CAC Subjectivity

[Hard Times]

The market has spoken on that as we all know. Is that CAC's fault? Maybe, maybe not, but it is what it is and they have to be held to a higher standard because of it. If too many more inconsistencies turn up however, that might change.

 

Even if CAC is "at fault" they do put their money where their mouth is. Beyond making a mistake in terms of authenticity the TPGs really don't do that for most of the coins they grade. You can argue MS64 vs. MS65 or whatever but the TPGs aren't going to compensate owners for that. JA and CAC will once they sticker the coin....they WILL buy the coin at their published prices.

 

Once I figured out the CAC is really only a self-serving entity (in a positive way really) I just use it as a guide. No more no less.

 

jom

 

Good points jom and I agree with you on using CAC as a guide - we have both seen to many coins that did not pass that are stunning and worth having (my avatar for example). But for Bob's penny, CAC won't now compensate him for the downgrade cause it ain't beaned any longer....

 

Best, HT

[robec1347]

The market has spoken on that as we all know. Is that CAC's fault? Maybe, maybe not, but it is what it is and they have to be held to a higher standard because of it. If too many more inconsistencies turn up however, that might change.

 

Even if CAC is "at fault" they do put their money where their mouth is. Beyond making a mistake in terms of authenticity the TPGs really don't do that for most of the coins they grade. You can argue MS64 vs. MS65 or whatever but the TPGs aren't going to compensate owners for that. JA and CAC will once they sticker the coin....they WILL buy the coin at their published prices.

 

Once I figured out the CAC is really only a self-serving entity (in a positive way really) I just use it as a guide. No more no less.

 

jom

 

Good points jom and I agree with you on using CAC as a guide - we have both seen to many coins that did not pass that are stunning and worth having (my avatar for example). But for Bob's penny, CAC won't now compensate him for the downgrade cause it ain't beaned any longer....

 

Best, HT

That's OK HT. I wasn't planning on pursuing any type of compensation. To tell the truth I had even forgotten it had the sticker until I happen to see it in my original photo.

 

The fact that it failed to meet 64BN standard after originally passing 65BN standards was more of a curiosity. The coin hasn't changed. I like it as much now as I did when I bought it.

[Hard Times]

And Bob, your tremendous skill in imaging it makes it something we can all enjoy online! A true keeper no matter the grade or the sticker situation.

 

Best, HT

[robec1347]

And Bob, your tremendous skill in imaging it makes it something we can all enjoy online! A true keeper no matter the grade or the sticker situation.

 

Best, HT

(thumbs u Thank you!

[jom]

The market has spoken on that as we all know. Is that CAC's fault? Maybe, maybe not, but it is what it is and they have to be held to a higher standard because of it. If too many more inconsistencies turn up however, that might change.

 

Even if CAC is "at fault" they do put their money where their mouth is. Beyond making a mistake in terms of authenticity the TPGs really don't do that for most of the coins they grade. You can argue MS64 vs. MS65 or whatever but the TPGs aren't going to compensate owners for that. JA and CAC will once they sticker the coin....they WILL buy the coin at their published prices.

 

Once I figured out the CAC is really only a self-serving entity (in a positive way really) I just use it as a guide. No more no less.

 

jom

 

Good points jom and I agree with you on using CAC as a guide - we have both seen to many coins that did not pass that are stunning and worth having (my avatar for example). But for Bob's penny, CAC won't now compensate him for the downgrade cause it ain't beaned any longer....

 

Best, HT

That's OK HT. I wasn't planning on pursuing any type of compensation. To tell the truth I had even forgotten it had the sticker until I happen to see it in my original photo.

 

The fact that it failed to meet 64BN standard after originally passing 65BN standards was more of a curiosity. The coin hasn't changed. I like it as much now as I did when I bought it.

 

I don't think you'd be due any compensation anyway. However, I think if you send your great photos of the coin to CAC and asked JA about it he might reconsider the sticker.

 

For me I'm still a bit clueless as to why the coin didn't 65 at PCGS....

 

jom

[dimefreak]

Couple years ago I walk in to local shop. The son was working. He tells me he can't buy a coin because it has a sticker and he Dont have the customers for high end coins. I rip the sticker off and throw it away! Walk out with what I wanted! Seen it in a different dealers case a few months later with the sticker back on.Anyhow, that's how I play the game! Sticker shmicker! If I was buying 1 million dollar coins than I'd probably want all the advice I can get. But I'm not so I Dont!

[Keigwin]

Have you ever looked once more at a coin you've owned a long time and discovered something important you never noticed before?

 

TPG's and CAC spend 5 seconds to assess everything. Their missteps feel surprising, given their expertise. But they're human like the rest of us.

Lance.

[robec1347]

I talked to JA today. When the coin was stickered approximately to years ago, JA and the CAC graders were on the fence in stickering early Lincoln's with this toning color and luster. He feels MS70 at some point may have been used to clean the coin, something he had noticed when removing PVC with MS70 in the past. They have now put in place a policy not to pass copper with this look.

 

He also said the coin looked MS66 and had thoughts of even putting a gold bean on the slab, but in the end decided to stay with the new policy. He did offer to buy the coin or pay the difference between the two grades. I told him that I would have bought the coin if it was stickered or not,

 

He ended up giving me credit for 5 of my 6 submissions that passed.

[bsshog40]

I talked to JA today. When the coin was stickered approximately to years ago, JA and the CAC graders were on the fence in stickering early Lincoln's with this toning color and luster. He feels MS70 at some point may have been used to clean the coin, something he had noticed when removing PVC with MS70 in the past. They have now put in place a policy not to pass copper with this look.

 

He also said the coin looked MS66 and had thoughts of even putting a gold bean on the slab, but in the end decided to stay with the new policy. He did offer to buy the coin or pay the difference between the two grades. I told him that I would have bought the coin if it was stickered or not,

 

He ended up giving me credit for 5 of my 6 submissions that passed.

Thats pretty cool Bob. Its nice to know there's an actual answer that can eliminate a lot of questions.

[mommam17]

Nice to know the story about this coin.

[$ilverHawk]

I talked to JA today. When the coin was stickered approximately to years ago, JA and the CAC graders were on the fence in stickering early Lincoln's with this toning color and luster. He feels MS70 at some point may have been used to clean the coin, something he had noticed when removing PVC with MS70 in the past. They have now put in place a policy not to pass copper with this look.

 

He also said the coin looked MS66 and had thoughts of even putting a gold bean on the slab, but in the end decided to stay with the new policy. He did offer to buy the coin or pay the difference between the two grades. I told him that I would have bought the coin if it was stickered or not,

 

He ended up giving me credit for 5 of my 6 submissions that passed.

 

That is a very strange response. Given the history of the coin in question, JA must have been aware that the coin in question was originally a MS65 with a green bean. JA then states that he considered the coin to be MS66. The resubmitted coin was then graded MS64 by PCGS and when submitted to CAC did not get a green or gold bean due to the newly adopted "MS70 look" policy. The "MS70 look" policy was not in effect two years ago. Why would JA state that he considered the coin in the MS65 slab to be MS66 but did not give gold bean due to the "MS70 look " policy that was not yet in effect?

 

Glad you got your free CAC submissions. IMHO the response you present from JA/CAC is total PR.

 

Carl

[jom]

It's not surprising that MS70 was the issue but I didn't expect it since more of what I know about this issue was with IHC proofs.

 

As to the point about PR: I don't agree. I don't see how JA/CAC would even know the client was going to tell his story on an internet message board. To me it's just good customer service.

 

jom

[mommam17]

probably because he didn't think it was a nice CAC MS 66, so it didn't get a gold sticker

[TonerGuy]

I talked to JA today. When the coin was stickered approximately to years ago, JA and the CAC graders were on the fence in stickering early Lincoln's with this toning color and luster. He feels MS70 at some point may have been used to clean the coin, something he had noticed when removing PVC with MS70 in the past. They have now put in place a policy not to pass copper with this look.

 

He also said the coin looked MS66 and had thoughts of even putting a gold bean on the slab, but in the end decided to stay with the new policy. He did offer to buy the coin or pay the difference between the two grades. I told him that I would have bought the coin if it was stickered or not,

 

He ended up giving me credit for 5 of my 6 submissions that passed.

 

I dont really care about CAC - but that is some really good customer service.

 

Thats probably the best story I have heard about PCGS, NGC or CAC combined.

 

Well done ! Now I can at least understand the love some have for CAC.

[coinman_23885]

That is a very strange response. Given the history of the coin in question, JA must have been aware that the coin in question was originally a MS65 with a green bean. JA then states that he considered the coin to be MS66. The resubmitted coin was then graded MS64 by PCGS and when submitted to CAC did not get a green or gold bean due to the newly adopted "MS70 look" policy. The "MS70 look" policy was not in effect two years ago. Why would JA state that he considered the coin in the MS65 slab to be MS66 but did not give gold bean due to the "MS70 look " policy that was not yet in effect?

 

It sounds like CAC silently net graded the piece as the TPGs have done for over 20 years now; thus, it didn't award the gold sticker when the coin was submitted in a MS65 holder. The use of MS70 on copper has been controversial and I can see why a policy shift could have resulted. Also, keep in mind that CAC isn't a one man show and there are (or at least were at one point) other dealers that have ownership interest in CAC. When an issue is not clear cut on market acceptability and when there are gray areas, such as dipping and MS70 application, I suspect the original policy decision wasn't JA's alone. As equity partners change, so do potential policies.

[Hard Times]

That is a very strange response. Given the history of the coin in question, JA must have been aware that the coin in question was originally a MS65 with a green bean. JA then states that he considered the coin to be MS66. The resubmitted coin was then graded MS64 by PCGS and when submitted to CAC did not get a green or gold bean due to the newly adopted "MS70 look" policy. The "MS70 look" policy was not in effect two years ago. Why would JA state that he considered the coin in the MS65 slab to be MS66 but did not give gold bean due to the "MS70 look " policy that was not yet in effect?

 

It sounds like CAC silently net graded the piece as the TPGs have done for over 20 years now; thus, it didn't award the gold sticker when the coin was submitted in a MS65 holder. The use of MS70 on copper has been controversial and I can see why a policy shift could have resulted. Also, keep in mind that CAC isn't a one man show and there are (or at least were at one point) other dealers that have ownership interest in CAC. When an issue is not clear cut on market acceptability and when there are gray areas, such as dipping and MS70 application, I suspect the original policy decision wasn't JA's alone. As equity partners change, so do potential policies.

 

I don't want to start yet another controversy but not beaning owing to an alleged MS70 look is absolutely ludicrous. There is no science behind it, and what MS70 is and what it does to copper - the alleged blue color added - is a completely unfounded opinion by those who don't do science. In my experiments, which I posted here several years ago, there was no reaction for all but one of the copper coins I tested. What it did was strip off brown patina and black gunk from the surfaces of these coppers. I suspect the brown patina has a lot of organics in it. MS70 is a detergent with high pH. It would react with organics and not metal. So this sudden 'we don't bean MS70'd coins' is hilarious. I did have one copper turn blue that so many perceive as a reaction with the surface metal. In a few months that disappeared and the colors were normal. What remains after MS70 use is color bands consistent with the underlying toning that would result from removing brown patina. Is this doctored or not? Up to each to decide, but there is no scientific basis to conclude that MS70 gives copper blue surface colors that are permanent, such as on the blue toned Indian proofs. It does not.

 

Bob's lincoln has nothing to do with MS70, it is naturally toned. Possibly cleaned to remove surface gunk, but no metal was removed or reacted.

 

Too bad I am not retired where I could put some science behind this other than just empirical observations, but I don't have time to do the science, get the EPMA and XRD work done, etc right now. So the old wives tale about MS70'd blue copper will continue.

 

Best, HT

 

 

[Hard Times]

PS - note on bob's penny how the lettering does not have the nice toning on the reverse? If one put a surface reactant on the penny that give it the toning observed, how did it manage to only color the fields and not the lettering? MS70, ........

 

Best, HT

[mommam17]

Wasn't there a poster here who used MS 70 and got some blue colored coins past the services? I'm not positive, but I think this happened.

[coinman_23885]

That is a very strange response. Given the history of the coin in question, JA must have been aware that the coin in question was originally a MS65 with a green bean. JA then states that he considered the coin to be MS66. The resubmitted coin was then graded MS64 by PCGS and when submitted to CAC did not get a green or gold bean due to the newly adopted "MS70 look" policy. The "MS70 look" policy was not in effect two years ago. Why would JA state that he considered the coin in the MS65 slab to be MS66 but did not give gold bean due to the "MS70 look " policy that was not yet in effect?

 

It sounds like CAC silently net graded the piece as the TPGs have done for over 20 years now; thus, it didn't award the gold sticker when the coin was submitted in a MS65 holder. The use of MS70 on copper has been controversial and I can see why a policy shift could have resulted. Also, keep in mind that CAC isn't a one man show and there are (or at least were at one point) other dealers that have ownership interest in CAC. When an issue is not clear cut on market acceptability and when there are gray areas, such as dipping and MS70 application, I suspect the original policy decision wasn't JA's alone. As equity partners change, so do potential policies.

 

I don't want to start yet another controversy but not beaning owing to an alleged MS70 look is absolutely ludicrous. There is no science behind it, and what MS70 is and what it does to copper - the alleged blue color added - is a completely unfounded opinion by those who don't do science. In my experiments, which I posted here several years ago, there was no reaction for all but one of the copper coins I tested. What it did was strip off brown patina and black gunk from the surfaces of these coppers. I suspect the brown patina has a lot of organics in it. MS70 is a detergent with high pH. It would react with organics and not metal. So this sudden 'we don't bean MS70'd coins' is hilarious. I did have one copper turn blue that so many perceive as a reaction with the surface metal. In a few months that disappeared and the colors were normal. What remains after MS70 use is color bands consistent with the underlying toning that would result from removing brown patina. Is this doctored or not? Up to each to decide, but there is no scientific basis to conclude that MS70 gives copper blue surface colors that are permanent, such as on the blue toned Indian proofs. It does not.

 

Bob's lincoln has nothing to do with MS70, it is naturally toned. Possibly cleaned to remove surface gunk, but no metal was removed or reacted.

 

Too bad I am not retired where I could put some science behind this other than just empirical observations, but I don't have time to do the science, get the EPMA and XRD work done, etc right now. So the old wives tale about MS70'd blue copper will continue.

 

Best, HT

 

 

HT, I applaud your attempts to do scientific experimentation to answer the question; however, I was around when you did your original experiment, and I don't think that your study was definitive. As you know, chemistry doesn't occur in a vacuum and we are not discussing pure copper metal that has been stored in inert conditions. Side reactions with the air can occur and with older coins copper oxide and sulfur compounds will likely exist from interacting with chemicals in the environment for several decades. It might be the case that MS70 interacts with these (I.e. the copper oxide that makes up a toned coin's surfaces) and not virgin copper. I believe that this hypothesis is consistent with your findings.

 

I also disagree with your attempts to completely separate metals from organic chemistry, and organometallic reagents (which sometimes include copper containing compounds) are important in a number of organic reactions in high pH conditions. Didn't you find that the pH of MS70 was much higher than suggested and isn't this higher pH conducive with organometallic/Grignard like reactions?

 

Please note that I am not claiming to have the answer nor am I offering an opinion on whether MS70 produces bright blue and purple on copper coins that is permanent. Rather, I believe that the issue is less clear than you make it sound and that the jury is still out. Further experimentation is needed. This is why I stated that MS70 application is "controversial."

 

Edited: Would you also link your original results thread ? I can't find it and I want to make sure my recollection of your results/findings/methods is correct.

[Hard Times]

That is a very strange response. Given the history of the coin in question, JA must have been aware that the coin in question was originally a MS65 with a green bean. JA then states that he considered the coin to be MS66. The resubmitted coin was then graded MS64 by PCGS and when submitted to CAC did not get a green or gold bean due to the newly adopted "MS70 look" policy. The "MS70 look" policy was not in effect two years ago. Why would JA state that he considered the coin in the MS65 slab to be MS66 but did not give gold bean due to the "MS70 look " policy that was not yet in effect?

 

It sounds like CAC silently net graded the piece as the TPGs have done for over 20 years now; thus, it didn't award the gold sticker when the coin was submitted in a MS65 holder. The use of MS70 on copper has been controversial and I can see why a policy shift could have resulted. Also, keep in mind that CAC isn't a one man show and there are (or at least were at one point) other dealers that have ownership interest in CAC. When an issue is not clear cut on market acceptability and when there are gray areas, such as dipping and MS70 application, I suspect the original policy decision wasn't JA's alone. As equity partners change, so do potential policies.

 

I don't want to start yet another controversy but not beaning owing to an alleged MS70 look is absolutely ludicrous. There is no science behind it, and what MS70 is and what it does to copper - the alleged blue color added - is a completely unfounded opinion by those who don't do science. In my experiments, which I posted here several years ago, there was no reaction for all but one of the copper coins I tested. What it did was strip off brown patina and black gunk from the surfaces of these coppers. I suspect the brown patina has a lot of organics in it. MS70 is a detergent with high pH. It would react with organics and not metal. So this sudden 'we don't bean MS70'd coins' is hilarious. I did have one copper turn blue that so many perceive as a reaction with the surface metal. In a few months that disappeared and the colors were normal. What remains after MS70 use is color bands consistent with the underlying toning that would result from removing brown patina. Is this doctored or not? Up to each to decide, but there is no scientific basis to conclude that MS70 gives copper blue surface colors that are permanent, such as on the blue toned Indian proofs. It does not.

 

Bob's lincoln has nothing to do with MS70, it is naturally toned. Possibly cleaned to remove surface gunk, but no metal was removed or reacted.

 

Too bad I am not retired where I could put some science behind this other than just empirical observations, but I don't have time to do the science, get the EPMA and XRD work done, etc right now. So the old wives tale about MS70'd blue copper will continue.

 

Best, HT

 

 

HT, I applaud your attempts to do scientific experimentation to answer the question; however, I was around when you did your original experiment, and I don't think that your study was definitive. As you know, chemistry doesn't occur in a vacuum and we are not discussing pure copper metal that has been stored in inert conditions. Side reactions with the air can occur and with older coins copper oxide and sulfur compounds will likely exist from interacting with chemicals in the environment for several decades. It might be the case that MS70 interacts with these (I.e. the copper oxide that makes up a toned coin's surfaces) and not virgin copper. I believe that this hypothesis is consistent with your findings.

 

I also disagree with your attempts to completely separate metals from organic chemistry, and organometallic reagents (which sometimes include copper containing compounds) are important in a number of organic reactions in high pH conditions. Didn't you find that the pH of MS70 was much higher than suggested and isn't this higher pH conducive with organometallic/Grignard like reactions?

 

Please note that I am not claiming to have the answer nor am I offering an opinion on whether MS70 produces bright blue and purple on copper coins that is permanent. Rather, I believe that the issue is less clear than you make it sound and that the jury is still out. Further experimentation is needed. This is why I stated that MS70 application is "controversial."

 

Absolutely agree with the need for more experimentation. Someone here posted the composition of MS70, and at least from that composition, there was no Cu listed that could have been combined in a compound that would result in organometallic reactions. It was just plain ole, strongly basic detergent with uber high pH, the type that is typically created in industrial quantities to clean metal surfaces.

 

If you react a solution with a surface, you expect said surface to all have the reacted products imparted fairly uniformly. That is not what we see on Bob's lincoln, far from it - we see the kind of toning that takes a long time to make, and the toning is primarily on the fields, lacking on on the lettering, and mostly absent on the devices, all classic fingerprints of toning that occurred by a long process, not instantaneous color change by reaction with a solution. But this issue can only be resolved by experimentation and by quantifying the results. My observations, are only empirical but point towards the conclusions I draw. I think alot of CAC's decisions on coins has to do what they interpret to be natural vs. suspect toning, with no science behind it and highly subjective.......

 

Now if there is a catalyst on the surface that could result in reaction with MS70, that is another matter and would be specific to each coin and its history. But like I said, the only coin I had turn the blue color, had it go away in several months, so it was not embedded into the metal surface but on it, and it was a compound that somehow just volatilized away over time. I don't think that we are seeing this with Bob's coin and many/most coppers some think are resulting from reaction with MS70.

 

Best, HT

[jom]

Wasn't there a poster here who used MS 70 and got some blue colored coins past the services? I'm not positive, but I think this happened.

 

It was Greg Margulis. He dipped some proof IHCs (I mentioned this above). There wasn't any kind of "getting it by" anyone. He just dipped some ugly proof coins and some of them turned blue and stayed that way as far as I can tell. No one had really tried this before and there was really nothing wrong about it, IMO.

 

I saw at least three before/after coins so I know it worked. However, not all of the coin came out nice like that....I don't remember the ratio though. You have to ask Greg for more details.

 

jom

[Hard Times]

Wasn't there a poster here who used MS 70 and got some blue colored coins past the services? I'm not positive, but I think this happened.

 

It was Greg Margulis. He dipped some proof IHCs (I mentioned this above). There wasn't any kind of "getting it by" anyone. He just dipped some ugly proof coins and some of them turned blue and stayed that way as far as I can tell. No one had really tried this before and there was really nothing wrong about it, IMO.

 

I saw at least three before/after coins so I know it worked. However, not all of the coin came out nice like that....I don't remember the ratio though. You have to ask Greg for more details.

 

jom

 

acid dip or MS70? Love to see images of those....

 

Best, HT

[mommam17]

So, is the story he dipped some ugly proof coins that turned blue, and then he got them holdered?

[$ilverHawk]

It's not surprising that MS70 was the issue but I didn't expect it since more of what I know about this issue was with IHC proofs.

 

As to the point about PR: I don't agree. I don't see how JA/CAC would even know the client was going to tell his story on an internet message board. To me it's just good customer service.

 

jom

 

My comment doesn't have anything to do about the client reporting his story on an internet message board. JA/CAC has clearly stated that a MS65 coin that has a "MS70 look" was acceptable at one time. Upon further review, the same coin in a MS64 slab was not acceptable due to the new "MS70 look" policy. My comment is about the time line. I will take the time to spell it out for you.

 

JA/CAC as reported by robec considered the MS 65 coin in question to be MS66 and "thought about" a gold sticker. That was before the "MS70 look" policy. As I stated in a previous post, there is a problem with the time line and JA's recollection. The same coin in a MS64 slab was rejected post "MS70 policy". Understand, per the submitter, two years had passed between initial green bean at MS65 and rejection at MS64.

 

When there is an offer for monetary compensation without a clear admission of error, I call that PR.

 

Help me understand how you translate that into "good customer service".

 

Carl

[Hard Times]

SliverHawk, what is 'PR'??

 

Folks, here is the most stunning half cent I have ever seen on the bourse floor that I scooped up from Brandon Kelley a few years back. Uber big time flash when rotating under the light, even on the bourse floor with about the worst lighting for coin observation that one can have. It did not pass CAC (this year) - maybe because of the 'MS70' look(?). So JA/CAC says it is okay to dip silver in acid and turn them white as long as it has not gone too far. But one apparently can't use MS70 to remove black gunk or brown patina from a copper and get the CAC bean, or, even if this never happened, all it has to do is look like it happened and no bean. Talk about subjectivity. My coin is damned to lower value despite how stunning it is for the grade possibly (I never asked and never knew you could until recently) because MS70 was used to remove brown patina.............

 

This is what I am talking about - one man making decisions on the fate of value of a coin. Bill Jones has noted this many times, the market (that means us) has bought into this yet we see two examples here of stunning coppers that are relegated to lower value simply because JA/CAC says so and we follow, amen.

 

But just as in the case of Bob's lincoln, this toning took a long time to acquire, it is not 'painted' on or reacted on quickly - the toning is not continuous on the lettering or devices but sits on the fields underneath most lettering and devices. That to me is the hallmark of NT. But perhaps I am just a and don't know what I am talking about. If so, please let me know your reasons (meaning anyone I am not specifically asking someone in particular) why this coin did not CAC.

 

Best, HT

 

[newprepper]

You just need to drink more Kool-Aid, haha

 

 

 

[$ilverHawk]

HT,

 

PR--Public Relations

 

From my post "When there is an offer of monetary compensation without an admission of error I call that PR".

 

I am not privy to the conversation that Robec had with JA. My response is based on Robec's reportage on the conversation.

 

CAC, as an independent marketing company, has every right to change grading policies whenever they wish. It is my opinion that when a change in grading policies is implemented that will effect coins already "beaned", CAC should publicize the change, describe clearly what the "MS70 look" is, acknowledge that the change will effect the marketability of coins "beaned" before the policy change and set in place a method of compensation if compensation is proper.

 

 

Carl

[Hard Times]

HI Carl,

Ah got it, thanks. But what you propose would cut into their profit, and the MS70 'look' is a subjective call every time. So I doubt they would do what you propose although it is a good proposition.

 

Best, HT

[MarkFeld]

 

..This is what I am talking about - one man making decisions on the fate of value of a coin. Bill Jones has noted this many times, the market (that means us) has bought into this yet we see two examples here of stunning coppers that are relegated to lower value simply because JA/CAC says so and we follow, amen...

 

I think that's a ludicrous claim. There are plenty of collectors and dealers who make their own value and purchase decisions, regardless of the opinion of NGC, PCGS or CAC.

 

In order for you to get strong money for your half cent (which, to me, looks at least somewhat questionable in terms of color) all you need to do is locate one buyer who likes it as much as you do and is willing to pay accordingly. If you can't do that, I think it says much more about what you paid and and what you want for the coin, than it does the influence of CAC.

[TonerGuy]

In other words...