• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Interesting ATS Thread

95 posts in this topic

Here is the link:

 

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=918599&STARTPAGE=1

 

I can't help but laugh at this thread ATS. Rick Snow, arguably the best expert on flying eagle and indian cents, calls out PGCS, CAC, and Legend Morphy about an 1856 FE that got the green bean and he apparently feels it should not have and that it is a problem coin and should not be even holdered with a grade. While he makes his comment with respect and opens it up for discussion, as many of us here have done about CAC and been hammered down by the kool-aid drinkers, some of these very same kool-aiders are upset at Rick for 'making this public'. Ankur J is right up there asking why Rick did not do this privately with JA. Man O'Man Ankur you are brainwashed, WOW! How can the rest of us learn if the luminaries like Rick can't speak out about CAC problems?

 

Ankur, CAC ain't perfect. They are not the final answer. Just like in the case of a grade, a CAC bean is a starting point for evaluation and they can have opinions on a coin that are very different from others with just as much talent for grading. There are many lessons here in Rick's thread, and anyone spending money on coins will learn from his analysis. It is good to raise these questions publicly. Oh-oh, I am now about to be chastized for starting yet another thread that shows the limitations on CAC. For the record, I have 4 Eagle Eyed FEs and Indians, only two CACed, which is laughable given the quality and discussions I had with Rick on each before I purchased in hand from him on the bourse at different shows. I will take Rick's opinion in his specialty over CAC any day!

 

Thank you Rick Snow for stating your opinion.

 

Best, HT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a mistake or error is discovered before a coin is sold, then responsibility lies with the source of the mistake to correct it. How and when that is done depends on time available and the nature of the problem.

 

In most instances I've seen, the authentication companies or auction companies try to make a timely correction.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Did Rick receive criticism, simply for making it public, or for not going directly to PCGS and CAC, in order to try to have the coin re-graded and/or removed from the marketplace in its current holder? My impression is that it was much more of the latter.

 

As I recall, years ago, Rick did not like it when I started a thread showing images of some Proof Indian cents. It turned out, he had bought them out of an auction and they subsequently displayed different color than they did when they were auctioned.

 

He thought I should have contacted him directly, first, even though I was not accusing him of having done anything wrong - at the time, I didn't even know he was the buyer or had treated the coins in any way. I had sent him an email in advance, but apparently had not seen it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snow talks about a spot, but copper nickels don't tone so what type of spot would this be?

 

It was a Flying Eagle cent, not a copper nickel cent. But each type can tone. And he was speaking of a carbon spot, which he said had been removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If you had read my books you would know that a coin can be described as MS63 or MS64 if it has been lightly cleaned or dipped." Never understood this opinion, that's why I'll take CAC over him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snow talks about a spot, but copper nickels don't tone so what type of spot would this be?

 

It was a Flying Eagle cent, not a copper nickel cent. But each type can tone. And he was speaking of a carbon spot, which he said had been removed.

 

 

FE cents are made of CN. Also to my knowledge FE and CN cents are never designated RB or BN due to the fact that the alloy does not tone. If you have an example of a RB or BN one or one with copper spots, please share it with the forum.

 

Thank You.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snow talks about a spot, but copper nickels don't tone so what type of spot would this be?

 

It was a Flying Eagle cent, not a copper nickel cent. But each type can tone. And he was speaking of a carbon spot, which he said had been removed.

 

 

FE cents are made of CN. Also to my knowledge FE and CN cents are never designated RB or BN due to the fact that the alloy does not tone. If you have an example of a RB or BN one or one with copper spots, please share it with the forum.

 

Thank You.

 

He said carbon spot, not copper spot. The former can be found on other metal alloys.

 

Snow talks about a spot, but copper nickels don't tone so what type of spot would this be?

 

Copper nickel alloys are more resistant to toning than pure copper, but it will in fact tone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If you had read my books you would know that a coin can be described as MS63 or MS64 if it has been lightly cleaned or dipped." Never understood this opinion, that's why I'll take CAC over him.

 

I understand the part about dipping, but the cleaning part perplexes me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snow talks about a spot, but copper nickels don't tone so what type of spot would this be?

 

It was a Flying Eagle cent, not a copper nickel cent. But each type can tone. And he was speaking of a carbon spot, which he said had been removed.

 

 

FE cents are made of CN. Also to my knowledge FE and CN cents are never designated RB or BN due to the fact that the alloy does not tone. If you have an example of a RB or BN one or one with copper spots, please share it with the forum.

 

Thank You.

 

He said carbon spot, not copper spot. The former can be found on other metal alloys.

 

OK. I've never seen a CN alloy coin with a dark spot. Can you provide an example? One learns something everyday. Thank You

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Rick receive criticism, simply for making it public, or for not going directly to PCGS and CAC, in order to try to have the coin re-graded and/or removed from the marketplace in its current holder? My impression is that it was much more of the latter.

 

 

For both - they are linked. Rick is trying to let the concerned public know when he finds problems in his specialty. Read the whole thread Mark, you may come up with a different interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snow talks about a spot, but copper nickels don't tone so what type of spot would this be?

 

It was a Flying Eagle cent, not a copper nickel cent. But each type can tone. And he was speaking of a carbon spot, which he said had been removed.

 

 

FE cents are made of CN. Also to my knowledge FE and CN cents are never designated RB or BN due to the fact that the alloy does not tone. If you have an example of a RB or BN one or one with copper spots, please share it with the forum.

 

Thank You.

 

He said carbon spot, not copper spot. The former can be found on other metal alloys.

 

OK. I've never seen a CN alloy coin with a dark spot. Can you provide an example? One learns something everyday. Thank You

 

I have seen a great many Flying Eagle and (1859-1864) copper nickel cents with carbon spots. And although they are not designated for their color by the grading companies, many of them have indeed toned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Rick receive criticism, simply for making it public, or for not going directly to PCGS and CAC, in order to try to have the coin re-graded and/or removed from the marketplace in its current holder? My impression is that it was much more of the latter.

 

 

For both - they are linked. Rick is trying to let the concerned public know when he finds problems in his specialty. Read the whole thread Mark, you may come up with a different interpretation.

 

I had already read the thread or wouldn't have commented on how I interpreted the comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, I don't have any spotted coins in my collection, but here is one from Rick's website. I don't consider those carbon spots on the linked piece so much as spotting from toning:

 

1858-Flying-Eagle-Cent.jpg

 

Edited: Also the CN coins were 88% copper and 12% Nickel as compared to the 95% Copper alloy used later; copper is highly reactive, so toning would not be out of the norm at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading deeper into the thread ATS, Snow suggests the subject coin may be a copper cent (pattern) and if so would make it only the 2nd known. Any thoughts on as to why he would make such a improbable suggestion? If he really believed this, I would think he would have purchased the coin, or ???.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since someone here asked, I once had a Flying Eagle Cent with several spots... here's a pic:

 

1857fems64obv.jpg

 

Had it conserved by NGC and you can read more about that here in the thread from a few years ago if you are interested:

 

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=687635

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that an 1856 FE cent graded PR64 PCGS, CAC is actually a broadstrike, which, by itself is OK, but it should never have made it into a holder that does not mention the error. Notice I don't say, "in my opinion". It is a cold hard fact.

 

Also, it has a removed spot that, in my opinion, should not have netted it the PR64 grade. This IS opinion. Also, the coin is an even dark copper color, which if tested may turn out to be copper. Perhaps it is an irregular copper planchet, and that is why it didn't strike up properly. In any event, it is certainly not a regularly struck coin that will make any collector who desires a PR64 1856 FE cent happy. Maybe an error collector, but not a person who desires a great coin like a PR64 1856 FE cent.

 

Everyone is up in arms that it was LEGEND that failed to mention the error. Should we cower because of the firm failing to describe the coin properly? Also, Mark Feld knows full well that the 8-year old fighting match we had was over removing shellac from collections coated in the 1930's when it was standard practice. I published an article about it, and have nothing to hide. If he ever insinuates wrongdoing on my part in that episode, I'll chat with him again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. I've never seen a CN alloy coin with a dark spot. Can you provide an example? One learns something everyday. Thank You

 

Here's one of mine. I've had this one for quite a long time, but not sure what to do about the spots. Pity too, it'd be a decent coin without them........

 

1864CN_zps082a82ee.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that an 1856 FE cent graded PR64 PCGS, CAC is actually a broadstrike, which, by itself is OK, but it should never have made it into a holder that does not mention the error. Notice I don't say, "in my opinion". It is a cold hard fact.

 

Also, it has a removed spot that, in my opinion, should not have netted it the PR64 grade. This IS opinion. Also, the coin is an even dark copper color, which if tested may turn out to be copper. Perhaps it is an irregular copper planchet, and that is why it didn't strike up properly. In any event, it is certainly not a regularly struck coin that will make any collector who desires a PR64 1856 FE cent happy. Maybe an error collector, but not a person who desires a great coin like a PR64 1856 FE cent.

 

Everyone is up in arms that it was LEGEND that failed to mention the error. Should we cower because of the firm failing to describe the coin properly? Also, Mark Feld knows full well that the 8-year old fighting match we had was over removing shellac from collections coated in the 1930's when it was standard practice. I published an article about it, and have nothing to hide. If he ever insinuates wrongdoing on my part in that episode, I'll chat with him again.

 

Rick, thank you for your post.

 

I didn't think you and I had had a "fighting match" over that old issue and my recollection is that you and I were both quite cordial. Again, at the time I started that thread, I didn't even know that you had bought the coins out of the auction or removed anything from the surfaces. I only knew that their appearance had changed. In response, you were very up front about what you had done. My issue was (and is) not with you.

 

But my point was that you and some other posters didn't like my questioning the color of the coins publicly. Likewise, some posters obviously didn't like your speaking out publicly regarding the 1856 Flying Eagle Cent. Personally, I'm all for it, but hope you had first contacted PCGS and CAC.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. I haven't posted here for ages.

 

A PR64 1856 Flying Eagle cent should be attractive with very few problems. The edges are nearly always squared and somewhat mirrored. The coin in the sale, which I saw in person, had one side bulged out and rounded and craggily looking. The letters near the failed edge collar show bifurcation which is a fancy word for notches in the center of the bases of the letters. This is only seen on open collar coins and broadstrikes.

 

The question is, if you trusted PCGS, CAC and the catalog description of Legend, would you have been screwed if you bought this coin? Really, no, since you have return privileges, and guarantees from CAC and PCGS. But what if the coin continues to be sold in the marketplace? It would not sell for the $20,000 a PR64 normally would. It would hurt the market, lowering sale prices and auction data points.

 

I'm sure Legend will do the right thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HI Rick,

Thanks for speaking out about this - and please come over here more often. We could gain great knowledge from your wisdom.

 

Best, HT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote from TDN ATS with regards to this coin on the linked thread:

 

'THE BEST WAY TO HAVE HANDLED THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN TO QUIETLY TELL PCGS, JA OR LAURA BEFORE THE SALE.'

 

Wouldn't you want "You People" (your words ATS) to know that the most knowledgeable person for FE's and IC's sees this as a problem coin in THAT holder with a CAC greenie on it? I personally am glad Rick has made us folks aware of this issue, a great learning opportunity. I thought you said JA started CAC to help numismatics? Okay, when an issue like this comes up, how is that helping those like all of us here learn more about the complex issues of grading in numismatics if Rick kept this quiet? I would think, given what you have said, that JA would welcome Rick coming to the boards and putting out his opinion on a CAC graded coin like this. hm...... hm

 

Cheers, HT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He saw a problem with coin at lot viewing and said nothing until after the sale. My opinion is this is very wrong. Speaking up would of been the right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He saw a problem with coin at lot viewing and said nothing until after the sale. My opinion is this is very wrong. Speaking up would of been the right thing to do.

 

Maybe something is deeper? My one and only PS FE came back rejected from CAC. Yet I was told CAC would automatically put a bean on PS coins at one time, but no longer will do so. Maybe some bad blood?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He saw a problem with coin at lot viewing and said nothing until after the sale. My opinion is this is very wrong. Speaking up would of been the right thing to do.

 

I think it would have been nice and perhaps even professional to alert Legend Morphy, PCGS, and/or CAC, but ethically speaking, I do not think Mr. Snow had any obligation or duty to do so. I also don't blame him for his concern about auction records, particularly with a rare piece that might not trade as often and that could be easily depressed by an inferior coin being on the market and underperforming. I also think his post was educational and see his motives as pure; I see nothing wrong with what he did at all. Why is everyone so quick to want to silence him and sweep this under the rug? It proves that everyone - even world class graders - can err or reasonably disagree, making it important for collectors/market participants to use the tools available to them without using them blindly as a crutch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He saw a problem with coin at lot viewing and said nothing until after the sale. My opinion is this is very wrong. Speaking up would of been the right thing to do.

 

Spoken like the man that said "I believe in John Albanese" which if I recall, you did say that a few months ago in a thread that pointed out other shortcomings in CAC. I get it, you are all in with JA, congrats. Some of us ain't and appreciate the learning experience from Rick. CAC is great and can get it right most of the time, but, perhaps.....

 

Best, HT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He saw a problem with coin at lot viewing and said nothing until after the sale. My opinion is this is very wrong. Speaking up would of been the right thing to do.

 

Spoken like the man that said "I believe in John Albanese" which if I recall, you did say that a few months ago in a thread that pointed out other shortcomings in CAC. I get it, you are all in with JA, congrats. Some of us ain't and appreciate the learning experience from Rick. CAC is great and can get it right most of the time, but, perhaps.....

 

Best, HT

 

I don't really see this as a pro CAC versus anti-CAC debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites