CAC green beaned at 63, goes to 64 CAC beans green again

[Hard Times]

Okay folks, now I am completely confused. CAC green beaned this half at 63+, it crosses to an 'overgraded' 64 by PCGS, and it beans green again. Wail, if CAC were consistent in their grading, then shouldn't it have been gold beaned at 63+, then green at 64? Or green beaned at 63+ and no bean at 64? Go figure.

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1190&lotNo=33722

 

http://raregoldcoins.com/inventory/cac-approved/new-50%C2%A2-1853-arrows-and-rays-pcgs-ms64-cac-ex-newmancol-green

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

Looks more accurately graded as an AU-58 to me....

 

What's going on in the right obverse field?

[Nutmeg Coin]

My take is that CAC is looking for nice eye appeal, surface preservation is a top consideration in grading. So whether the coin is a nice 63 or a nice 64 is less of an issue. I have had coins that beaned at 62 and then at a higher grade after being cracked out. I have had coins NGC rejected as "cleaned" later grade 64 after letting the gold coin breathe the air, and also CAC!

[Hard Times]

That makes no sense. And A or B coin in 63 cannot be an A or B coin in 64.......

 

Best, HT

[Kurtdog]

Okay folks, now I am completely confused. CAC green beaned this half at 63+, it crosses to an 'overgraded' 64 by PCGS, and it beans green again. Wail, if CAC were consistent in their grading, then shouldn't it have been gold beaned at 63+, then green at 64? Or green beaned at 63+ and no bean at 64? Go figure.

You got them, pal, you got them.

[coinman1794]

Okay folks, now I am completely confused. CAC green beaned this half at 63+, it crosses to an 'overgraded' 64 by PCGS, and it beans green again. Wail, if CAC were consistent in their grading, then shouldn't it have been gold beaned at 63+, then green at 64? Or green beaned at 63+ and no bean at 64? Go figure.

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1190&lotNo=33722

 

http://raregoldcoins.com/inventory/cac-approved/new-50%C2%A2-1853-arrows-and-rays-pcgs-ms64-cac-ex-newmancol-green

 

 

This has happened to me on a great number of occasions. It stems from CAC's reluctance to use the Gold sticker, in my opinion. They are more likely to Green sticker a coin, having determined it was nice based on the assigned grade, than to take the extra leap to say it is another grade, altogether. This inconsistency also has to do with the power of suggestion, which can greatly affect grading results, due to the inherent subjectivity of the process.

[MarkFeld]

Okay folks, now I am completely confused. CAC green beaned this half at 63+, it crosses to an 'overgraded' 64 by PCGS, and it beans green again. Wail, if CAC were consistent in their grading, then shouldn't it have been gold beaned at 63+, then green at 64? Or green beaned at 63+ and no bean at 64? Go figure.

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1190&lotNo=33722

 

http://raregoldcoins.com/inventory/cac-approved/new-50%C2%A2-1853-arrows-and-rays-pcgs-ms64-cac-ex-newmancol-green

 

 

You're "completely confused" because it appears that CAC wasn't perfectly consistent. Your expectations were unrealistic.

 

By the way, the fact that CAC stickered a 63 coin and PCGS subsequently graded it 64, doesn't necessarily mean it was "overgraded" as a 64.

[$ilverHawk]

Okay folks, now I am completely confused. CAC green beaned this half at 63+, it crosses to an 'overgraded' 64 by PCGS, and it beans green again. Wail, if CAC were consistent in their grading, then shouldn't it have been gold beaned at 63+, then green at 64? Or green beaned at 63+ and no bean at 64? Go figure.

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1190&lotNo=33722

 

http://raregoldcoins.com/inventory/cac-approved/new-50%C2%A2-1853-arrows-and-rays-pcgs-ms64-cac-ex-newmancol-green

 

 

You're "completely confused" because it appears that CAC wasn't perfectly consistent. Your expectations were unrealistic.

 

By the way, the fact that CAC stickered a 63 coin and PCGS subsequently graded it 64, doesn't necessarily mean it was "overgraded" as a 64.

 

Forget PCGS, the OP is addressing CAC. You left out the part that CAC green beaned the coin as a MS63 (A,B coin) then when reholdered as a MS64 once again gave it the green bean (A, B coin).

 

Logically, that means that the coin holdered as MS63 should have had a gold bean.

 

I'm going to call shenanigans. That is not inconsistent, that is down right misleading. CAC had to be aware of this coins history in their data base.

 

Perhaps the Newman pedigree and the PCGS grade made JA and company reevaluate their original opinion.

 

Carl

 

 

[Mozin]

Okay folks, now I am completely confused. CAC green beaned this half at 63+, it crosses to an 'overgraded' 64 by PCGS, and it beans green again. Wail, if CAC were consistent in their grading, then shouldn't it have been gold beaned at 63+, then green at 64? Or green beaned at 63+ and no bean at 64? Go figure.

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1190&lotNo=33722

 

http://raregoldcoins.com/inventory/cac-approved/new-50%C2%A2-1853-arrows-and-rays-pcgs-ms64-cac-ex-newmancol-green

 

 

You're "completely confused" because it appears that CAC wasn't perfectly consistent. Your expectations were unrealistic.

 

By the way, the fact that CAC stickered a 63 coin and PCGS subsequently graded it 64, doesn't necessarily mean it was "overgraded" as a 64.

 

 

 

I "completely agree" with Mark. I see no problem with what CAC did with their stickers.

[MarkFeld]

Okay folks, now I am completely confused. CAC green beaned this half at 63+, it crosses to an 'overgraded' 64 by PCGS, and it beans green again. Wail, if CAC were consistent in their grading, then shouldn't it have been gold beaned at 63+, then green at 64? Or green beaned at 63+ and no bean at 64? Go figure.

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1190&lotNo=33722

 

http://raregoldcoins.com/inventory/cac-approved/new-50%C2%A2-1853-arrows-and-rays-pcgs-ms64-cac-ex-newmancol-green

 

 

You're "completely confused" because it appears that CAC wasn't perfectly consistent. Your expectations were unrealistic.

 

By the way, the fact that CAC stickered a 63 coin and PCGS subsequently graded it 64, doesn't necessarily mean it was "overgraded" as a 64.

 

Forget PCGS, the OP is addressing CAC. You left out the part that CAC green beaned the coin as a MS63 (A,B coin) then when reholdered as a MS64 once again gave it the green bean (A, B coin).

 

Logically, that means that the coin holdered as MS63 should have had a gold bean.

 

I'm going to call shenanigans. That is not inconsistent, that is down right misleading. CAC had to be aware of this coins history in their data base.

 

Perhaps the Newman pedigree and the PCGS grade made JA and company reevaluate their original opinion.

 

Carl

 

 

I mentioned CAC's lack of perfect consistency in the first sentence of my reply. In that context, I thought it was obvious that it referred to the specific scenario presented by the OP - a coin receiving a green sticker in a 63 holder and then later, in a 64 holder.

 

And shame on you for your accusation of "shenanigans". That's a very harsh and unfair accusation.

 

First, the price realized in the auction equated with 64 money, not 63 or 63+ money, so at least two bidders thought the coin was a 64.

 

Second, perhaps CAC recognized the coin and, upon re-examination, changed their opinion - those things happen in the coin business. Or maybe they didn't recognize the coin - those things also happen. And neither need equate with "misleading" or "shenanigans".

 

Third, as for your comment about their data base - that would only be (even potentially) relevant if the coin were re-submitted with the original grading label.

 

Fourth, coin opinions can and do change, regardless of a coin's pedigree, or lack of one.

 

Lastly, it is well known that CAC is very stingy with gold stickers. There have been a number of other examples like the one mentioned in this thread, where a coin (which did not receive a gold sticker) upgraded and later received another green sticker.

 

No, CAC is not perfectly consistent. No one is. But you should stick with the facts and skip the unfounded accusations. Do you throw around similar accusations when the grading companies up-grade coins they have previously graded? Especially coins that are much more valuable and/or rare and far more easily recognizable than the one in this thread. Frankly, I was very surprised to see a post like that from you.

[Hard Times]

Mark,

In perusing the Newman results, most coins went for 2 to 3 times their published market values for their grades on the holders. Does it mean they were undergraded? Heck no, this was the pedigree bump where people got buried and spent Moon money for just a name and so your analogy that the coin in question only went for the next grade up money as some justification for the upgrade is not supported in my view - if it was really undergraded then why did it underperform with respect to its peers in the same auction? In fact, for the Newman coins, most were overgraded based on lack of luster and harsh previous cleanings for a given grade according to many informed numismatists that have spoken out about this.

 

Wasn't the whole point of CAC was to bring some sanity and consistency into the TPG grading? Is this really being consistent to bean at any grade for the same coin? Is CAC providing the service that we hoped for then?

 

Slab label says 'Newman' on it, anyone can see that it obviously went to another grade and look it up. I did, CAC graders sure would as everyone knows they originally came in NGC holders with special labels, and now has a boring PCGS label with the Newman pedigree listed.

 

Best, HT

[Tradedollarnut]

The fact of the matter is that CAC simply will just not give out a gold sticker for a B coin of the next grade up. Why should they take that financial risk? JA will only gold sticker a lock upgrade - a coin that blows him away - essentially an A+ coin of the next grade up.

 

If someone else takes the downside risk away by actually getting the upgrade, then of course the B coin of the current grade now gets the green sticker..,as it should. That is what creates this specific scenario.

[Tradedollarnut]

I will also state my opinion (which is shared by many in the industry) that PCGS plastic allows more of the flash of the coin to reach the viewers eyes. It is common for a crossed coin to look better in the new holder. I just went through that specific scenario where we bought (for a huge profit to the seller) a coin that we passed on in Newman because now it looked the grade.

[MarkFeld]

Mark,

In perusing the Newman results, most coins went for 2 to 3 times their published market values for their grades on the holders. Does it mean they were undergraded? Heck no, this was the pedigree bump where people got buried and spent Moon money for just a name and so your analogy that the coin in question only went for the next grade up money as some justification for the upgrade is not supported in my view - if it was really undergraded then why did it underperform with respect to its peers in the same auction? In fact, for the Newman coins, most were overgraded based on lack of luster and harsh previous cleanings for a given grade according to many informed numismatists that have spoken out about this.

 

Wasn't the whole point of CAC was to bring some sanity and consistency into the TPG grading? Is this really being consistent to bean at any grade for the same coin? Is CAC providing the service that we hoped for then?

 

Slab label says 'Newman' on it, anyone can see that it obviously went to another grade and look it up. I did, CAC graders sure would as everyone knows they originally came in NGC holders with special labels, and now has a boring PCGS label with the Newman pedigree listed.

 

Best, HT

 

I think "most coins went for 2 to 3 times their published market values for their grades on the holders" is a gross exaggeration. Some buyers will pay hefty percentage premiums on lower value coins for a pedigree, but few will pay thousands extra on a four figure coin.

 

I had high expecations, and I still believe that CAC has done a great job, overall - I have not been disappointed, even though, they are far from perfect.

 

You are free to disagree, but as I noted previously, you sound like your expections were unrealistic.

 

You also sound as if you think grading companies should look up coins they think or know they have seen before. If they were to do that, it could increase consistency, but what about objectivity when re-examining the coins?

[brg5658]

I will also state my opinion (which is shared by many in the industry) that PCGS plastic allows more of the flash of the coin to reach the viewers eyes. It is common for a crossed coin to look better in the new holder. I just went through that specific scenario where we bought (for a huge profit to the seller) a coin that we passed on in Newman because now it looked the grade.

 

That's mularky. I find the PCGS holders to be unsightly, and almost any coin looks better in a white NGC holder. The bizarre choice of a slightly blue translucent plastic has always baffled me. Not attractive in the least bit (to my eye -- and I can't imagine that I'm alone). I'm not arguing that one "looks better than the other" in a dogmatic way as you are, I'm just saying that the look of a coin in the holder is a personal preference -- so you can't possibly state that coins look better in PCGS holders definitively. When you say "shared by many in the industry" I presume you mean "many Kool-aid drinkers in the industry".

 

I'm going to say it in plain words, though another poster hinted at it. I think it is impossible for CAC to look at a coin in an unbiased manner with regard to the brand of plastic in which the coin resides. Many will say that "a higher proportion of PCGS coins sticker because they are higher end coins to begin with." Unfortunately, that hypothesis is untestable versus the just as likely explanation that JA and CAC have a subconscious bias toward stickering PCGS plastic. Even if the bean vs. no-bean complete historical data were made public by CAC separate by PCGS vs. NGC branding, there would be no way to disentangle these two factors. And, thus, the interpretation would depend on the pre-conceived ideas of the interpreter.

 

Another mitigating factor is that many coins being submitted to CAC are pre-screened by dealers or collectors because they think the chance of them stickering is good. I won't say "most" here because I know that some auction houses and other dealers simply submit their entire inventory for stickering out of laziness (or ignorance or greed) and the off chance that a coin they would have screened out will still sticker in the eyes of CAC.

 

The OP's examples isn't the first, and won't be the last inconsistent and befuddling example of this. I know of a half cent that was graded PCGS MS63 and CAC beaned. It was resubmitted and is now in a PCGS MS64+ holder, and again received the CAC bean. So, it was considered at least an MS63 "A" or "B" coin, but is now considered at least an MS64 "A" or "B" coin also (the plus hinting that it would be an MS64 "A" coin -- yes, I know not for sure an "A" coin, but if anything is consistent, this is not a far leap to make -- I'm sure MarkFeld will defend this one too).

 

In summary, the whole mess turns out to be uninterpretable in a consistent way. It's just a bunch of soft (and inconsistent) opinions accumulated in a biased manner. Now, if you want that garbled mess of opinions to be the foundation and crux of your collecting, then go for it. I personally still evaluate every individual coin, regardless of holder and regardless of CAC "blessing". Alas, I collect coins, not plastic stickered trinkets that can be passed from dealer to dealer as some sort of new form of currency for trade, looked up on a little gray sheet of paper.

 

END of

[Raisethis2]

This is just another example of the fact that everybody who offers a professional opinion on your coins can at times error (or have a change of heart). Coins beaned at one grade also beaned at a higher grade falls into the same catagory of a details coin getting a numeric grade upon resubmission.

 

I guess we should just be happy that this happens sometimes.

[MarkFeld]

I will also state my opinion (which is shared by many in the industry) that PCGS plastic allows more of the flash of the coin to reach the viewers eyes. It is common for a crossed coin to look better in the new holder. I just went through that specific scenario where we bought (for a huge profit to the seller) a coin that we passed on in Newman because now it looked the grade.

 

That's mularky. I find the PCGS holders to be unsightly, and almost any coin looks better in a white NGC holder. The bizarre choice of a slightly blue translucent plastic has always baffled me. Not attractive in the least bit (to my eye -- and I can't imagine that I'm alone). I'm not arguing that one "looks better than the other" in a dogmatic way as you are, I'm just saying that the look of a coin in the holder is a personal preference -- so you can't possibly state that coins look better in PCGS holders definitively. When you say "shared by many in the industry" I presume you mean "many Kool-aid drinkers in the industry".

 

I'm going to say it in plain words, though another poster hinted at it. I think it is impossible for CAC to look at a coin in an unbiased manner with regard to the brand of plastic in which the coin resides. Many will say that "a higher proportion of PCGS coins sticker because they are higher end coins to begin with." Unfortunately, that hypothesis is untestable versus the just as likely explanation that JA and CAC have a subconscious bias toward stickering PCGS plastic. Even if the bean vs. no-bean complete historical data were made public by CAC separate by PCGS vs. NGC branding, there would be no way to disentangle these two factors. And, thus, the interpretation would depend on the pre-conceived ideas of the interpreter.

 

Another mitigating factor is that many coins being submitted to CAC are pre-screened by dealers or collectors because they think the chance of them stickering is good. I won't say "most" here because I know that some auction houses and other dealers simply submit their entire inventory for stickering out of laziness (or ignorance or greed) and the off chance that a coin they would have screened out will still sticker in the eyes of CAC.

 

The OP's examples isn't the first, and won't be the last inconsistent and befuddling example of this. I know of a half cent that was graded PCGS MS63 and CAC beaned. It was resubmitted and is now in a PCGS MS64+ holder, and again received the CAC bean. So, it was considered at least an MS63 "A" or "B" coin, but is now considered at least an MS64 "A" or "B" coin also (the plus hinting that it would be an MS64 "A" coin -- yes, I know not for sure an "A" coin, but if anything is consistent, this is not a far leap to make -- I'm sure MarkFeld will defend this one too).

 

In summary, the whole mess turns out to be uninterpretable in a consistent way. It's just a bunch of soft (and inconsistent) opinions accumulated in a biased manner. Now, if you want that garbled mess of opinions to be the foundation and crux of your collecting, then go for it. I personally still evaluate every individual coin, regardless of holder and regardless of CAC "blessing". Alas, I collect coins, not plastic stickered trinkets that can be passed from dealer to dealer as some sort of new form of currency for trade, looked up on a little gray sheet of paper.

 

END of

 

Based on many comments I have heard, I believe that you are in the minority in thinking "I find the PCGS holders to be unsightly, and almost any coin looks better in a white NGC holder".

 

The plus "hints" nothing to CAC. They ignore the plus when making their decisions, they do not bid more for plus coins and they do not pay more for plus coins.

[Mark T]

Okay folks, now I am completely confused. CAC green beaned this half at 63+, it crosses to an 'overgraded' 64 by PCGS, and it beans green again. Wail, if CAC were consistent in their grading, then shouldn't it have been gold beaned at 63+, then green at 64? Or green beaned at 63+ and no bean at 64? Go figure.

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1190&lotNo=33722

 

http://raregoldcoins.com/inventory/cac-approved/new-50%C2%A2-1853-arrows-and-rays-pcgs-ms64-cac-ex-newmancol-green

 

 

You're "completely confused" because it appears that CAC wasn't perfectly consistent. Your expectations were unrealistic.

 

By the way, the fact that CAC stickered a 63 coin and PCGS subsequently graded it 64, doesn't necessarily mean it was "overgraded" as a 64.

 

+ 1

 

Hard Times you are splitting hairs here. I am with Mark F 100 % on this.

Jason the coin was graded and upgraded and CAC certified it twice – whatever that is in the right field is insignificant to grade the coin out at Au 58 .

 

 

 

 

 

[RWB]

Baked beans?

Green bean salad?

Szechuan beans?

Has "bean"?

 

[BillJones]

Mark,

In perusing the Newman results, most coins went for 2 to 3 times their published market values for their grades on the holders. Does it mean they were undergraded? Heck no, this was the pedigree bump where people got buried and spent Moon money for just a name and so your analogy that the coin in question only went for the next grade up money as some justification for the upgrade is not supported in my view - if it was really undergraded then why did it underperform with respect to its peers in the same auction? In fact, for the Newman coins, most were overgraded based on lack of luster and harsh previous cleanings for a given grade according to many informed numismatists that have spoken out about this.

 

Wasn't the whole point of CAC was to bring some sanity and consistency into the TPG grading? Is this really being consistent to bean at any grade for the same coin? Is CAC providing the service that we hoped for then?

 

Slab label says 'Newman' on it, anyone can see that it obviously went to another grade and look it up. I did, CAC graders sure would as everyone knows they originally came in NGC holders with special labels, and now has a boring PCGS label with the Newman pedigree listed.

 

Best, HT

 

I'm with Hardtimes. Unfortunately CAC has got its pants down around its ankles on this one. I think the coin was over graded when it was MS-63. It should have been no better than MS-62 because of the surface chatter on the obverse and envelope friction which resulted in a possible rub on Ms. Liberty's thigh. That bright, fresh looking mark in the right field really makes the MS-64 grade very suspect.

 

Now the usual suspects are drawing the wagons around CAC. What they should be doing is pushing back at CAC and telling them to get their act together. Questioning the grading services is one thing. But when you set yourself up as the judge for the quality of the work done by the grading services, you have taken on a higher set of standards.

 

For those of you who don't like dipped coins, you can turn the page, but here is my coin of the same type. This is an NGC MS-64. I bought it a few years ago at a Winter FUN show for less than Gray Sheet bid, probably because it is in an NGC holder. Which coin do you think is better?

 

[MBA101]

This thread just seems silly to me.

 

The only way I'd be upset is if i were outbid on this coin, then found out that it was upgraded and put out for sale again, as I am trying to buy just for myself and not just to make a buck (which seems to be very few on this deal with all the shipping and grading and stickering taking place )

[BillJones]

This thread just seems silly to me.

 

The only way I'd be upset is if i were outbid on this coin, then found out that it was upgraded and put out for sale again, as I am trying to buy just for myself and not just to make a buck (which seems to be very few on this deal with all the shipping and grading and stickering taking place )

 

No I won't call this thread "silly." What frosts some of us is that there is a large group of people ATS who think that everything with the PCGS - CAC endorsement is superior to all other coins, even those in the same grade with the NGC - CAC endorsement. Now we have an example of an "inferior" NGC - CAC endorsed coin crossing over to the "superior" PCGS - CAC endorsement in a higher grade.

 

Are you confused? If you have trouble grading grading coins for yourself, and rely strictly on the label and sticker, you should be.

[brg5658]

Based on many comments I have heard, I believe that you are in the minority in thinking "I find the PCGS holders to be unsightly, and almost any coin looks better in a white NGC holder".

 

The plus "hints" nothing to CAC. They ignore the plus when making their decisions, they do not bid more for plus coins and they do not pay more for plus coins.

 

Thank you for addressing only the irrelevant parts of my post and not hitting on any of the inconsistency issues, or the fact that CAC can't assess coins in an unbiased manner.

[MarkFeld]

Based on many comments I have heard, I believe that you are in the minority in thinking "I find the PCGS holders to be unsightly, and almost any coin looks better in a white NGC holder".

 

The plus "hints" nothing to CAC. They ignore the plus when making their decisions, they do not bid more for plus coins and they do not pay more for plus coins.

 

Thank you for addressing only the irrelevant parts of my post and not hitting on any of the inconsistency issues, or the fact that CAC can't assess coins in an unbiased manner.

 

You had no cause to be sarcastic. I addressed the parts of your post about which I felt I had knowledge/information.

 

I think and hope CAC views coins in an unbiased manner. But other than the one time I spent two days helping them at a show a few years ago, I can't speak with direct knowledge on how unbiased or biased they are. That is part of the reason I didn't address that portion of your post.

 

And I had already mentioned twice in this thread that they are not perfectly consistent - did you need me to say it a third time, in order to be satisfied?

 

Please post away as you choose - you won't recieve any more replies from me in this thread.

[Mark T]

 

 

Really Bill ?? What about NGC and PCGS – where might their pants be ??

 

 

[dimefreak]

You have to look at the big picture here. The CAC sticker basically means JA would buy the coin at the grade assigned. Rather you agree or disagree... Like it or don't like it.... At the end of the day PCGS coins sell for more. So it makes sense to me that he would buy it at a lower price in the NGC holder than he would in a PCGS holder. Again this isn't my opinion. Its fact that PCGS sells for more. And its sad because I cant tell you the last time I sent a NGC coin to PCGS and it DIDNT upgrade or stay the same grade .At the end of the day NGC is as tough or tougher on the material I send in for grading and the only down fall for NGC is they get there butts whooped in the marketing category.

[brg5658]

Based on many comments I have heard, I believe that you are in the minority in thinking "I find the PCGS holders to be unsightly, and almost any coin looks better in a white NGC holder".

 

The plus "hints" nothing to CAC. They ignore the plus when making their decisions, they do not bid more for plus coins and they do not pay more for plus coins.

 

Thank you for addressing only the irrelevant parts of my post and not hitting on any of the inconsistency issues, or the fact that CAC can't assess coins in an unbiased manner.

 

You had no cause to be sarcastic. I addressed the parts of your post about which I felt I had knowledge/information.

 

I think and hope CAC views coins in an unbiased manner. But other than the one time I spent two days helping them at a show a few years ago, I can't speak with direct knowledge on how unbiased or biased they are. That is part of the reason I didn't address that portion of your post.

 

And I had already mentioned twice in this thread that they are not perfectly consistent - did you need me to say it a third time, in order to be satisfied?

 

Please post away as you choose - you won't recieve any more replies from me in this thread.

 

Did you not notice the wink? You are quite often sarcastic (or cheeky), so a bit of the pot calling the kettle black IMO. In any event, no hard feelings were intended -- I apologize.

 

Back to the question at hand, the slab "prettiness factor" comparison was pointed out by TDN as a (supposedly valid) reason why CAC may have beaned the coin in the OP as an MS64. I think even the suggestion that the way a coin looks in a slab has any impact on the CAC bean calls into question their ability to review coins in an unbiased manner. Afterall, they are reviewing the coin (and only the coin) for its merits, not the "way it looks in its slab".

 

You may like carrots because they're orange, I prefer peas, as green is my favorite color. It doesn't mean one of us is right or wrong -- the slab design and color argument was a straw-man argument from the get-go, and the only reason I even replied to is was because of how ridiculous it was. Yet the two things you chose to add to were 1) that many people agree that the PCGS holder is prettier (? who cares ?), and 2) that CAC ignores the "+" -- which I already knew and I already softened the way I presented that argument in the first place -- even making direct reference to the fact that you would probably chime in with that comment.

 

Take away message: A company whose entire business model is to consistently draw conclusions should be held to a very high level, and when consistency is clearly not there (even on one-off example coins), one should stop and think -- are they really all they are hyped up to be? In my opinion, the clear answer is no, they are not all they are hyped up to be. And, even if that's not the expectation that CAC has as a business, and it has just been "projected" onto them by Kool-aid drinkers, that's sort of irrelevant also. It would be nice to hear from JA as to why these inconsistencies even exist.

 

As a researcher in the medical field, I see absolutely no way that CAC can review coins in an unbiased manner irrespective of the brand of plastic holder in which it resides. This would be equivalent to a clinical trial of a new drug that is supposedly "blinded", but the name of the drug was written on the bottle you give to patients. But, maybe other people are okay with the interpretation of the CAC bean being "the coin looks okay in its pretty holder". I prefer an opinion based solely on the coin -- not on how the coin "looks" in its blue (or white) holder.

[Tradedollarnut]

I'm with Hardtimes. Unfortunately CAC has got its pants down around its ankles on this one. I think the coin was over graded when it was MS-63. It should have been no better than MS-62 because of the surface chatter on the obverse and envelope friction which resulted in a possible rub on Ms. Liberty's thigh. That bright, fresh looking mark in the right field really makes the MS-64 grade very suspect.

 

You really do know better than to make such pronouncements off an image, don't you?

 

I personally have not seen the coin. But I have seen enough crossed Newman items to know how they look different in the new holder. And I understand why a coin might green sticker at two grades. Anything else is just internet bleating...

[BillJones]

 

Really Bill ?? What about NGC and PCGS – where might their pants be ??

 

 

We all know both NGC and PCGS have made mistakes when it comes to grading, and on very rare occasions they have made mistakes with authentication issues, for which they have made good. The trouble is there is a significant number of people who believe that PCGS - CAC is the gold standard for grading and group sellers who want to keep the reputation intact.

 

Right now Stacks' - Bowers is conducting an auction site train wreck. They have got problems on top of problems. If I were a member of Stacks' senior management I'd like to know about all of those problems because their business depends upon it.

 

Similarly if I were a senior manager in the CAC organization, I'd like know about problems with my product. Sweeping bad stuff under the carpet or burying it in the backyard will not fix problems; they will only get worse.

 

[brg5658]

I'm with Hardtimes. Unfortunately CAC has got its pants down around its ankles on this one. I think the coin was over graded when it was MS-63. It should have been no better than MS-62 because of the surface chatter on the obverse and envelope friction which resulted in a possible rub on Ms. Liberty's thigh. That bright, fresh looking mark in the right field really makes the MS-64 grade very suspect.

 

You really do know better than to make such pronouncements off an image, don't you?

 

I personally have not seen the coin. But I have seen enough crossed Newman items to know how they look different in the new holder. And I understand why a coin might green sticker at two grades. Anything else is just internet bleating...

 

You do know the point is that it's the SAME COIN, don't you? I thought CAC assessed coins, not "pretty holders". My bad, I'll just keep bleating over here...