Coins that CAC did not or probably would not sticker ...

[BillJones]

I have never sent any coins to CAC, but I do own couple pieces that went to CAC and flunked. The reason that I know this is because the dealer from whom I bought these coins has a code on his inventory stickers that indicates whether or not a piece was accepted by CAC. Obviously a piece with a green or gold "football" passed, but he uses a code if they didn't.

 

The first is this 1851-O gold dollar. It is graded MS-63, and I believe it flunked because it has satiny, subdued luster. I bought this piece for a somewhere around the Gray Sheet bid price.

 

 

This Confederate half dollar restrike also flunked a CAC. These pieces can only be graded by the reverse (Confederate side) because the obverse was crushed when the piece was made in the mid 1870s. PCGS graded this one MS-62, and CAC did not concur. I suppose dullness might be the problem, but from what I've seen this piece is above average given the other examples I've seen. This coin has more luster when you see it in person.

 

 

Finally here is my most valuable coin, a 1796 No Stars quarter eagle. This coin would flunk at CAC because it is in an MS-62 holder. I know that this coin was in an MS-61 at the time that Heritage sold it a few years ago. My grade is in the AU-58 + to MS-60 range , and given that MS-60 is rarely used, I view this as a commercial MS-61. There was an PCGS MS-62 CAC approved example of this coin that sold at an ANA auction for over $400,000. That is simply out of my price range, and this piece is (was) the best that I could afford.

 

 

I have presented this coins for discussion purposes and to show that coins do have a "life" beyond the green sticker.

[HULLCOINS-migration]

Wonderful examples, there's a lot more to numismatics than Third Party opinions. (Not to discredit those opinions)

[Matt_dac]

Wow...the 1796 gold is quite a coin!

[Kurtdog]

Get on the bean, Bill. They're "beans," not "footballs."

[Afterword]

"....and I believe it flunked because it has satiny, subdued luster."

 

 

 

 

I like subdued luster. It is not as hard on the eyes. Very nice coins.

[MJ]

sweet coins

 

MJ

[Coinbuf]

I am sure that many here own coins that have failed to bean and are quite content to have those coin in their collections. Very nice coins.

[rrantique]

Wow...the 1796 gold is quite a coin!

 

(thumbs u

[jom]

I have presented this coins for discussion purposes and to show that coins do have a "life" beyond the green sticker.

 

This is of course most certainly true. For some it seems that if a coin is in a 63 holder without a sticker it has "no life" but if it's stickered in a 62 then it's the cat's meow. I don't know why...it's the same coin...or at least you can find similar examples as such.

 

An example of a coin that failed at CAC: I do submit on occasion and JA told me this one just barely missed out. He went back and forth on it and eventually decided to pass on it. The reasoning is obviously the scratches. That is understandable but I absolutely love the coin due to the color. As I recall the coin is graded AU55 at PCGS. I'm sure some would hate the coin for the scratches or like it due to color so to each their own...in this hobby there is something for everyone.

 

 

jom

[Walkerfan]

I like every coin that's been posted thus far.

 

This has also been an interesting thread, too.

 

Bill, that confederate half is something and I like the gold pieces, too.

 

Jom, nice capped bust dime----the color is beautiful and I think that the scratches are tiny and wouldn't bother me a bit.

[FishyOne]

The 1851-O G$1 should green bean at 63 if it has good in-hand luster so you're probably correct that subdued luster = no bean.

 

I assume the Confederate Half is actually an AU58? If it has unbroken luster, it looks solid for a 62. I know CAC doesn't like dark coins and it might too dark for their taste.

 

The 1796 G$2.5 might be a slider also as noted. In those price ranges CAC probably didn't want to put close to a half a million on it as a solid 62. Still a Crown Jewel.

 

Grading from images is shoot, especially on coins like these. On another note, has anyone noticed CAC's criteria varying over the years? It's only been 7 years but market preferences change. Will CACs?

[orifdoc]

Nice coins. I've never understood the notion that people would rather have a high-end plus, star, & CAC'd coin over a low-end but properly graded coin at the next higher grade. Which is the nicer coin? Are we supposed to only like the ones that fall at the upper end of each arbitrary striation along the grading continuum? What about when standards change? Yesterday's 64+ green-bean coin might be tomorrow's humdrum barely-there 65. Should its value or liquidity suddenly diminish?

[Mark T]

Here is one of my CAC rejections. I brought this to Coin Fest many years ago when CAC was doing certification on site. After I got my coins back I showed the coin to Bill Shamhart , his comment was the coin was a keeper. I never had any intention of selling it anyway.

[Walkerfan]

Here is one of my CAC rejections. I brought this to Coin Fest many years ago when CAC was doing certification on site. After I got my coins back I showed the coin to Bill Shamhart , his comment was the coin was a keeper. I never had any intention of selling it anyway.

 

I'll say it's a keeper----that sure is a beauty.

[BillJones]

I have presented this coins for discussion purposes and to show that coins do have a "life" beyond the green sticker.

 

This is of course most certainly true. For some it seems that if a coin is in a 63 holder without a sticker it has "no life" but if it's stickered in a 62 then it's the cat's meow. I don't know why...it's the same coin...or at least you can find similar examples as such.

 

An example of a coin that failed at CAC: I do submit on occasion and JA told me this one just barely missed out. He went back and forth on it and eventually decided to pass on it. The reasoning is obviously the scratches. That is understandable but I absolutely love the coin due to the color. As I recall the coin is graded AU55 at PCGS. I'm sure some would hate the coin for the scratches or like it due to color so to each their own...in this hobby there is something for everyone.

 

 

jom

 

I thought at first that the 1833 dime was graded as a Mint State coin, but when I saw graded as an AU-55, I don't see the problem with the minor scratches. It's an AU coin, and as such minor marks are to be expected. Many of us remember the net graded 1807 dime that got a sticker. The sins on that piece were far worse.

[wdrob]

Bill that 1796 is a work of art. Beautiful coin.

 

Stickers ... we don't need no damn stickers!

[Walkerfan]

I have presented this coins for discussion purposes and to show that coins do have a "life" beyond the green sticker.

 

This is of course most certainly true. For some it seems that if a coin is in a 63 holder without a sticker it has "no life" but if it's stickered in a 62 then it's the cat's meow. I don't know why...it's the same coin...or at least you can find similar examples as such.

 

An example of a coin that failed at CAC: I do submit on occasion and JA told me this one just barely missed out. He went back and forth on it and eventually decided to pass on it. The reasoning is obviously the scratches. That is understandable but I absolutely love the coin due to the color. As I recall the coin is graded AU55 at PCGS. I'm sure some would hate the coin for the scratches or like it due to color so to each their own...in this hobby there is something for everyone.

 

 

jom

 

I thought at first that the 1833 dime was graded as a Mint State coin, but when I saw graded as an AU-55, I don't see the problem with the minor scratches. It's an AU coin, and as such minor marks are to be expected. Many of us remember the net graded 1807 dime that got a sticker. The sins on that piece were far worse.

 

Bill---I remember that well and I agree with you.

[BillJones]

Bill that 1796 is a work of art. Beautiful coin.

 

Stickers ... we don't need no damn stickers!

 

I bought that piece for MS-61 money. At the time it came up for auction I was glad that it didn't have a sticker because that provided me with an opportunity to buy it. If it had been in a PCGS holder with the sticker, I would never have gotten close to it, even if PCGS had called it an MS-61.

 

For those who think that this piece is a commercial "slider" (AU-58), I'll show you this piece. This is a PCGS AU-58. It used to be an NGC AU-50 when it was in a "fatty" holder. Then someone cracked it, brushed it and got the extra 8 grading points.

 

 

Here is the same piece when it was graded NGC AU-50. I wish I could have bought then. It was a nice coin before it was brushed, but it's not as nice as the one I have now.

 

 

There are those who think that I "cooked the books" with these pictures. The dealer who has handled this coin twice confirmed to me that had been cleaned after it was cracked out of the NGC holder and sent on to PCGS. These pictures are a true reflection of the "before" and "after."

[Walkerfan]

Wow---it looks much better as a 50 than a 58! How did it not get a 'genuine' certification with that kind of 'brushed' surface damage? It looks all scratched up IMHO. I DO like your piece better.

[jom]

For those who think that this piece is a commercial "slider" (AU-58), I'll show you this piece. This is a PCGS AU-58. It used to be an NGC AU-50 when it was in a "fatty" holder. Then someone cracked it, brushed it and got the extra 8 grading points.

 

 

Here is the same piece when it was graded NGC AU-50. I wish I could have bought then. It was a nice coin before it was brushed, but it's not as nice as the one I have now.

 

 

There are those who think that I "cooked the books" with these pictures. The dealer who has handled this coin twice confirmed to me that had been cleaned after it was cracked out of the NGC holder and sent on to PCGS. These pictures are a true reflection of the "before" and "after."

 

Wow...just wow. Someone has some big brass you-know-whats to brush an 18th Century gold piece. Then gets away with it....at PCGS no less. Classic!

 

jom

[BillJones]

Wow---it looks much better as a 50 than a 58! How did it not get a 'genuine' certification with that kind of 'brushed' surface damage? It looks all scratched up IMHO.

 

It is a rare, in demand coin, and the services are sometimes a bit generous with the grading. I reviewed five or six of these coins before I found this one, which I could buy. A couple of the pieces had me scratching my head as why they didn't get a "genuine" grade. One of them was much worse than the AU-58 I showed above. The other had some significant punch marks. Cleaned kind of comes with the territory.

 

The population of these coins is low. Coin Facts estimates that 88 examples exist. I'd say the number is more like 125. Whatever that is not a lot of pieces given that it is a one year type coin.

[Hard Times]

Thanks for starting this thread Bill. Here are three examples that did not bean. The half cent has booming luster, no obvious nicks, and I can only surmise that CAC decided that the toning was not NT. It is the nicest 64 BN I have ever seen for that date. It is the only 64 BN for this date that Heritage graded at 60 EAC, every other one they have auctioned they gave a lower EAC grade to. The second is half dime in 64+. PCGS judged it to have exceptional eye appeal for the grade with the + but I guess the toning was considered to be questionable to CAC - it definitely does not look like the type of toning they reward and they are probably right about it if that is what kept it from the bean. The third is an 1839-O half in 53. It is the nicest 53 for this mint and date I have ever seen and I looked for years to find one I liked. I can't find a better one on any auction archive online for a 53 and not really for a 55. It did not bean. I can only surmise that they felt it was only beanable in a 50, but no different from many beaned 53's I have inspected in hand for Reeded Edge Busties.

 

In all 3 cases, I believe these are very PQ for the grade for the date, mint, and type, and would like to see what it takes to get the green football. I had coins I feel with lesser eye appeal and quality for a grade that got the bean. And I will say it again, I like CAC and the concept of identifying PQ for the grade but it sure seems they have a very different perception of A and B vs. C for the grade than I do as about 1/3 of the time for coins that don't get the bean and for coins that do. But it could be that there are hoards of better coins locked up for years in strong hands I have never seen? Also, for worn coins, they love drab toning, and seem to reward it for not being 'messed' with even when the said coin is fugly and even those that are luster inhibited. Don't understand that but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Best, HT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Walkerfan]

Wow---it looks much better as a 50 than a 58! How did it not get a 'genuine' certification with that kind of 'brushed' surface damage? It looks all scratched up IMHO.

 

It is a rare, in demand coin, and the services are sometimes a bit generous with the grading. I reviewed five or six of these coins before I found this one, which I could buy. A couple of the pieces had me scratching my head as why they didn't get a "genuine" grade. One of them was much worse than the AU-58 I showed above. The other had some significant punch marks. Cleaned kind of comes with the territory.

 

The population of these coins is low. Coin Facts estimates that 88 examples exist. I'd say the number is more like 125. Whatever that is not a lot of pieces given that it is a one year type coin.

 

I know what you mean----they are lenient with the early Walkers, too, as they are scarce. I see it all of the time (post mint damage and cleaning on some MS coins). But this gold piece is a profound example IMHO.

[jom]

Thanks for starting this thread Bill. Here are three examples that did not bean. The half cent has booming luster, no obvious nicks, and I can only surmise that CAC decided that the toning was not NT. It is the nicest 64 BN I have ever seen for that date. It is the only 64 BN for this date that Heritage graded at 60 EAC, every other one they have auctioned they gave a lower EAC grade to. The second is half dime in 64+. PCGS judged it to have exceptional eye appeal for the grade with the + but I guess the toning was considered to be questionable to CAC - it definitely does not look like the type of toning they reward and they are probably right about it if that is what kept it from the bean. The third is an 1839-O half in 53. It is the nicest 53 for this mint and date I have ever seen and I looked for years to find one I liked. I can't find a better one on any auction archive online for a 53 and not really for a 55. It did not bean. I can only surmise that they felt it was only beanable in a 50, but no different from many beaned 53's I have inspected in hand for Reeded Edge Busties.

 

Did CAC tell you directly that the copper and half dime were AT in their opinion? I know nothing about copper but I have a hard time believing that half dime is AT (or rather non MA).

 

Also, a side note: I'm pretty certain that the "+" does not mean exceptional eye appeal. I believe it just means an "A" coin for grade...one that would "theoretically" sticker if PCGS and CAC had the same standards (which many times they do not obviously).

 

jom

[MJ]

Thanks for starting this thread Bill. Here are three examples that did not bean. The half cent has booming luster, no obvious nicks, and I can only surmise that CAC decided that the toning was not NT. It is the nicest 64 BN I have ever seen for that date. It is the only 64 BN for this date that Heritage graded at 60 EAC, every other one they have auctioned they gave a lower EAC grade to. The second is half dime in 64+. PCGS judged it to have exceptional eye appeal for the grade with the + but I guess the toning was considered to be questionable to CAC - it definitely does not look like the type of toning they reward and they are probably right about it if that is what kept it from the bean. The third is an 1839-O half in 53. It is the nicest 53 for this mint and date I have ever seen and I looked for years to find one I liked. I can't find a better one on any auction archive online for a 53 and not really for a 55. It did not bean. I can only surmise that they felt it was only beanable in a 50, but no different from many beaned 53's I have inspected in hand for Reeded Edge Busties.

 

Did CAC tell you directly that the copper and half dime were AT in their opinion? I know nothing about copper but I have a hard time believing that half dime is AT (or rather non MA).

 

Also, a side note: I'm pretty certain that the "+" does not mean exceptional eye appeal. I believe it just means an "A" coin for grade...one that would "theoretically" sticker if PCGS and CAC had the same standards (which many times they do not obviously).

 

jom

 

PCGS +

 

AU-50+ Full detail with friction over most of the surface, very slight flatness on high points. Good eye appeal.

 

AU-53+ Full detail with friction on only 1/2 of surface, extremely slight flatness on high points. Positive eye appeal.

 

AU-55+ Full detail with slight friction on less than 1/2 of surface, on high points. Eye appeal is good.

 

AU-58+ Full detail with the barest trace of friction on the highest points. Superior eye appeal.

 

MS/PR-62+ No wear. Still slightly above number of marks/hairlines, strike may not be full. Attractive eye appeal for grade.

 

MS/PR-63+ Average number of marks/hairlines, strike will be close to average. Good eye appeal for grade.

 

MS/PR-64+ Very few marks/hairlines or a couple of heavier ones, strike should be average or above. Superior eye appeal.

 

MS/PR-65+ Very minor marks/hairlines though none in focal areas, above average strike and eye appeal

 

MS/PR-66+ Very few minor marks/hairlines not in focal areas, very good strike with superior eye appeal

 

MS/PR-67+ Virtually as struck with very minor imperfections, very well struck with attractive eye appeal

 

MS/PR-68+ Virtually as struck with very slight imperfections, the strike must be virtually full. Eye appeal must be very good.

[Kurtdog]

Thanks for starting this thread Bill. Here are three examples that did not bean. The half cent has booming luster, no obvious nicks, and I can only surmise that CAC decided that the toning was not NT. It is the nicest 64 BN I have ever seen for that date. It is the only 64 BN for this date that Heritage graded at 60 EAC, every other one they have auctioned they gave a lower EAC grade to. The second is half dime in 64+. PCGS judged it to have exceptional eye appeal for the grade with the + but I guess the toning was considered to be questionable to CAC - it definitely does not look like the type of toning they reward and they are probably right about it if that is what kept it from the bean. The third is an 1839-O half in 53. It is the nicest 53 for this mint and date I have ever seen and I looked for years to find one I liked. I can't find a better one on any auction archive online for a 53 and not really for a 55. It did not bean. I can only surmise that they felt it was only beanable in a 50, but no different from many beaned 53's I have inspected in hand for Reeded Edge Busties.

 

In all 3 cases, I believe these are very PQ for the grade for the date, mint, and type, and would like to see what it takes to get the green football. I had coins I feel with lesser eye appeal and quality for a grade that got the bean. And I will say it again, I like CAC and the concept of identifying PQ for the grade but it sure seems they have a very different perception of A and B vs. C for the grade than I do as about 1/3 of the time for coins that don't get the bean and for coins that do. But it could be that there are hoards of better coins locked up for years in strong hands I have never seen? Also, for worn coins, they love drab toning, and seem to reward it for not being 'messed' with even when the said coin is fugly and even those that are luster inhibited. Don't understand that but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Best, HT

I think there are a number of knowledgable and well-respected dealers out there who could give CAC a good run for their money. I can hardly believe this endorsement market is still basically monopolized.

[johnny9434]

i really like that 1796 coin. way cool

[Walkerfan]

Thanks for starting this thread Bill. Here are three examples that did not bean.

 

:thumbsup: Great thread!

 

HT--those are some of the nicest examples of BUST coinage that I've seen---they look NT and MA to me. I would have guessed that they all would have easily beaned.

[mommam17]

It's not just about knowledge of coins. CAC is VERY well financed.

[Mark T]

Hard Times I think your photos are so good they make the coins look better than they really are .

Kidding !! They are all very nice coins.