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

[delta]

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.

 

About Stacks-Bowers, I spoke with the president Brian Kendrella at length about the dysfunctional web site, and told him straight it needs to be completely redone to be user friendly, that a band-aid won't fix it. He was in complete denial, I was absolutely astonished, but at least he heard me out.

 

It's not only consignors that are being shortchanged, it's also many would-be bidders and buyers. If I were a stockholder of the parent company, Spectrum Group International, a publicly traded corporation, I'd be up in arms.

[FishyOne]

Yup, that's me. I put CAC on a high pedestal and think John deserves it, even though he is not perfect as some expect. There's been pro CAC and anti CAC since they started in Oct. 2007 at the first Coinfest Show in Old Greenwich, Ct. I've read these arguments for over 6 years. I'll line up with pro CAC people that support John every time.

 

That's interesting. I did not realize CAC had been around since Oct. 2007 and coincidentally that's when I got back into collecting after a 30 year hiatus. I collected a bit in the 1970's as a kid and still have a couple of my original penny boards. Now been back at it for 6+ years and really enjoy it!

 

Numismatics is a great hobby and was great long before TPG, CAC, PQ, etc ever came along. A few still say slabs have bastardized the hobby though that number has shrunk considerably. In some ways the "sticker business" has replaced TPG as a subject of scorn. Be that as it may, this hobby will always contain vast amounts of gray area as it should. Sometimes heated disagreements can be productive but often it turns into something ugly. We don't need that but we are human. I view it as "everybody knows something I don't know". I like to learn and hate to see hard feeling develop. Thanks for letting me share!

[delta]

After reading through this entire thread, the perspective I get is there's no such thing as a chemically pure grade of 63 separate from a 64, on different days the same experts can have differing views, especially when looking at a coin raw vs slabbed, through new plastic vs old plastic, with fresh eyes in the morning vs tired eyes later, and after a mug of coffee vs after a glass or three of wine.

[mommam17]

John looks at a MS 63 coin. To himself "really nice coin I would buy it." Looks at the coin and it's in an MS 64 holder." Nice coin I would buy it." Not a big deal yet the complaining starts and then the piling on from people who haven't held the coin.

[mkman123]

good thread and glad it was made, got to hear many points and views

[BROADSTRUCK]

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.

 

About Stacks-Bowers, I spoke with the president Brian Kendrella at length about the dysfunctional web site, and told him straight it needs to be completely redone to be user friendly, that a band-aid won't fix it. He was in complete denial, I was absolutely astonished, but at least he heard me out.

 

It's not only consignors that are being shortchanged, it's also many would-be bidders and buyers. If I were a stockholder of the parent company, Spectrum Group International, a publicly traded corporation, I'd be up in arms.

 

That's a crock of he feed you as many of us complained about issues when the new website first went live. He was at a show in Asia at the time and stated it would be fixed upon his his return. Not sure how he could still be in complete denial on all the problems even if he was living under a rock like the guy in the Geico commercial

 

[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

 

 

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

 

 

They would not have any way of knowing it was the same coin, unless the serial number stayed the same.

[coinman1794]

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.

 

PCGS grades lots of coins higher than NGC, and then they CAC on top of that. I did a thread a few years ago about my Capped Bust half upgrades

[coinman1794]

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.

 

On a conference call with JA last year he said pretty much the same thing. He said they only GOLD stickered coins that were NO-BRAINER upgrades.

 

What people don't seem to realize is there are no hard and fast rules. Grading is subjective and so is eye-appeal. I don't think it's any great crime CAC didn't GOLD sticker it in the first place.

 

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.

 

You know...I had actually noticed this quite a number of years ago but it never really hit me until I read this from you in a thread ATS. I think this is very true. I wonder what elements of the plastic (or the manufacturing process) that creates that?

 

jom

 

Often its the shiny gasket around the older PCGS slabs that merged with the coin's cartwheel to provide an artificial glow. Now the three-tab holder eliminated that effect.

[coinman1794]

So the OPs question was how can 63+ green bean and then also green bean as a 64. That started this whole thing. It's clear a few people here just don't like CAC. That's fine. To say that a coin can't go from a green bean 63+ to a green bean 64 is ridiculous. I once had a PCGS MS62 $10 Lib with a CAC Green sticker that I sent in for re-grade and it came back 63. It went back to CAC and got a green bean again. I was a bit surprised it re-beaned and was also a bit surprised it upgraded at PCGS. Fact was it had great luster and a strong strike but was pretty nicked up for a 63. Luster/strike carried the day.

 

Anyways, all the finger pointing and ranting doesn't get us anywhere. The old saying goes like this, "You can't throw mud on somebody without getting some it on yourself". There are some heavy hitters posting in this thread (and I'm NOT one of them). You guys please cool off and keep posting here. I appreciate your knowledge and insight but nobody needs this bickering over "opinions".

 

Fishy, I am just baffled - if, as CAC does, and if, as they say they do, decide between A-B versus C coins for a specific grade, such that they have now split the hairs even finer than the TPG's in grading, then I simply cannot fathom how a coin can jump from 63 green beaned to 64 green beaned, especially on a coin that is so obvious what its original grade was. They have that info and we all know they do and they know we know. Which is why I brought this up when I saw the evidence that they do this. This simply goes against their defined way of deciding whether the coin is worthy of a bean. I get the subjectivity of grading, but the idea being pushed by CAC, even if not explicitly said, is that they are really getting down to defining a coins quality within a grade and making determinations on how the TPG's have done. 4rth party grading. I like to think if you are going to grade the graders, you should be more consistent with your grading once you have defined how you are going to grade - A,B vs. C etc. You can't go changing your opinions later in such an obvious way because that is what the TPG's do and that is why we have grade inflation. I think that part of the reason to have 4th party grading is to stop grade inflation, but now I see that I am wrong as many folks here point out that CAC rebeans coin in higher grades frequently.

 

I see many explanations here as to why it could happen and does, but it does not stand with what CAC says on their website as to what they are doing. On the other hand, if the bean really means that CAC would be glad buying a coin in whatever holder it is in, then okay, no worries, they are setting a market and saying this coin is in their market. I have no problems with that. And I simply might be a dumb ole boy here, after all I have only extensively viewed coins during lot viewing and on the bourse over the last decade and I know many of you have much more experience than I do. So I need more clear understanding here I guess before I can relate to my observation in my original post. That was what I was trying to do, to get info to help me understand what I believed to be an inconsistency with CAC that does not appear to follow in cases, especially one as obvious as this Newman coin, the A-B, versus C in a specific grade designation that then can become an A-B in a higher grade.

 

Everyone thanks for posting, I apologize because I just wanted answers, I did not want to upset everyone by opening up the issue and apparently I have. I respect all you for your outstanding numismatic knowledge and contributions.

 

Sorry...

 

Best, HT

 

CAC is a second opinion from a leading expert who is willing to put his money where his mouth is. Nothing more, nothing less. It is no better than the opinion given you by NGC or PCGS, it is a second opinion.

 

Additionally, any two people could take a 63+ and see it as a 64. CAC could even think it is really a 64, but not be willing to put their brand 100% behind an upgrade by assigning a gold sticker. When it is only a 1 point upgrade, its not something noticeable. If this were a 63+ that should have been 65 or better, I can see a possible Gold sticker. A coin that looks out of place in its grade range general gets noticed by CAC, just as the greater marketplace would notice a gem in a 63 slab.

[BROADSTRUCK]

CAC ignores the + so this was just a solid MS63 in their opinion.

 

Still the same coin now in different plastic with 2 new opinions on the grade.

 

Oddly no one has mentioned the mere 6% profit margin DW asked for this coin after crossing, upgrading, and recacing.

[physics-fan3.14]

Oddly no one has mentioned the mere 6% profit margin DW asked for this coin after crossing, upgrading, and recacing.

 

Because the asking price is already strong for a 64 coin. The coin seems to have lost the Newman pedigree when it was crossed. The premiums for those Newman coins are unsustainable, in my opinion (yeah, I think some of them are worth a bit of a premium, but a lot of them sold for *very* large premiums.)

[jom]

CAC ignores the + so this was just a solid MS63 in their opinion.

 

Still the same coin now in different plastic with 2 new opinions on the grade.

 

As I'm sure you know this has been going on forever so nothing new here. I once tracked (online through several auctions and dealer websites) a Buffalo nickel from PCGS 64 to NGC 66 over a 6 month period (I think it was PC65 in between as well). It was a learning experience and somewhat humorous actually...

 

Oddly no one has mentioned the mere 6% profit margin DW asked for this coin after crossing, upgrading, and recacing.

 

Because the asking price is already strong for a 64 coin. The coin seems to have lost the Newman pedigree when it was crossed. The premiums for those Newman coins are unsustainable, in my opinion (yeah, I think some of them are worth a bit of a premium, but a lot of them sold for *very* large premiums.)

 

If a particular coin's value is, in fact, unsustainable we'll soon see the coin offered at lower prices. Be patient. If not, then I guess it was probably not over-valued or it just found a good home.

 

jom

[GoldFinger1969]

Reading my DOUBLE EAGLE book, Akers mentioned someone who sent a coin in 2 dozen times to get it moved up 1 notch.

 

Another coin he referenced went from AU-58 to MS-62, a 4 grade improvement.

 

So this is most definitely not a hobby involving exact science !

[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

 

 

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

 

 

They would not have any way of knowing it was the same coin, unless the serial number stayed the same.

 

They would know for sure in this case - it is a Newman coin, unique pedigree just auctioned two months ago, and without doubt can spend 20 seconds looking up the grade on the Heritage website like I did. They would have to be living in a non-numismatic world for their whole lives to not know it was the same coin, yikes.

 

Best, HT

[MarkFeld]

 

A

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

 

 

They would not have any way of knowing it was the same coin, unless the serial number stayed the same.

 

They would know for sure in this case - it is a Newman coin, unique pedigree just auctioned two months ago, and without doubt can spend 20 seconds looking up the grade on the Heritage website like I did. They would have to be living in a non-numismatic world for their whole lives to not know it was the same coin, yikes.

 

Best, HT

 

And if NGC, CAC and PCGS looked up each coin submitted for grading, then automatically assigned the same grade for coins they had graded previously, there would probably be widespread griping. And in that case, with good cause.

[Hard Times]

So the OPs question was how can 63+ green bean and then also green bean as a 64. That started this whole thing. It's clear a few people here just don't like CAC. That's fine. To say that a coin can't go from a green bean 63+ to a green bean 64 is ridiculous. I once had a PCGS MS62 $10 Lib with a CAC Green sticker that I sent in for re-grade and it came back 63. It went back to CAC and got a green bean again. I was a bit surprised it re-beaned and was also a bit surprised it upgraded at PCGS. Fact was it had great luster and a strong strike but was pretty nicked up for a 63. Luster/strike carried the day.

 

Anyways, all the finger pointing and ranting doesn't get us anywhere. The old saying goes like this, "You can't throw mud on somebody without getting some it on yourself". There are some heavy hitters posting in this thread (and I'm NOT one of them). You guys please cool off and keep posting here. I appreciate your knowledge and insight but nobody needs this bickering over "opinions".

 

Fishy, I am just baffled - if, as CAC does, and if, as they say they do, decide between A-B versus C coins for a specific grade, such that they have now split the hairs even finer than the TPG's in grading, then I simply cannot fathom how a coin can jump from 63 green beaned to 64 green beaned, especially on a coin that is so obvious what its original grade was. They have that info and we all know they do and they know we know. Which is why I brought this up when I saw the evidence that they do this. This simply goes against their defined way of deciding whether the coin is worthy of a bean. I get the subjectivity of grading, but the idea being pushed by CAC, even if not explicitly said, is that they are really getting down to defining a coins quality within a grade and making determinations on how the TPG's have done. 4rth party grading. I like to think if you are going to grade the graders, you should be more consistent with your grading once you have defined how you are going to grade - A,B vs. C etc. You can't go changing your opinions later in such an obvious way because that is what the TPG's do and that is why we have grade inflation. I think that part of the reason to have 4th party grading is to stop grade inflation, but now I see that I am wrong as many folks here point out that CAC rebeans coin in higher grades frequently.

 

I see many explanations here as to why it could happen and does, but it does not stand with what CAC says on their website as to what they are doing. On the other hand, if the bean really means that CAC would be glad buying a coin in whatever holder it is in, then okay, no worries, they are setting a market and saying this coin is in their market. I have no problems with that. And I simply might be a dumb ole boy here, after all I have only extensively viewed coins during lot viewing and on the bourse over the last decade and I know many of you have much more experience than I do. So I need more clear understanding here I guess before I can relate to my observation in my original post. That was what I was trying to do, to get info to help me understand what I believed to be an inconsistency with CAC that does not appear to follow in cases, especially one as obvious as this Newman coin, the A-B, versus C in a specific grade designation that then can become an A-B in a higher grade.

 

Everyone thanks for posting, I apologize because I just wanted answers, I did not want to upset everyone by opening up the issue and apparently I have. I respect all you for your outstanding numismatic knowledge and contributions.

 

Sorry...

 

Best, HT

 

CAC is a second opinion from a leading expert who is willing to put his money where his mouth is. Nothing more, nothing less. It is no better than the opinion given you by NGC or PCGS, it is a second opinion.

 

Additionally, any two people could take a 63+ and see it as a 64. CAC could even think it is really a 64, but not be willing to put their brand 100% behind an upgrade by assigning a gold sticker. When it is only a 1 point upgrade, its not something noticeable. If this were a 63+ that should have been 65 or better, I can see a possible Gold sticker. A coin that looks out of place in its grade range general gets noticed by CAC, just as the greater marketplace would notice a gem in a 63 slab.

 

Yes you could justify this in such a manner. But fact remains, they green beaned a coin they knew went 63 prior with a green bean, and when it upgraded to a 64, beaned it again with that knowledge. This goes strictly against the definition of A, B, or C that they themselves list on their website as to how they decide whether to bean or not. 63A ≠ 64B in the true sense of grading, no chance.

 

Thanks for all of the comments, not to stir the pot even further, but I have seen alot of ways here people can justify this double green beaning in two grades for one coin where the CAC team without a doubt knew that it upgraded. But it still seems to me that the mission of CAC as a 4th party grader is to put more stringent definitions of what is a A or B coin for the grade. No way can this example of what they are doing fall in line with this, and again, as they define their mission on their website. The perception I got as a collector about CAC is that this is good for all of us as CAC is bringing more sanity into grading, and grading sets the value of a coin so this is good. But this shows that this might not be the case for all coins.

 

People, I think the mission of CAC is really just a marketing strategy to insure strong prices for the coins they and their distributors sell. It does not mean that coins not getting the CAC bean are not A or B coins in most cases, but this is like any commercial bullion dealer finding novel ways to market their coins - in this case to amp the price up, put a pretty sticker on it, keep the flow of green stickered coins to just the right levels, and voila, you can maximize your profits. This is what a dealer should do if people buying the product will think something is better by putting a sticker on it. This is not about helping collectors but making money. In this sense, because they have a vested financial interest in doing what they are doing, well, let's just say one should judge a coin on its merits, do research on they past selling history of coins each time you are going to buy, and realize that alot of A and B coins are going to have to not get the bean to keep the market strong for beaned coins. Does this mean that CAC coins are not PQ? Absolutely, they are. But alot of coins sent in to CAC are also A and B and not getting the bean because they have to keep the flow of CAC coins to the right level.

 

Sorry but this is what I feel is going on. Just my observations after analyzing everything I have seen about this. This is what I do as a scientist, I examine a problem, I test it, draw conclusions, and do it all again. I have been studying the CAC issue for several years now and this is my conclusion to present. I am not trying to upset the CAC fans, and certainly go buy CAC coins (I will for sure) and you can't go wrong. Me, I am just not going to limit myself to only <10% of all of the coins out there in this way and realize that it is really all about marketing.

 

Looks like I just damaged my chance for submitting coins to CAC but there you have it. And again, play nice here and voice your opinion, but please no direct attacks on folks character as we examine this issue.

 

Best, HT

[Hard Times]

A

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

 

 

They would not have any way of knowing it was the same coin, unless the serial number stayed the same.

 

They would know for sure in this case - it is a Newman coin, unique pedigree just auctioned two months ago, and without doubt can spend 20 seconds looking up the grade on the Heritage website like I did. They would have to be living in a non-numismatic world for their whole lives to not know it was the same coin, yikes.

 

Best, HT

 

And if NGC, CAC and PCGS looked up each coin submitted for grading, then automatically assigned the same grade for coins they had graded previously, there would probably be widespread griping. And in that case, with good cause.

 

Sure Mark, yes CAC had no idea with this coin, yup, that is right...

[Tyler N.]

Another coin he referenced went from AU-58 to MS-62, a 4 grade improvement.

 

So this is most definitely not a hobby involving exact science !

 

AU58 to MS62 isn't a huge jump. Yes, it indicates one grader thought the coin was circulated and had wear, while another (or, possibly, the same) thought it to be uncirculated - whether he missed the wear or the coin in question did not have wear. If the second grader thinks the coin is uncirculated, it doesn't necessarily mean the coin will just go up to the next numerically assigned grade, MS60. A coin graded AU58 can have the details of a coin graded, say, MS64, but, since the coin shows wear on the high points (or whatever knocked it down to 58) the highest it will go is 58. As mentioned earlier, if a second grader misses the wear, or believes the "wear" is the result of a poor strike, etc. (now, it wouldn't be referred to as "wear" anymore), then the coin with the qualities/characteristics of an MS(62/63/64) coin is graded as MS, not AU... Which brings me to your point "so this is most definitely not a hobby involving exact science!" Simply, no.

[MarkFeld]

A

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

 

 

They would not have any way of knowing it was the same coin, unless the serial number stayed the same.

 

They would know for sure in this case - it is a Newman coin, unique pedigree just auctioned two months ago, and without doubt can spend 20 seconds looking up the grade on the Heritage website like I did. They would have to be living in a non-numismatic world for their whole lives to not know it was the same coin, yikes.

 

Best, HT

 

And if NGC, CAC and PCGS looked up each coin submitted for grading, then automatically assigned the same grade for coins they had graded previously, there would probably be widespread griping. And in that case, with good cause.

 

Sure Mark, yes CAC had no idea with this coin, yup, that is right...

 

I didn't say that they had no idea. I don't know if they did or not, and unlike, you, I wont act as if I do know. But the point is, even if they did, they have the right to sticker a coin as a 63 and then later, as a 64. And it shouldn't lead to confusion of the type you have displayed, or to ridicule.

[okbustchaser]

Just an interjection, but am I the only person on this forum that remembers hearing every one of these exact same arguments--both pro and con--over and over again back in the early days of the TPGs?

[JVC]

I believe that CAC does a good in evaluating the grade of a coin. On occasion they will give a CAC sticker to a coin on a resubmission that they had previously rejected. This does not happen often, but it does happen. They are not perfect, but in my opinion they get it right a high percentage of the time.

[brg5658]

CAC isn't all that you might perceive it to be. If you want to keep believing then don't look behind the curtain.

 

 

 

 

[Tradedollarnut]

But alot of coins sent in to CAC are also A and B and not getting the bean because they have to keep the flow of CAC coins to the right level.

 

This is just silly. And your posts contradict each other. In one you pound on CAC because they sticker a coin at 63 and then at 64, in another you state they aren't stickering enough good coins. Make up your mind!

 

Btw - one aspect hasn't even been discussed and that is the possibility that the coin was acetoned in order to removed built up grease and grime to allow the luster to pop better. You wouldn't see it in an image, it's not harmful and it does improve the look and thus the grade of some coins!

[MarkFeld]

But alot of coins sent in to CAC are also A and B and not getting the bean because they have to keep the flow of CAC coins to the right level.

 

This is just silly. And your posts contradict each other. In one you pound on CAC because they sticker a coin at 63 and then at 64, in another you state they aren't stickering enough good coins. Make up your mind!

 

Btw - one aspect hasn't even been discussed and that is the possibility that the coin was acetoned in order to removed built up grease and grime to allow the luster to pop better. You wouldn't see it in an image, it's not harmful and it does improve the look and thus the grade of some coins!

 

Speaking of contradictions, I don't see how stickering coins that have upgraded is consistent with the poster's claim that "People, I think the mission of CAC is really just a marketing strategy to insure strong prices for the coins they and their distributors sell". Continually stickering up-grades would eventually lead to the opposite effect on prices of CAC coins.

[Tradedollarnut]

JA sees so many coins that he brain dumps all but the most spectacular. I know this from first hand conversations with him. There is absolutely no reason for him to remember an MS63/64 seated liberty half. In his world, that's just a widget.

[MarkFeld]

JA sees so many coins that he brain dumps all but the most spectacular. I know this from first hand conversations with him. There is absolutely no reason for him to remember an MS63/64 seated liberty half. In his world, that's just a widget.

 

You're not paying attention.We have essentially been assured in this thread that he recognized the coin (or at least could/should have, by looking it up).

[orifdoc]

Interesting thread. I too have looked at all this from the point of view of a scientist. What I've decided is that grading isn't all that scientific, and I'm OK with that. What does make me crazy is when someone goes on a rant about something that happened once or a handful of times. Coins don't have grades so there is no "correct" answer - just opinions. In a world where thousands of coins get graded every week there are bound to be some outliers. Focusing on these and not on the generally good judgement of the TPGs and CAC is a little short-sighted.

 

If you want 100% accuracy in a field that is hugely subjective, you're going to be disappointed from time to time.

[Tradedollarnut]

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.

 

Because, after all, CAC does have that newfangled computer feature that matches the current new PCGS cert # to the old NGC cert #....don't they?

 

/eyeroll

[dimefreak]

There was a coin in an auction with a staple scratch and had a CAC... I pointed it out and the auction went on as if nothing ever happened... so all I hope is the fine folks on this forum don't rely solely on the CAC sticker. Please do your homework whether it be in hand inspection or whatever you chose.