above in 1,2, and 3, so answer is yes.

 

The fact is, the issue is not, to me, about CAC. The issue is about what I think the coin is, and is worth, to me. CAC provides, without a doubt, a very good and needed service. Whether or not CAC adds value, while maybe important, is not the consideration and decision process I personally use in deciding to purchase a coin. To me, it is strictly about what I think of the coin and whether it meets my criteria for spending the amount being asked for a coin. It is no different a process of decision making for me now, than it was before CAC came to be, or before PCGS or NGC or ANACS came to be.

 

I think using the term "strong money", while I understand the meaning of the term as you are using it- CAC market perception value- is reducing the perception of the coin for its own merits.

 

John I contend you are blind if you can't see that scratch as something that does not seriously detract from the coin and is blatantly obvious and covering a large portion of the left- hand obverse field. .

 

I believe that one should never trust any dealer so blindly, no matter how honorable said dealer is when purchasing a coin, without seeing at least an image and a description from said dealer, and with a return policy.

 

CAC coins go for strong money, just look at the Greysheet pricing for CAC coins and compare that to Greysheet pricing for NGC and PCGS coins without the bean. So yes we are talking strong money for CAC coins even with sight unseen dealer to dealer transactions, even for those with big scratches on them.

 

That scratch would haunt me as long as I owned it no matter whether it had a bean or not. It is not a super rare coin, there are 100s of others to choose from if one desperately needs that type, year, and variety. Why then, buy such an obviously scratched one? Because it has a green sticker? Sheesh.

 

Best, HT

 

I completely understand your position.

 

However, my evaluation of a coin is my choice, and what I find acceptable, to me.

 

I don't think it seriously detracts from the coin. You do. That is the fun of collecting. I get to collect what I enjoy.

 

Concerning the blind trust of an honorable Dealer, the fact that the Dealer is honorable is a comfort to me. Any honorable Dealer will honor a return. That is the reason the Dealer is honorable. If it was otherwise, the Dealer would very quickly go down in the fire. The honor of the Dealer is how the trust is established.

 

I don't deny you your Right to evaluate a coin in any manner you feel is comfortable to you. I do deny any perceived Right you may think you have to deny me the same courtesy.

 

You did not completely understand my Post, or your last 2 sentences would not have been typed.

 

I am not blind. I am seriously deficient in other manly physical traits, but blindness is not one of them, thank goodness.

 

So, lets get to the real thrust of your position as I understand it.

 

CAC has evaluated this coin as worthy for the Grade. You have evaluated the coin and don't believe it is worthy of of the Grade, because of the scratch, which you find very distracting. You believe that because the CAC evaluation of this coin has a direct impact on the value of the coin (to the upside), this value is misleading if the coin is bought sight unseen by somebody that places trust in the CAC evaluation. You contend that this tarnishes the reputation and trust of CAC that others may have in a CAC evaluated coin.

 

Fair enough.

 

The problem, though, is that you are assuming that your evaluation of the coin is the only correct evaluation, and therefore any disagreement with your evaluation is tantamount to mental suicide by coin.

 

I disagree.

[delta]

Since you asked for opinions, here's mine. It's a fairly attractive example of the reasonably common O-101, maybe about medium die state, and probably a higher-end MS 45, in agreement with most previous posters. The reverse could easily be AU 50. It's probably been cleaned and retoned. I think it's a borderline call as to whether or not the conspicuous scratch in the left obverse field and down across the bust should render it an XF genuine, as are various other similar examples. If the scratch were instead divided up into three or four smaller scratches, they might be easier to forgive, depending on their placement. But the CAC endorsement is a bit of a stretch, I'd really like to hear John Albanese explain his rationale, I myself wouldn't even have tried to submit it CAC for evaluation.

[TonerGuy]

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

 

 

How about here?

 

 

 

Where is the scratch on the trade dollar ? Is it to the right of Liberty ? If so, I dont see that as being as distracting as the scratch on OP coin.

 

As for the second coin, yes I find both scratches distracting. Not nearly as bad as the OP coin since it is on the reverse. But again I do not understand how coins with scratches get CAC...

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Since you asked for opinions, here's mine. It's a fairly attractive example of the reasonably common O-101, maybe about medium die state, and probably a higher-end MS 45, in agreement with most previous posters. The reverse could easily be AU 50. It's probably been cleaned and retoned. I think it's a borderline call as to whether or not the conspicuous scratch in the left obverse field and down across the bust should render it an XF genuine, as are various other similar examples. If the scratch were instead divided up into three or four smaller scratches, they might be easier to forgive, depending on their placement. But the CAC endorsement is a bit of a stretch, I'd really like to hear John Albanese explain his rationale, I myself wouldn't even have tried to submit it CAC for evaluation.

 

That is a fair evaluation.

 

If the coin is a 45, and possibly a higher end, then it seems it meets the requirement for this Grade. The scratch, I am sure, was taken into consideration by PCGS and CAC, which is the reason for the Grade and the CAC evaluation of what color it should award, if any. If the sticker had been gold, as I understand what a gold sticker stands for, then I too would not have submitted hoping for that color.

 

This series is very difficult to grade. Such marks are not unusual. I understand that if the scratches were broken up a little it might be more pleasing to the eye. That does not mean it is not a 45.

 

I am not sure about the meaning of a scratch rendering a coin as a genuine 45 or not. If the intent is that a 45 should not have a scratch like the one on this coin, but could be a 45 if the scratch was sort of divided, that seems to set aside all other attributes of the coin under discussion. It seems to suggest that the coin should have been returned to the original submitter with a comment as to the genuiness of the coin, and/or that it is genuine with 45 details, or some other flag of verbal warning. I don't think that would be fair to this particular coin.

 

The issue, again, is a perception that if CAC awards an endorsement of the grade of a coin, then the coin should be the best of the best of similar coins for that Grade, or higher, and should not not have a continuous scratch at this Grade.

 

Why?

[coinman1794]

Saw this coin at FUN, and thought it may be an interesting coin to discuss. It is not mine, but I'm curious as to what your opinion may be of the coin?

 

 

This is a scratched AU that was net-graded. I would pass, as this variety is available original with problem free surfaces. It's still a nice coin, and at XF45, CAC was likely willing to bless it....but you can do better.

[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?

 

 

The silver dollar is fine. I would not necessarily consider that a scratch. Move an abrasion of that size to a half dollar, like the 1811/10, and you have a problem coin.

 

The 1839 is a scratched coin. They are old scratches, they are on the reverse, and the grade is lower. All this makes it less detrimental, but still not ideal.

[physics-fan3.14]

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.