Blast White, weak obverse strike, and CACed

[Hard Times]

Who sez that JA don't like them dipped coins, and TDN tells us that strike has nothin to do with grade. So this one CACed......

 

BTW, the tilted reverse is an accurate orientation.

 

Funny, when I tried to sell this on ebay in my selling year (2011), I could not sell it at just above wholesale, no interest whatsoever and some would say it is the holder that makes the coin.

 

Dipped, some weak points in the obverse strike, AND in an NGC holder yet judged to be A or B by the man. Now with the green bean, I wonder if I would get above published MV's? Same coin but believe in the power of the bean.

 

Best, HT

 

 

[MJ]

JA has no problem with a dipped coin within reason.

 

MJ

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

JA has no problem with a dipped coin within reason.

 

MJ

 

Would it be in a collector's interest for a TPG and 4PG to acknowledge this, in some visible fashion?

 

What does within reason mean?

[MJ]

JA has no problem with a dipped coin within reason.

 

MJ

 

Would it be in a collector's interest for a TPG and 4PG to acknowledge this, in some visible fashion?

 

What does within reason mean?

 

I asked him at a CAC introduction meeting at ANA world headquarters about dipped coins. He said he had no problems with a properly dipped coin. He also has no problem with copper spots on gold within reason.

 

MJ

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

JA has no problem with a dipped coin within reason.

 

MJ

 

Would it be in a collector's interest for a TPG and 4PG to acknowledge this, in some visible fashion?

 

What does within reason mean?

 

I asked him at a CAC introduction meeting at ANA world headquarters about dipped coins. He said he had no problems with a properly dipped coin. He also has no problem with copper spots on gold within reason.

 

MJ

 

I understand. But that does not answer the questions. I am not doubting it was stated.

 

The questions still stand.

 

Do you see the issues and confusion such a statement causes, without expansion of explanation of what was meant by such a statement?

[coinman_23885]

JA has no problem with a dipped coin within reason.

 

MJ

 

Would it be in a collector's interest for a TPG and 4PG to acknowledge this, in some visible fashion?

 

What does within reason mean?

 

I asked him at a CAC introduction meeting at ANA world headquarters about dipped coins. He said he had no problems with a properly dipped coin. He also has no problem with copper spots on gold within reason.

 

MJ

 

I understand. But that does not answer the questions. I am not doubting it was stated.

 

The questions still stand.

 

Do you see the issues and confusion such a statement causes, without expansion of explanation of what was meant by such a statement?

 

Within "reason" is code language for market acceptable, so there is obviously some subjectivity in the determination. The coin cannot be over dipped, and must have decent luster for uncirculated coins. A blast white circulated coin in low grades may fail, but one that has retoned some may pass. This is a large gray area.

[michael]

looks like (from the photo) and assuming it is cac which i take the original posters word on it (thumbs u

 

a decent solid ms64 coin with good eye appeal and lustre not low end but nothing great or super fantastic but just a solid for the grade common date o mint halfdime with again good lustre and eye appeal

 

easily a cac

 

and currently in this market........................

common date halfdime's in ms 61 62 63 64 and somewhat ms65 are NOT in demand cac or not

 

my grade on this coin $375.00

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

JA has no problem with a dipped coin within reason.

 

MJ

 

Would it be in a collector's interest for a TPG and 4PG to acknowledge this, in some visible fashion?

 

What does within reason mean?

 

I asked him at a CAC introduction meeting at ANA world headquarters about dipped coins. He said he had no problems with a properly dipped coin. He also has no problem with copper spots on gold within reason.

 

MJ

 

I understand. But that does not answer the questions. I am not doubting it was stated.

 

The questions still stand.

 

Do you see the issues and confusion such a statement causes, without expansion of explanation of what was meant by such a statement?

 

Within "reason" is code language for market acceptable, so there is obviously some subjectivity in the determination. The coin cannot be over dipped, and must have decent luster for uncirculated coins. A blast white circulated coin in low grades may fail, but one that has retoned some may pass. This is a large gray area.

 

Thank you.

 

As a large gray area, for a TPG or 4PG to make such a statement is very misleading, without definitive explanation. To not identify, in some fashion, the "within reason" enhancement, borders on deceit, and is misleading. To paint such a situation as a market acceptable decoration, without identification of the opinion of enhancement, is not bordering deceit. It is deceit.

 

The 2nd question still stands. Shouldn't there be some visible identification of the "reasonable dipping"?

 

Code language? Baloney.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

looks like (from the photo) and assuming it is cac which i take the original posters word on it (thumbs u

 

a decent solid ms64 coin with good eye appeal and lustre not low end but nothing great or super fantastic but just a solid for the grade common date o mint halfdime with good lustre and eye appeal

 

easily a cac

 

and currently in this market common date halfdime's in ms 61 62 63 64 and somewhat ms65 are NOT in demand cac or not

 

my grade on this coin $375.00

 

Is reasonable dipping in demand?

[michael]

looks like (from the photo) and assuming it is cac which i take the original posters word on it (thumbs u

 

a decent solid ms64 coin with good eye appeal and lustre not low end but nothing great or super fantastic but just a solid for the grade common date o mint halfdime with good lustre and eye appeal

 

easily a cac

 

and currently in this market common date halfdime's in ms 61 62 63 64 and somewhat ms65 are NOT in demand cac or not

 

my grade on this coin $375.00

 

Is reasonable dipping in demand?

 

dont know as it is on a coin by coin basis; show me the specific coin in question and i will give you

my opinion

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

looks like (from the photo) and assuming it is cac which i take the original posters word on it (thumbs u

 

a decent solid ms64 coin with good eye appeal and lustre not low end but nothing great or super fantastic but just a solid for the grade common date o mint halfdime with good lustre and eye appeal

 

easily a cac

 

and currently in this market common date halfdime's in ms 61 62 63 64 and somewhat ms65 are NOT in demand cac or not

 

my grade on this coin $375.00

 

Is reasonable dipping in demand?

 

dont know as it is on a coin by coin basis; show me the specific coin in question and i will give you

my opinion

 

The one under discussion.

[coinman_23885]

JA has no problem with a dipped coin within reason.

 

MJ

 

Would it be in a collector's interest for a TPG and 4PG to acknowledge this, in some visible fashion?

 

What does within reason mean?

 

I asked him at a CAC introduction meeting at ANA world headquarters about dipped coins. He said he had no problems with a properly dipped coin. He also has no problem with copper spots on gold within reason.

 

MJ

 

I understand. But that does not answer the questions. I am not doubting it was stated.

 

The questions still stand.

 

Do you see the issues and confusion such a statement causes, without expansion of explanation of what was meant by such a statement?

 

Within "reason" is code language for market acceptable, so there is obviously some subjectivity in the determination. The coin cannot be over dipped, and must have decent luster for uncirculated coins. A blast white circulated coin in low grades may fail, but one that has retoned some may pass. This is a large gray area.

 

Thank you.

 

As a large gray area, for a TPG or 4PG to make such a statement is very misleading, without definitive explanation. To not identify, in some fashion, the "within reason" enhancement, borders on deceit, and is misleading. To paint such a situation as a market acceptable decoration, without identification of the opinion of enhancement, is not bordering deceit. It is deceit.

 

The 2nd question still stands. Shouldn't there be some visible identification of the "reasonable dipping"?

 

Code language? Baloney.

 

There are a couple of things here:

 

1.) The services cannot always say definitively that a coin has been dipped, but it follows logically that the older the coin, the less likely that a unmolested patinated surface will result. There is some ambiguity there as well. For instance, the Morgan Dollar (1878-1921) was often held in bags by the Treasury Department and many of them may remain naturally blast white or the coin could be blast white from a light dip. If done properly and only a light dip (short duration, dilute solution) performed, it can be impossible to discern.

 

2.) Dipping is considered market acceptable, and since market grades are based on interpretations of market acceptability, it is supposedly factored in to some degree. I have seen coins that I believe to be net graded for having been dipped (especially when the luster was muted a bit as a result, but still not enough for a body bag or details grade depending on the era you started collecting).

[michael]

looks like (from the photo) and assuming it is cac which i take the original posters word on it (thumbs u

 

a decent solid ms64 coin with good eye appeal and lustre not low end but nothing great or super fantastic but just a solid for the grade common date o mint halfdime with good lustre and eye appeal

 

easily a cac

 

and currently in this market common date halfdime's in ms 61 62 63 64 and somewhat ms65 are NOT in demand cac or not

 

my grade on this coin $375.00

 

Is reasonable dipping in demand?

 

dont know as it is on a coin by coin basis; show me the specific coin in question and i will give you

my opinion

 

The one under discussion.

 

Is reasonable dipping in demand? and for this particular coin in this thread

 

 

for many in this market absolutely yes; from all the dipped coins i see out there in the marketplace...........someone is buying them!

 

for myself ABSOLUTELY NOT!! ........................

[$ilverHawk]

looks like (from the photo) and assuming it is cac which i take the original posters word on it (thumbs u

 

a decent solid ms64 coin with good eye appeal and lustre not low end but nothing great or super fantastic but just a solid for the grade common date o mint halfdime with good lustre and eye appeal

 

easily a cac

 

and currently in this market common date halfdime's in ms 61 62 63 64 and somewhat ms65 are NOT in demand cac or not

 

my grade on this coin $375.00

 

Is reasonable dipping in demand?

 

Not sure about reasonable dipping, but marketability is in demand.

 

I think that from a numismatic perspective , a specific coins grade/condition is now secondary to the marketability of the coin. Coin was dipped but done properly (according to the market makers), toning is market acceptable, etc. Sad, but that is the reality of the marketplace.

 

Strong market forces (read big money interests, TPG s, CAC, large auction houses) have supplanted the collection of rare coins as a numismatic undertaking into a market based on whatever the dominate market makers say. It's a profit club and no collector should forget that.

 

Simply look at postings by various PCGS adherents, bottom line is the potential selling price of the coin vs. other slabs. Numismatic condition, no, marketability, yes.

 

IMO, collectors must navigate this mine field and collect the coins they like regardless of any stamp of approval from the TPG s or CAC.

 

I don't care for the OP s coin. Based on the pics, luster is muted and the strike is not sharp, not great eye appeal.

 

Carl

[Walkerfan]

JA seems to like original coins, dipped coins that have re-toned nicely and white coins with good mint luster left. Although the coin is FLAT----it still looks like it has good surfaces left and enough luster left. The strike would be the REAL deal-breaker for me, so I don't care that it beaned or that it is in an NGC slab rather than a PCGS. I wouldn't care if it was a GOLD beaned PCGS---just not my kinda coin. JMHO.

[FishyOne]

I see that as a "B" coin at 64. The strike, while not good, is not horrible in the context of "O" mint Half Dimes. Surface preservation is strong for a 64 and the luster/eye appeal easily make 64. It is not over-dipped. Main knock would be the C-/D+ obverse strike and again, that's not a deal breaker on a 64 Half Dime from New Orleans.

 

As always this is worth from an amateur collector.

 

 

[Hard Times]

looks like (from the photo) and assuming it is cac which i take the original posters word on it (thumbs u

 

a decent solid ms64 coin with good eye appeal and lustre not low end but nothing great or super fantastic but just a solid for the grade common date o mint halfdime with again good lustre and eye appeal

 

easily a cac

 

and currently in this market........................

common date halfdime's in ms 61 62 63 64 and somewhat ms65 are NOT in demand cac or not

 

my grade on this coin $375.00

 

Michael, why would I claim CAC if it was not? Do I have to post a image of the slab with a sticker on it? Even that could be fake, sheesh.

 

I have much better (IMO) half dimes at 64 with stunning eye appeal, strong strike, MA toning, clean surfaces, booming luster, yada yada yada, that did not bean. So I have to laugh sometimes with the CAC opinion, this is a nice, low B 64 at best but I still am happy to have it in my collection as 'common' O mint half dimes are not that common. 231 have been certified by NGC, maybe 150 in MS. Similar for PCGS CAC has beaned 42. Compare that to oh I dunno, a 1909-S VDB cent or the 1916-D merc. So common is a relative term. Who knows? Mebbe everyone will turn to collecting O-mint half dimes then I am sitting on a windfall profit? (thumbs u

 

$375? I don't think you buy too many A or B coins if you grade this $375 cause no one is gonna sell to you. That is well below the most recent auction prices at HA ($470-500) and these were not CACed so unless you see in hand you are risking it buying those. Market Guides price this at $575 to $750. The bean gives at least one more opinion to consider if buying sight unseen. Good luck buying any quality coins with that pricing....

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

JA has no problem with a dipped coin within reason.

 

MJ

 

Would it be in a collector's interest for a TPG and 4PG to acknowledge this, in some visible fashion?

 

What does within reason mean?

 

I asked him at a CAC introduction meeting at ANA world headquarters about dipped coins. He said he had no problems with a properly dipped coin. He also has no problem with copper spots on gold within reason.

 

MJ

 

I understand. But that does not answer the questions. I am not doubting it was stated.

 

The questions still stand.

 

Do you see the issues and confusion such a statement causes, without expansion of explanation of what was meant by such a statement?

 

Within "reason" is code language for market acceptable, so there is obviously some subjectivity in the determination. The coin cannot be over dipped, and must have decent luster for uncirculated coins. A blast white circulated coin in low grades may fail, but one that has retoned some may pass. This is a large gray area.

 

Thank you.

 

As a large gray area, for a TPG or 4PG to make such a statement is very misleading, without definitive explanation. To not identify, in some fashion, the "within reason" enhancement, borders on deceit, and is misleading. To paint such a situation as a market acceptable decoration, without identification of the opinion of enhancement, is not bordering deceit. It is deceit.

 

The 2nd question still stands. Shouldn't there be some visible identification of the "reasonable dipping"?

 

Code language? Baloney.

 

There are a couple of things here:

 

1.) The services cannot always say definitively that a coin has been dipped, but it follows logically that the older the coin, the less likely that a unmolested patinated surface will result. There is some ambiguity there as well. For instance, the Morgan Dollar (1878-1921) was often held in bags by the Treasury Department and many of them may remain naturally blast white or the coin could be blast white from a light dip. If done properly and only a light dip (short duration, dilute solution) performed, it can be impossible to discern.

 

2.) Dipping is considered market acceptable, and since market grades are based on interpretations of market acceptability, it is supposedly factored in to some degree. I have seen coins that I believe to be net graded for having been dipped (especially when the luster was muted a bit as a result, but still not enough for a body bag or details grade depending on the era you started collecting).

 

Thank you for your reply.

Your points, and I understand, are not the issue, to me.

 

The issue is the ambiguous aspect of what Collectors believe they are paying for and receiving in a TPG or 4PG opinion.

 

If, in fact, the statement concerning "reasonable dipping" is accurate, and I don't doubt the Poster that conveyed this is correct, this is deceitful, because no explanation of what reasonable enhancement is, and no visible labeling of an opinion of enhancement on the coin being reviewed, is very misleading. The average collector (the other 97% that is referred to by another Poster-rightly or wrongly) doesn't know that this is acceptable practice, and should be expected.

 

Creating a Market is one thing. Declaring a coin is the best of the best of the best, and not mentioning enhancement of the coin as the reason it may be the best of the best of the best, is self serving and hurts the Hobby. It is a reverse pyramid, ready to tumble one way or the other.

 

Please understand, I am not unaware of enhancement. I am not a fanatic that shouts from the Heavens against dipping, and even though it is not something I do, because I would butcher the process, I can see the practice of some benefit.

 

I would use the example of meeting the woman of my dreams, with the most beautiful color of skin I ever saw, until the Wedding Night, and discovering the washable spray paint is of excellent quality, and then finding out the Priest, my Parents and my In-laws knew this, but their response to my question is: you get what you paid for.

[MJ]

John, a CAC green sticker denotes solid for the grade. Nothing more. Certainly not best of the best. The don't create a market, they make a market on stickered coins.

 

While I'm not a fan of dipped coins that horse left the barn decades ago.

 

 

MJ

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

John, a CAC green sticker denotes solid for the grade. Nothing more. Certainly not best of the best. The don't create a market, they make a market on stickered coins.

 

While I'm not a fan of dipped coins that horse left the barn decades ago.

 

 

MJ

 

Thank you for your reply.

Your comments are not the thrust of my position.

I think you know that.

It is not a matter of like or dislike, or when the horse left the barn.

The 97%; I am aware you did not intend to be haughty or condescending when using the math example, and you are most likely correct.

That is the problem...perception of that which isn't.

Creating or making a market is semantics.

The "best of the best" comment is intended to, again, illustrate the average perception.

If a TPG or 4PG knows a coin was dipped, then state it is dipped.

If a TPG or 4PG accepts dipping "within reason" state the parameters, state the parameters publicly and without misleading language, and visibly label the coin with the opinion.

I am sure you know exactly what I am stating and why I am stating it.

Lets not change the point of my comments to what is and isn't market acceptable.

The present situation is misleading, and hurts the Hobby, and is self serving.

The sticker is an opinion. It is an opinion that establishes an economic decision by the buyer/seller. The opinion should be fully described. The buyer/seller can make an informed decision of whether or not a coin that is labeled dipped (within reason-whatever that is) is worth what the buyer/seller is willing to pay/accept.

You argue for the investment position. Fine. No problem. You state you will follow the economic wagon that best serves your particular position. Fine. No problem.

You are within the 3% that "knows" the economic reality....you reach that reality through the 97%, in part. In other words, you benefit. Fine. No problem.

But (blahblah) don't use those personal observations and benefits and position as justification for acceptance of non-clarity by the TPG and 4PG.

[Catbert]

My instinct tells me that CAC prefers the ambiguity in order to allow maximum flexibility in "making their market". Too much clarity would make them slaves to consistency and any deviations may lead to expensive liability. As the Rembrandts warbled "that's just the way it is, baby"!

[MarkFeld]

My instinct tells me that CAC prefers the ambiguity in order to allow maximum flexibility in "making their market". Too much clarity would make them slaves to consistency and any deviations may lead to expensive liability. As the Rembrandts warbled "that's just the way it is, baby"!

 

I think ambiguity - if that's what you want to call it - is unavoidable, when dealing with grading, which is subjective in nature.

 

How could someone who assesses/grades coins, possibly be clear (in a practical sense), in stating what coins they will or will not grade or sticker?

 

For example, they will grade coins which, in their determination, have not been over-dipped. How could they define over-dipped in a way which would really help submitters. Ditto for coins which have toned deeply, but no so deeply that the toning has etched into the coin's surfaces. These are determinations which need to be made on a sight-seen basis and which can't be unambiguous, no matter how badly anyone wishes it.

[MJ]

Hi John

 

For the record the last thing I would ever invest in is coins. That is a bobsled ride to hell. I use disposal funds to buy coins and don't look at them as assets. I do however like making informed decisions just the same. Trust me my collector passion trumps my business acumen when push comes to shove. I love great coins and I pay for them.

 

The 97/3 example I used was more for illustration of those who can't TPG grade from those that can really can. I used a Bill as an example as he can. The problem is that a lot of the 97% group convince themselves that they can and are just fooling themselves. A CAC can benefit that group. It actually levels the playing field a bit.

 

CAC intended to separate the lower end coins in each grade from those that were solid plus. John's contention was that the "C" coins were pulling down the value of the "A" and " B" coins. The question being why should an A coin in 65 price the same as a C coin? A lot of times they were as sheets were the go to pricing vehicle and the end use customer collector paying the ultimate uninformed price. Anyways I think that maybe the CAC influence overshot in both directions. C coins or non sticker coins seem to sell at a larger discount, perhaps too large and stickered coins at a larger premium. However, markets as they always do will sort themselves out

 

I really do buy the coins and not the holder. I'm just an advocate on buying "all there" coins for the grade. I was taught early in the game from Larry Shephard and Gregg Bingham to buy coins that when cracked out of their holder would come back the same grade 10 out of 10 times. I think its sound advise. I try to pay it forward.

 

MJ

[Catbert]

Mark - I accept your point, but I also wonder how much influence the CAC "market making" has on consistency. In other words, "do I want to put my money into this coin" regardless of how close it is to similar coins. Or, will I give a break to this toned coin and grant a sticker because of eye appeal even if it doesn't meet the standard of a technical A/B grade?

[BillJones]

The thing to keep in mind is that the CAC sticker means that JA and dealers who are associate with him are willing to make a market in the coins they sticker. It does not necessarily mean that they are superior coins in the eyes of all observers.

 

And yes, they do screw up now and then in my opinion. At recent show I saw a type 1 gold dollar graded in a Mint State holder that had an "L" scratched in on the obverse above Ms. Liberty's head. It was not big, but it was there.

[MarkFeld]

Mark - I accept your point, but I also wonder how much influence the CAC "market making" has on consistency. In other words, "do I want to put my money into this coin" regardless of how close it is to similar coins. Or, will I give a break to this toned coin and grant a sticker because of eye appeal even if it doesn't meet the standard of a technical A/B grade?

 

The eye-appeal is part of the standard for that A/B coin. :

[MarkFeld]

The thing to keep in mind is that the CAC sticker means that JA and dealers who are associate with him are willing to make a market in the coins they sticker. It does not necessarily mean that they are superior coins in the eyes of all observers.

 

And yes, they do screw up now and then in my opinion. At recent show I saw a type 1 gold dollar graded in a Mint State holder that had an "L" scratched in on the obverse above Ms. Liberty's head. It was not big, but it was there.

 

The CAC sticker signifies that the coin has met CAC's standards. And CAC posts bids for a great many CAC certified coins.

 

But the sticker says nothing about any "dealers who are associate with him are willing to make a market in the coins they sticker". Many dealers choose to post no, a small number or a large number of bids for CAC (and/or non-CAC) coins.

 

I am glad we have again been reminded that "they do screw up now and then" and that they are imperfect, since so many people have posted that CAC never makes mistakes.

[RWB]

They all get a participation trophy......?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

My instinct tells me that CAC prefers the ambiguity in order to allow maximum flexibility in "making their market". Too much clarity would make them slaves to consistency and any deviations may lead to expensive liability. As the Rembrandts warbled "that's just the way it is, baby"!

 

I think ambiguity - if that's what you want to call it - is unavoidable, when dealing with grading, which is subjective in nature.

 

How could someone who assesses/grades coins, possibly be clear (in a practical sense), in stating what coins they will or will not grade or sticker?

 

For example, they will grade coins which, in their determination, have not been over-dipped. How could they define over-dipped in a way which would really help submitters. Ditto for coins which have toned deeply, but no so deeply that the toning has etched into the coin's surfaces. These are determinations which need to be made on a sight-seen basis and which can't be unambiguous, no matter how badly anyone wishes it.

 

Good Afternoon, Mark.

 

I apologize for commenting, since your thoughts are not directed at me, although the Book I have been writing in this Thread surely has some tongue in cheek parts you could chew.

 

Your points here, while reasonable, are still not the issue I am presenting. I think it must be the way I am stating the case, as I interpret it to be.

 

I will try again.

 

Forget the word market. Forget whether it is making a Market. Forget who has a 97% ability or 3% ability.

 

The average collector relies, rightly or wrongly, on the opinion of the TPG and/or 4PG, in determining the buy/sell position of a coin. Lets be honest: very very few collectors are in the 3% range of the grading skill. So, a Trust position is established, between the buyer/seller and the TPG and/or 4PG. The TPG and 4PG, in some respects, has a sort of "fiduciary" responsibility to the buyer/seller.

If the TPG and 4PG are going to give an opinion on a coin, and that opinion is effected by the enhancement of a coin, meaning that the TPG and/or 4PG know darn well that the coin was enhanced, then the coin should darn well openly state that fact on the Holder. They don't want to set the "dipped within reason" parameter? Fine. lets eliminate the "ambiguity" - although I think that is a very generous and evading term - and just state the coin has been dipped. Let the buyer/seller determine the end point.

 

The very fact that in your example you state the evaluation of the coin is whether or not it has been over-dipped, yet ask how to define it in a manner that helps submitters, is contradictory and not logical to determine the end opinion rendered. Then what the heck are they evaluating? Forget Submitters, then. Lets just concentrate on the end result of the evaluation.

 

Simply state the coin was dipped/enhanced, and has a Grade of X, due to the enhancement. The sight seen basis is exactly how the opinion is derived, so why present this as not being unambiguous? If the end result is they can't be unambiguous, fine. Then they CAN be unambiguous in stating that the enhancement level of the coin was a factor in determining the opinion...it either was enhanced or it was not.

 

To not do so is avoidance, misleading and is and will be harmful in the long term to the Hobby, and frankly, everybody's pocket book. There is no political aspect to discussing this. There is no us against them issue. It is simply a truth of stated opinion issue.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Hi John

 

For the record the last thing I would ever invest in is coins. That is a bobsled ride to hell. I use disposal funds to buy coins and don't look at them as assets. I do however like making informed decisions just the same. Trust me my collector passion trumps my business acumen when push comes to shove. I love great coins and I pay for them.

 

The 97/3 example I used was more for illustration of those who can't TPG grade from those that can really can. I used a Bill as an example as he can. The problem is that a lot of the 97% group convince themselves that they can and are just fooling themselves. A CAC can benefit that group. It actually levels the playing field a bit.

 

CAC intended to separate the lower end coins in each grade from those that were solid plus. John's contention was that the "C" coins were pulling down the value of the "A" and " B" coins. The question being why should an A coin in 65 price the same as a C coin? A lot of times they were as sheets were the go to pricing vehicle and the end use customer collector paying the ultimate uninformed price. Anyways I think that maybe the CAC influence overshot in both directions. C coins or non sticker coins seem to sell at a larger discount, perhaps too large and stickered coins at a larger premium. However, markets as they always do will sort themselves out

 

I really do buy the coins and not the holder. I'm just an advocate on buying "all there" coins for the grade. I was taught early in the game from Larry Shephard and Gregg Bingham to buy coins that when cracked out of their holder would come back the same grade 10 out of 10 times. I think its sound advise. I try to pay it forward.

 

MJ

 

Again, thank you, but again, your comments are not addressing the issue I am presenting.

 

I am sure it is me and it is the way I am wording my thoughts.