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

[MJ]

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.

 

VERY nice

 

MJ

[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.

 

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

 

Hi jom,

No I am guessing because CAC tells you nothing unless you request in advance for which I did not know until very recently you could. Now that the coins have passed through months ago, I don't think it would be useful to call them unless I send them in again.

One informed numismatist in high regard told me that for the half dime the color is not right to be NT. This is a person who primarily sells museum quality coins with CAC beans, he has been pretty good at judging things for me in the past.

 

Best, HT

[Hard Times]

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.

 

Me too and thanks. I like to think I have learned enough over a decade to pick-em but to learn, I would love to sit down with the CAC team for a day or a week and go through a thousand coins with them. It might get me to see something I am missing about 1/3 of the time.

 

Best, HT

[Hard Times]

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.

 

Thanks and I think all 3 look great in hand as well, the half cent and the half were bought sight seen on the bourse floor and the beamed in the dealer trays. No juicing done here, but reading Mark Goodman's book a few dozen times sure has helped me to capture the strong points of coins and possibly avoid the weaknesses? But I am still learning to image and MG, Todd, Sir Messy, Robec, Brandon, Krypto to name a few, are the masters I am trying to get close to.

 

To some extent, if CAC considers all of these to be a grade too high I don't have a problem with that, if they have a problem like AT, I want to know this. So I should have requested info on each Not CAC when I sent them in. Had I known to do this.....

 

Best, HT

[Mark T]

I have called John to go over some of my coins that did not certify. He was always available and helpful.

[MJ]

I have called John to go over some of my coins that did not certify. He was always available and helpful.

 

Mark, does he keep detailed notes or is his memory that good? I assume that he doesn't have your coins in hand when he is speaking with you.

 

MJ

[Raisethis2]

I think it's cool as hell that they would weigh every coin and file the edge on the fat ones to ensure they weren't too heavy. I think that's what happened to yours but I'm not sure.

 

I had one years ago (1806) that had clear file marks. Just added character.

[Mark T]

I have called John to go over some of my coins that did not certify. He was always available and helpful.

 

Mark, does he keep detailed notes or is his memory that good? I assume that he doesn't have your coins in hand when he is speaking with you.

 

MJ

 

He went by memory , I called him within a few days of CAC reviewing the coins. When I got them back I made the call.

[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.

 

I stand corrected. So their use of the + means then that if an MS64+ coin gets upgraded to, say, MS65 (without the plus) the coin is no longer eye appealing. OR that any coins that doesn't have a plus isn't eye appealing either. OK, got it!

 

jom

[$ilverHawk]

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

 

Yes, and CAC has quite a lot of money to influence the market. I understand that CAC and both major TPG's are businesses that are profit orientated. No issue with that. IMHO it seems to me that the covert activity of CAC is to drive the collector of higher valued coins to buy CAC approved coins and the overt activity of CAC is to become the "authority" on high valued coins. A single opinion is never a good idea.

 

I understand that the advertised intent of CAC was to stop "gradeflation" and bring the marketplace to a more logical interpretation of accurately market graded coins.

 

What has actually occurred in the last several years is that the marketplace for higher valued TPG coins has, in large part, bowed down to the approval of CAC. That is the reality. Sad that a single entity has such a strong influence on the market.

 

Carl

[coinman_23885]

I have called John to go over some of my coins that did not certify. He was always available and helpful.

 

Mark, does he keep detailed notes or is his memory that good? I assume that he doesn't have your coins in hand when he is speaking with you.

 

MJ

 

My experience has been that he goes from memory in talking with him.

[coinman_23885]

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.

 

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).

 

jom

 

I thought the same thing. I do think the color on the first one did prevent it from stickering. I don't think the color prevented the half dime from stickering at all. It looks to me like there might be a small scratch on the obverse.

 

HT, have you thought about resubmitting the pieces and requesting feedback if the coins don't sticker the second time around? You would only be out of the shipping and handling costs as CAC doesn't charge collectors who submit directly for coins that do not sticker. I am assuming that you have direct submission privileges. If I am wrong, I am sure there are people on the forums that would help you out (myself included).

[coinman_23885]

Here is one of mine that recently failed (I bought it because I believed it to be of a scarcer Snow variety):

 

PCGS MS64 RD

 

[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.

 

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).

 

jom

 

I thought the same thing. I do think the color on the first one did prevent it from stickering. I don't think the color prevented the half dime from stickering at all. It looks to me like there might be a small scratch on the obverse.

 

HT, have you thought about resubmitting the pieces and requesting feedback if the coins don't sticker the second time around? You would only be out of the shipping and handling costs as CAC doesn't charge collectors who submit directly for coins that do not sticker. I am assuming that you have direct submission privileges. If I am wrong, I am sure there are people on the forums that would help you out (myself included).

 

I have thought about it and might do it (I have a collectors membership), but I am reluctant to send them in the mail again, there is always the small risk to that. Plus CAC ships the slabs back all sandwiched together, and I spent alot of money getting all of mine into new holders sans scratches. But later this year I still might send them back for feedback.

 

Best, HT

 

 

[MarkFeld]

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.

 

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).

 

jom

 

I thought the same thing. I do think the color on the first one did prevent it from stickering. I don't think the color prevented the half dime from stickering at all. It looks to me like there might be a small scratch on the obverse.

 

HT, have you thought about resubmitting the pieces and requesting feedback if the coins don't sticker the second time around? You would only be out of the shipping and handling costs as CAC doesn't charge collectors who submit directly for coins that do not sticker. I am assuming that you have direct submission privileges. If I am wrong, I am sure there are people on the forums that would help you out (myself included).

 

I have thought about it and might do it (I have a collectors membership), but I am reluctant to send them in the mail again, there is always the small risk to that. Plus CAC ships the slabs back all sandwiched together, and I spent alot of money getting all of mine into new holders sans scratches. But later this year I still might send them back for feedback.

 

Best, HT

 

 

If you are at a show and can find Bill Shamhart, he will probably be able to tell you why the coins were rejected by CAC.

 

[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.

 

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).

 

jom

 

If you are at a show and can find Bill Shamhart, he will probably be able to tell you why the coins were rejected by CAC.

 

I thought the same thing. I do think the color on the first one did prevent it from stickering. I don't think the color prevented the half dime from stickering at all. It looks to me like there might be a small scratch on the obverse.

 

HT, have you thought about resubmitting the pieces and requesting feedback if the coins don't sticker the second time around? You would only be out of the shipping and handling costs as CAC doesn't charge collectors who submit directly for coins that do not sticker. I am assuming that you have direct submission privileges. If I am wrong, I am sure there are people on the forums that would help you out (myself included).

 

I have thought about it and might do it (I have a collectors membership), but I am reluctant to send them in the mail again, there is always the small risk to that. Plus CAC ships the slabs back all sandwiched together, and I spent alot of money getting all of mine into new holders sans scratches. But later this year I still might send them back for feedback.

 

Best, HT

 

 

I think Mark forgot his response...

 

Anyway, I've send about 4 separate packages (at different times) to CAC and never noticed any kind of scratching of the slabs...at least none that I noticed that got worse. You should call them up and ask them about it or mention it to them.

 

jom

[MarkFeld]

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.

 

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).

 

jom

 

If you are at a show and can find Bill Shamhart, he will probably be able to tell you why the coins were rejected by CAC.

 

I thought the same thing. I do think the color on the first one did prevent it from stickering. I don't think the color prevented the half dime from stickering at all. It looks to me like there might be a small scratch on the obverse.

 

HT, have you thought about resubmitting the pieces and requesting feedback if the coins don't sticker the second time around? You would only be out of the shipping and handling costs as CAC doesn't charge collectors who submit directly for coins that do not sticker. I am assuming that you have direct submission privileges. If I am wrong, I am sure there are people on the forums that would help you out (myself included).

 

I have thought about it and might do it (I have a collectors membership), but I am reluctant to send them in the mail again, there is always the small risk to that. Plus CAC ships the slabs back all sandwiched together, and I spent alot of money getting all of mine into new holders sans scratches. But later this year I still might send them back for feedback.

 

Best, HT

 

 

I think Mark forgot his response...

 

Anyway, I've send about 4 separate packages (at different times) to CAC and never noticed any kind of scratching of the slabs...at least none that I noticed that got worse. You should call them up and ask them about it or mention it to them.

 

jom

 

Thanks - I included my response in my post. But I accidentally placed/hid it in the wrong place (within the text I quoted, instead of at the bottom of my post).

 

Fixed.