Why did CAC reject this Saint

[GoldFinger1969]

That's not really a "5 grade differential". Some thought the coin was rubbed so that drops the coin to AU58 but in reality you take away the rub you've got a MS63. Most AU58s are superior coins to many MS60-62 coins an often are valued higher so it's not really a 4/5 grade difference. It's one of the weaknesses of our grading system.jom

Thanks, Jom.....why do you say that AU58's are HIGHER to low-60's coins ? You are referring to older undergraded coins vs. some coins that got higher grades than they expected ?

[Lastufka Collection]

Thanks, Jom.....why do you say that AU58's are HIGHER to low-60's coins ? You are referring to older undergraded coins vs. some coins that got higher grades than they expected ?

I can't answer for Jom, but some of the gold coins with slight circulation rub, making them AU coins, have less distracting bag marks and other nicks than the technically MS coins. So they have more eye appeal and look "prettier" than the marked up, but technically mint state gold coins.

[GoldFinger1969]

I can't answer for Jom, but some of the gold coins with slight circulation rub, making them AU coins, have less distracting bag marks and other nicks than the technically MS coins. So they have more eye appeal and look "prettier" than the marked up, but technically mint state gold coins.

That's one thing that I realize can never be quantified, Alan.....how do you weigh every imperfection when you're not dealing with MS-66 and higher coins (let's say Saints since that's my area of 'expertise' if you can call it that ). In other words, we know that every mark matters when going down from 70 to 69 to 68...but when you get down to 66 or 65, it seems it's alot tougher. Ditto for MS-60 vs. AU-58 and the other ratings grades when you fall from a lower number in a higher grade to a high number in a lower grade.

 

How many bag marks exceed the 'damage' compared to a single, small gouge ? If the coin shows absolutely no wear except strangely alot of wear on the single high point, is that better or worse than very minimal wear evenly spread out ?

 

How do you weigh light marks in the center of the coin or on noticeable features vs. heavier damage away from the fields ? Are 5 scuff marks on the obverse worse or the same as 5 scuff marks on the reverse ?

 

I read the PCGS and NGC grading standards and the stuff on the web....it's not an exact science, even to professional graders who have graded tens of thousands of coins.

 

Speaking of exact science.....I wonder how long before we have coins evaluated by scanning machines which can weigh all the individual marks, weigh/scan/analyze (MRI-like) the coin, etc. We already do this today for some kinds of medical diagnostics.

 

 

[jom]

Thanks, Jom.....why do you say that AU58's are HIGHER to low-60's coins ? You are referring to older undergraded coins vs. some coins that got higher grades than they expected ?

I can't answer for Jom, but some of the gold coins with slight circulation rub, making them AU coins, have less distracting bag marks and other nicks than the technically MS coins. So they have more eye appeal and look "prettier" than the marked up, but technically mint state gold coins.

 

Yes, but it's not just gold coins.

 

Some AU coins do sell for more than MS coins since they are of higher quality. Just because a coin has rub or wear doesn't mean it's lower quality. Like I said above it's just a weakness in the grading system we have...that's all. IMO, wear shouldn't be any more of a detriment to a coin's value than bag marks or lack of strike or luster. But grading system we have is what it is....for now.

 

jom

[MarkFeld]

Thanks, Jom.....why do you say that AU58's are HIGHER to low-60's coins ? You are referring to older undergraded coins vs. some coins that got higher grades than they expected ?

I can't answer for Jom, but some of the gold coins with slight circulation rub, making them AU coins, have less distracting bag marks and other nicks than the technically MS coins. So they have more eye appeal and look "prettier" than the marked up, but technically mint state gold coins.

 

Yes, but it's not just gold coins.

 

Some AU coins do sell for more than MS coins since they are of higher quality. Just because a coin has rub or wear doesn't mean it's lower quality. Like I said above it's just a weakness in the grading system we have...that's all. IMO, wear shouldn't be any more of a detriment to a coin's value than bag marks or lack of strike or luster. But grading system we have is what it is....for now.

 

jom

 

I disagree with "Just because a coin has rub or wear doesn't mean it's lower quality", at least with respect to "quality" in terms of condition. For various reasons, a lower quality coin (with wear/rub) might still be more desirable/appealing looking than a higher quality one (without wear/rub). But that's not the same as being of better quality.

[GoldFinger1969]

Yes, but it's not just gold coins. Some AU coins do sell for more than MS coins since they are of higher quality. Just because a coin has rub or wear doesn't mean it's lower quality. Like I said above it's just a weakness in the grading system we have...that's all. IMO, wear shouldn't be any more of a detriment to a coin's value than bag marks or lack of strike or luster. But grading system we have is what it is....for now.jom

(1) How can the AU coin be of 'higher quality', assuming we are not talking about a 1-grade differential where both were misgraded ?

 

(2) Is higher prices for a LOWER rated coin a phenomenon of less-liquid traded coins, where maybe there are very specific, defined buyers as opposed to larger, more liquid, more expen$$$ive coins ? I can't envision an AU-58 Saint going for MORE than an MS-62 (again, unless both were misgraded).

[GoldFinger1969]

I disagree with "Just because a coin has rub or wear doesn't mean it's lower quality", at least with respect to "quality" in terms of condition. For various reasons, a lower quality coin (with wear/rub) might still be more desirable/appealing looking than a higher quality one (without wear/rub). But that's not the same as being of better quality.

Mark, this goes to what I wrote above. Suppose -- hypothetically -- you had a coin that was CIRCULATED yet suffered less damage than one that was taken directly from a mint bag (with bag marks) and then protected. UNC as I understand it is lower-graded than 'Mint State' but that normally assumes it takes more of a beating, right ? Which would you give the higher grade to: the circulated or the uncirculated IF the circulated looked better ? I guess this begs the question....is UNC the be-all and end-all to achieve an MS rating ?

 

Now, move away from actual damage....if the lower-rated coin has luster/shine but for whatever reason the higher-rated one did not, then I could see someone preferring the former even at a higher price. But that assumes the coins are not rated the same.

 

Not sure how you as a former professional grader weight these things, but I am sure it varies from coin-to-coin and when you are talking about the lower grades vs. mint states. I would think that luster and/or lack of even fine scratches has to count for more if a coin is going to be rated MS-67 or MS-68 as opposed to the same qualities being taken into account for an MS-62 or an AU-grade, right ?

 

I can see why they have 3 graders to determine these ratings, since you don't want 1 person's personal subjectivity to skew the grade(s).

[jom]

Thanks, Jom.....why do you say that AU58's are HIGHER to low-60's coins ? You are referring to older undergraded coins vs. some coins that got higher grades than they expected ?

I can't answer for Jom, but some of the gold coins with slight circulation rub, making them AU coins, have less distracting bag marks and other nicks than the technically MS coins. So they have more eye appeal and look "prettier" than the marked up, but technically mint state gold coins.

 

Yes, but it's not just gold coins.

 

Some AU coins do sell for more than MS coins since they are of higher quality. Just because a coin has rub or wear doesn't mean it's lower quality. Like I said above it's just a weakness in the grading system we have...that's all. IMO, wear shouldn't be any more of a detriment to a coin's value than bag marks or lack of strike or luster. But grading system we have is what it is....for now.

 

jom

 

I disagree with "Just because a coin has rub or wear doesn't mean it's lower quality", at least with respect to "quality" in terms of condition. For various reasons, a lower quality coin (with wear/rub) might still be more desirable/appealing looking than a higher quality one (without wear/rub). But that's not the same as being of better quality.

 

I've read your paragraph a few times now and I'm not entire sure what you meant....

 

Are saying that coins with "wear/rub" are of lower quality than a "banged up" mint state coin I'd disagree with the definition you are using? If so, then I'm not sure we are defining "quality" the same way.

 

However, if you meant that two coins that would otherwise be the same except for some "wear/rub" then I'd agree the one without the wear would be of higher quality...obviously.

 

jom

[Hard Times]

Thanks, Jom.....why do you say that AU58's are HIGHER to low-60's coins ? You are referring to older undergraded coins vs. some coins that got higher grades than they expected ?

I can't answer for Jom, but some of the gold coins with slight circulation rub, making them AU coins, have less distracting bag marks and other nicks than the technically MS coins. So they have more eye appeal and look "prettier" than the marked up, but technically mint state gold coins.

 

Yes, but it's not just gold coins.

 

Some AU coins do sell for more than MS coins since they are of higher quality. Just because a coin has rub or wear doesn't mean it's lower quality. Like I said above it's just a weakness in the grading system we have...that's all. IMO, wear shouldn't be any more of a detriment to a coin's value than bag marks or lack of strike or luster. But grading system we have is what it is....for now.

 

jom

 

I disagree with "Just because a coin has rub or wear doesn't mean it's lower quality", at least with respect to "quality" in terms of condition. For various reasons, a lower quality coin (with wear/rub) might still be more desirable/appealing looking than a higher quality one (without wear/rub). But that's not the same as being of better quality.

 

I've read your paragraph a few times now and I'm not entire sure what you meant....

 

Are saying that coins with "wear/rub" are of lower quality than a "banged up" mint state coin I'd disagree with the definition you are using? If so, then I'm not sure we are defining "quality" the same way.

 

However, if you meant that two coins that would otherwise be the same except for some "wear/rub" then I'd agree the one without the wear would be of higher quality...obviously.

 

jom

 

That was my thought, it depends on how you define quality.

 

Best, HT

[Walkerfan]

Thanks, Jom.....why do you say that AU58's are HIGHER to low-60's coins ? You are referring to older undergraded coins vs. some coins that got higher grades than they expected ?

I can't answer for Jom, but some of the gold coins with slight circulation rub, making them AU coins, have less distracting bag marks and other nicks than the technically MS coins. So they have more eye appeal and look "prettier" than the marked up, but technically mint state gold coins.

 

Yes, but it's not just gold coins.

 

Some AU coins do sell for more than MS coins since they are of higher quality. Just because a coin has rub or wear doesn't mean it's lower quality. Like I said above it's just a weakness in the grading system we have...that's all. IMO, wear shouldn't be any more of a detriment to a coin's value than bag marks or lack of strike or luster. But grading system we have is what it is....for now.

 

jom

 

I disagree with "Just because a coin has rub or wear doesn't mean it's lower quality", at least with respect to "quality" in terms of condition. For various reasons, a lower quality coin (with wear/rub) might still be more desirable/appealing looking than a higher quality one (without wear/rub). But that's not the same as being of better quality.

 

I've read your paragraph a few times now and I'm not entire sure what you meant....

 

Are saying that coins with "wear/rub" are of lower quality than a "banged up" mint state coin I'd disagree with the definition you are using? If so, then I'm not sure we are defining "quality" the same way.

 

However, if you meant that two coins that would otherwise be the same except for some "wear/rub" then I'd agree the one without the wear would be of higher quality...obviously.

 

jom

 

That was my thought, it depends on how you define quality.

 

Best, HT

 

To me a bagged-marked up, poorly struck, lack-luster MS 60 or 61 is no better than a brilliant, well struck AU 58 with some rub. I think that the AU 58 would likely be a better coin per buck even though the MS 60-61 has got a higher price guide value and thus considered higher quality. But personally, I wouldn't want either one. JMHO.

[MarkFeld]

Thanks, Jom.....why do you say that AU58's are HIGHER to low-60's coins ? You are referring to older undergraded coins vs. some coins that got higher grades than they expected ?

I can't answer for Jom, but some of the gold coins with slight circulation rub, making them AU coins, have less distracting bag marks and other nicks than the technically MS coins. So they have more eye appeal and look "prettier" than the marked up, but technically mint state gold coins.

 

Yes, but it's not just gold coins.

 

Some AU coins do sell for more than MS coins since they are of higher quality. Just because a coin has rub or wear doesn't mean it's lower quality. Like I said above it's just a weakness in the grading system we have...that's all. IMO, wear shouldn't be any more of a detriment to a coin's value than bag marks or lack of strike or luster. But grading system we have is what it is....for now.

 

jom

 

I disagree with "Just because a coin has rub or wear doesn't mean it's lower quality", at least with respect to "quality" in terms of condition. For various reasons, a lower quality coin (with wear/rub) might still be more desirable/appealing looking than a higher quality one (without wear/rub). But that's not the same as being of better quality.

 

I've read your paragraph a few times now and I'm not entire sure what you meant....

 

Are saying that coins with "wear/rub" are of lower quality than a "banged up" mint state coin I'd disagree with the definition you are using? If so, then I'm not sure we are defining "quality" the same way.

 

However, if you meant that two coins that would otherwise be the same except for some "wear/rub" then I'd agree the one without the wear would be of higher quality...obviously.

 

jom

 

Yes, coins with "wear/rub" (as in not uncirculated) are of lower "quality" than banged up mint state examples. The former might be more attractive or appealing and might even command higher prices. But by definition (and the grading scale that is so widely utilized in our industry), a circulated coin is of lower "quality" than an uncirculated one.

[jom]

Thanks, Jom.....why do you say that AU58's are HIGHER to low-60's coins ? You are referring to older undergraded coins vs. some coins that got higher grades than they expected ?

I can't answer for Jom, but some of the gold coins with slight circulation rub, making them AU coins, have less distracting bag marks and other nicks than the technically MS coins. So they have more eye appeal and look "prettier" than the marked up, but technically mint state gold coins.

 

Yes, but it's not just gold coins.

 

Some AU coins do sell for more than MS coins since they are of higher quality. Just because a coin has rub or wear doesn't mean it's lower quality. Like I said above it's just a weakness in the grading system we have...that's all. IMO, wear shouldn't be any more of a detriment to a coin's value than bag marks or lack of strike or luster. But grading system we have is what it is....for now.

 

jom

 

I disagree with "Just because a coin has rub or wear doesn't mean it's lower quality", at least with respect to "quality" in terms of condition. For various reasons, a lower quality coin (with wear/rub) might still be more desirable/appealing looking than a higher quality one (without wear/rub). But that's not the same as being of better quality.

 

I've read your paragraph a few times now and I'm not entire sure what you meant....

 

Are saying that coins with "wear/rub" are of lower quality than a "banged up" mint state coin I'd disagree with the definition you are using? If so, then I'm not sure we are defining "quality" the same way.

 

However, if you meant that two coins that would otherwise be the same except for some "wear/rub" then I'd agree the one without the wear would be of higher quality...obviously.

 

jom

 

Yes, coins with "wear/rub" (as in not uncirculated) are of lower "quality" than banged up mint state examples. The former might be more attractive or appealing and might even command higher prices. But by definition (and the grading scale that is so widely utilized in our industry), a circulated coin is of lower "quality" than an uncirculated one.

 

OK, so it was the word "quality" I mis-used.

 

I was just trying to point out that, IMO, the "grading scale that we so widely use" is flawed in that I believe that wear/rub is no more a detriment to a coin that lack of luster, bad strike or a lot of bag marks. This is not really accounted for in the system hence the reason often AU coins bring money over MS might seem "odd" to some people. I used the word "quality" (possibly incorrectly) trying to explain that.

 

jom

[coinman_23885]

Thanks, Jom.....why do you say that AU58's are HIGHER to low-60's coins ? You are referring to older undergraded coins vs. some coins that got higher grades than they expected ?

I can't answer for Jom, but some of the gold coins with slight circulation rub, making them AU coins, have less distracting bag marks and other nicks than the technically MS coins. So they have more eye appeal and look "prettier" than the marked up, but technically mint state gold coins.

 

Yes, but it's not just gold coins.

 

Some AU coins do sell for more than MS coins since they are of higher quality. Just because a coin has rub or wear doesn't mean it's lower quality. Like I said above it's just a weakness in the grading system we have...that's all. IMO, wear shouldn't be any more of a detriment to a coin's value than bag marks or lack of strike or luster. But grading system we have is what it is....for now.

 

jom

 

I disagree with "Just because a coin has rub or wear doesn't mean it's lower quality", at least with respect to "quality" in terms of condition. For various reasons, a lower quality coin (with wear/rub) might still be more desirable/appealing looking than a higher quality one (without wear/rub). But that's not the same as being of better quality.

 

I've read your paragraph a few times now and I'm not entire sure what you meant....

 

Are saying that coins with "wear/rub" are of lower quality than a "banged up" mint state coin I'd disagree with the definition you are using? If so, then I'm not sure we are defining "quality" the same way.

 

However, if you meant that two coins that would otherwise be the same except for some "wear/rub" then I'd agree the one without the wear would be of higher quality...obviously.

 

jom

 

Yes, coins with "wear/rub" (as in not uncirculated) are of lower "quality" than banged up mint state examples. The former might be more attractive or appealing and might even command higher prices. But by definition (and the grading scale that is so widely utilized in our industry), a circulated coin is of lower "quality" than an uncirculated one.

 

What about the lower graded "uncirculated" (MS graded) coins with "cabinet friction"? Also I have always been curious and have never asked, but how does one distinguish between cabinet friction and the earliest wear from light circulation? Aren't a lot of today's "mint state" pieces yesterday's AU58s?

 

Sorry for the aside.

[GoldFinger1969]

But by definition (and the grading scale that is so widely utilized in our industry), a circulated coin is of lower "quality" than an uncirculated one.

 

Makes sense, but what if a coin that would normally be MS takes such a beating from coin bag marks and other handling over the years (decades)....while another coin could theoretically be circulated for a few weeks/months and be handled with TLC.

 

In theory, you wouldn't even be able to tell that the circulated coin had been circulated.

 

My point is, since we can't actually verify a coin's history on a daily or hourly basis, we look to the damage on the coin to ascertain (guess ?) the history.

 

My grandfather served in the Merchant Marine in the 1920's and 1930's....I wish I had asked him while he was still alive if Double Eagles were used around the country or the world from time-to-time or if people only hoarded them or paid debts to people rather than used the coins, even rarely, for normal commerce.

[MarkFeld]

But by definition (and the grading scale that is so widely utilized in our industry), a circulated coin is of lower "quality" than an uncirculated one.

 

Makes sense, but what if a coin that would normally be MS takes such a beating from coin bag marks and other handling over the years (decades)....while another coin could theoretically be circulated for a few weeks/months and be handled with TLC.

 

In theory, you wouldn't even be able to tell that the circulated coin had been circulated.

 

My point is, since we can't actually verify a coin's history on a daily or hourly basis, we look to the damage on the coin to ascertain (guess ?) the history.

 

My grandfather served in the Merchant Marine in the 1920's and 1930's....I wish I had asked him while he was still alive if Double Eagles were used around the country or the world from time-to-time or if people only hoarded them or paid debts to people rather than used the coins, even rarely, for normal commerce.

 

The MS coin that you described as taking such a beating, is graded AU, rather than MS at a certain point. I have seen many coins which appear to be unc., but which are so heavily bag-marked, are graded AU.

[MarkFeld]

Thanks, Jom.....why do you say that AU58's are HIGHER to low-60's coins ? You are referring to older undergraded coins vs. some coins that got higher grades than they expected ?

I can't answer for Jom, but some of the gold coins with slight circulation rub, making them AU coins, have less distracting bag marks and other nicks than the technically MS coins. So they have more eye appeal and look "prettier" than the marked up, but technically mint state gold coins.

 

Yes, but it's not just gold coins.

 

Some AU coins do sell for more than MS coins since they are of higher quality. Just because a coin has rub or wear doesn't mean it's lower quality. Like I said above it's just a weakness in the grading system we have...that's all. IMO, wear shouldn't be any more of a detriment to a coin's value than bag marks or lack of strike or luster. But grading system we have is what it is....for now.

 

jom

 

I disagree with "Just because a coin has rub or wear doesn't mean it's lower quality", at least with respect to "quality" in terms of condition. For various reasons, a lower quality coin (with wear/rub) might still be more desirable/appealing looking than a higher quality one (without wear/rub). But that's not the same as being of better quality.

 

I've read your paragraph a few times now and I'm not entire sure what you meant....

 

Are saying that coins with "wear/rub" are of lower quality than a "banged up" mint state coin I'd disagree with the definition you are using? If so, then I'm not sure we are defining "quality" the same way.

 

However, if you meant that two coins that would otherwise be the same except for some "wear/rub" then I'd agree the one without the wear would be of higher quality...obviously.

 

jom

 

Yes, coins with "wear/rub" (as in not uncirculated) are of lower "quality" than banged up mint state examples. The former might be more attractive or appealing and might even command higher prices. But by definition (and the grading scale that is so widely utilized in our industry), a circulated coin is of lower "quality" than an uncirculated one.

 

What about the lower graded "uncirculated" (MS graded) coins with "cabinet friction"? Also I have always been curious and have never asked, but how does one distinguish between cabinet friction and the earliest wear from light circulation? Aren't a lot of today's "mint state" pieces yesterday's AU58s?

 

Sorry for the aside.

 

I think that in many instances, it's impossible to distinguish "cabinet friction" from the earliest wear due to light circulation. However, I believe it can be done in some cases. What I look for is evidence of circulation in addition to "cabinet friction" or wear due to circulation. I look for contact marks, hairlines, rim dings, etc. I think they are less likely to be found on unc. coins displaying "cabinet friction" than on coins which have circulated only slightly.

[GoldFinger1969]

I think that in many instances, it's impossible to distinguish "cabinet friction" from the earliest wear due to light circulation. However, I believe it can be done in some cases. What I look for is evidence of circulation in addition to "cabinet friction" or wear due to circulation. I look for contact marks, hairlines, rim dings, etc. I think they are less likely to be found on unc. coins displaying "cabinet friction" than on coins which have circulated only slightly.

This is because there was the expectation that a circulated coin would always show more damage, wear and tear, dents, dings, etc. than an uncirculated coin, even one that took a beating from being in a bag that was moving around European vaults, right ?

 

With regard to Saint Gaudens Double Eagles.......has anybody ever discussed or written about where most of the circulation "wear-and-tear" would come from on Saint $20s if they didn't circulate that often (or that's what I have read here) ?

 

You would think that Liberty DEs would have circulated more as currency because the country was more fragmented, undeveloped banking system, communication lags to Western territories/states, etc. But by the time the Saints came out in the early 1900's through the 1920's most people were comfortable using paper money or other coins.

 

Up to the present time, it appears that gold coins have been increasingly circulated LESS as modern economies, banking systems, and central bank-backed currencies take root and get more advanced.

 

Any good books or sections of books that talk about how freely U.S. gold coins may have circulated from about the time of the Civil War through the 1920's ?

[bourse28]

08 Saints are not among the best in appearance and eye appeal like the 1924 and 1927. This issue typically has a good strike but looks flat on the obverse due to the dies. Luster is generally nice on these but the color can be average. Color can be a rich greenish gold with surfaces having a soft frosty appearance. I have owned a number of these and sold them off when gold around $2000.

 

The coin looks nice for a Ch Unc 08, perhaps they believe its a C Coin or less. I would try and find an image for a CAC 63 08 for comparative purposes.

 

I can see submitting it to CAC based on the Dollar Value, but since these trade not that much above melt I would not sweat it. Frankly, I like the coin so if you got it not that much above melt - congrats.

 

I would need to see the coin sight seen under magnification to make a judgement on luster, marks (not evident from image), and any possible rub (this should not be confused with flat or average strike which is typical for 08's).

[RWB]

The Type I 1908 DE were based on Barber's 1907 hubs. These had soft peripheral details, short obverse rays and no motto. As noted above, they tend to look mushy and rather unattractive even when there is no sign of wear.

[coinman1794]

Hey gang. Years ago, I bought this Saint raw on eBay, then submitted it to NGC - who graded it MS63. It always looked nice to my eyes, so I submitted it to CAC. I've seen a lot of nicked and marked 64's, so I was surprised they rejected it. What did they object to? Maybe the flattened face, or the usual obverse rub? What do you reckon?

 

 

Coins grading as high as MS64 can have traces of friction on the high points. If the coin is brilliant and there is no discoloration, friction will often be counted simply as normal surface abrasion, instead of as wear. This explains why your 63 has less baggy surfaces than some 64s; i.e., the high point abrasions count toward the 63 grade on an otherwise better coin.

 

That said, only CAC can tell you why they rejected this coin.

[wheat'swheats]

To me, unlike most Saints, that one is just not an attractive saint, and JA just did not want to be on the hook for it.

[Nutmeg Coin]

If the objective was to increase the future sale price through the CAC sticker, then it made some sense to send it in. With the shrinking premiums on generic type certified gold, it is hard to see much upside except for near gem and above coins.

[MarkFeld]

To me, unlike most Saints, that one is just not an attractive saint, and JA just did not want to be on the hook for it.

 

It looks quite attractive to me, due to its color, apparent originality and lack of large, distracting marks. However, it appears that there might be rub on Liberty's breast (or more than is usually tolerated). If so, that is my guess as to why the coin failed to receive a sticker.

[James_OldeTowne]

Hey gang. Years ago, I bought this Saint raw on eBay, then submitted it to NGC - who graded it MS63. It always looked nice to my eyes, so I submitted it to CAC. I've seen a lot of nicked and marked 64's, so I was surprised they rejected it. What did they object to? Maybe the flattened face, or the usual obverse rub? What do you reckon?

 

Based on what I've seen graded MS-63 for that date, yours appears to be an average example. Lack of a CAC sticker hopefully doesn't alter your pride of ownership - nothing wrong with the coin at all at that grade.

[wheat'swheats]

To me, unlike most Saints, that one is just not an attractive saint, and JA just did not want to be on the hook for it.

 

It looks quite attractive to me, due to its color, apparent originality and lack of large, distracting marks. However, it appears that there might be rub on Liberty's breast (or more than is usually tolerated). If so, that is my guess as to why the coin failed to receive a sticker.

And that's why it is said grading is subjective. What I do not care for in looks you might love.