If an “attractive” non CAC coin has been to CAC and been rejected, we all have to agree it’s either because it’s a “C” coin, has a negative “surface” issue, or some other problem that CAC has determined.
While there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a collector owning attractive non-CAC coins, those that think those coins that knowingly have been rejected by CAC have absolutely no issues are living in fantasy land!
Steve
Just because a coin is rejected by CAC doesn’t automatically mean it’s not a B (or even A) quality example. It just means that it’s wasn’t so in the opinion of CAC. Grading is subjective and as good as CAC is, it’s still far from perfect.
Don’t forget, they sometimes sticker coins that they previously rejected. Did the initially-rejected coins have issues that subsequently disappeared before they were resubmitted and stickered? Or maybe those who thought the initially-rejected coins had no issues weren’t really living in fantasy land, after all.
I fully agree with each of your two points, but perhaps we can agree each of those two points are the exceptions, far from the majority of the time. Yes, CAC is human, and like each of the TPG’s, they do make errors. Additionally, there’s no doubt that there are subjective borderline calls that can go either way. But my point is talking about the vast majority of calls by CAC, not the few exceptions!
If an “attractive” non CAC coin has been to CAC and been rejected, we all have to agree it’s either because it’s a “C” coin, has a negative “surface” issue, or some other problem that CAC has determined.
While there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a collector owning attractive non-CAC coins, those that think those coins that knowingly have been rejected by CAC have absolutely no issues are living in fantasy land!
Steve
Just because a coin is rejected by CAC doesn’t automatically mean it’s not a B (or even A) quality example. It just means that it’s wasn’t so in the opinion of CAC. Grading is subjective and as good as CAC is, it’s still far from perfect.
Don’t forget, they sometimes sticker coins that they previously rejected. Did the initially-rejected coins have issues that subsequently disappeared before they were resubmitted and stickered? Or maybe those who thought the initially-rejected coins had no issues weren’t really living in fantasy land, after all.
I fully agree with each of your two points, but perhaps we can agree each of those two points are the exceptions, far from the majority of the time. Yes, CAC is human, and like each of the TPG’s, they do make errors. Additionally, there’s no doubt that there are subjective borderline calls that can go either way. But my point is talking about the vast majority of calls by CAC, not the few exceptions!
Steve
Would you accept a compromise and go with “large majority of calls” in place of “vast majority of calls”? 😉
If an “attractive” non CAC coin has been to CAC and been rejected, we all have to agree it’s either because it’s a “C” coin, has a negative “surface” issue, or some other problem that CAC has determined.
While there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a collector owning attractive non-CAC coins, those that think those coins that knowingly have been rejected by CAC have absolutely no issues are living in fantasy land!
In my opinion, I believe @FloridaFacelifter recognizes that absolutely gorgeous Proof $20 gold Lib without a CAC does indeed not merit a CAC for a reason, but feels the many positive attributes of that lovely coin outweighs the disadvantage of the reason for the coin not having a CAC.
Steve
The 1866 $20 is the first gold coin I purchased without prior CAC approval. I think if it were in a 66+ holder it would definitely CAC (my opinion), and I also believe it should merit a sticker at 67. However, being a Type 2 in a 67 DCAM holder puts it at the top of the heap- there are no others, so that poses a little bit of a question- how does CAC evaluate a coin vs others in the same grade if there are no others in the same grade?
If an “attractive” non CAC coin has been to CAC and been rejected, we all have to agree it’s either because it’s a “C” coin, has a negative “surface” issue, or some other problem that CAC has determined.
While there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a collector owning attractive non-CAC coins, those that think those coins that knowingly have been rejected by CAC have absolutely no issues are living in fantasy land!
In my opinion, I believe @FloridaFacelifter recognizes that absolutely gorgeous Proof $20 gold Lib without a CAC does indeed not merit a CAC for a reason, but feels the many positive attributes of that lovely coin outweighs the disadvantage of the reason for the coin not having a CAC.
Steve
The 1866 $20 is the first gold coin I purchased without prior CAC approval. I think if it were in a 66+ holder it would definitely CAC (my opinion), and I also believe it should merit a sticker at 67. However, being a Type 2 in a 67 DCAM holder puts it at the top of the heap- there are no others, so that poses a little bit of a question- how does CAC evaluate a coin vs others in the same grade if there are no others in the same grade?
I believe they’d evaluate the coin relative to other PR67 (Type 3) dates for the series and also take into account their standards for PR66 examples.
If an “attractive” non CAC coin has been to CAC and been rejected, we all have to agree it’s either because it’s a “C” coin, has a negative “surface” issue, or some other problem that CAC has determined.
While there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a collector owning attractive non-CAC coins, those that think those coins that knowingly have been rejected by CAC have absolutely no issues are living in fantasy land!
Steve
Just because a coin is rejected by CAC doesn’t automatically mean it’s not a B (or even A) quality example. It just means that it’s wasn’t so in the opinion of CAC. Grading is subjective and as good as CAC is, it’s still far from perfect.
Don’t forget, they sometimes sticker coins that they previously rejected. Did the initially-rejected coins have issues that subsequently disappeared before they were resubmitted and stickered? Or maybe those who thought the initially-rejected coins had no issues weren’t really living in fantasy land, after all.
I fully agree with each of your two points, but perhaps we can agree each of those two points are the exceptions, far from the majority of the time. Yes, CAC is human, and like each of the TPG’s, they do make errors. Additionally, there’s no doubt that there are subjective borderline calls that can go either way. But my point is talking about the vast majority of calls by CAC, not the few exceptions!
Steve
Would you accept a compromise and go with “large majority of calls” in place of “vast majority of calls”? 😉
If an “attractive” non CAC coin has been to CAC and been rejected, we all have to agree it’s either because it’s a “C” coin, has a negative “surface” issue, or some other problem that CAC has determined.
While there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a collector owning attractive non-CAC coins, those that think those coins that knowingly have been rejected by CAC have absolutely no issues are living in fantasy land!
Steve
Just because a coin is rejected by CAC doesn’t automatically mean it’s not a B (or even A) quality example. It just means that it’s wasn’t so in the opinion of CAC. Grading is subjective and as good as CAC is, it’s still far from perfect.
Don’t forget, they sometimes sticker coins that they previously rejected. Did the initially-rejected coins have issues that subsequently disappeared before they were resubmitted and stickered? Or maybe those who thought the initially-rejected coins had no issues weren’t really living in fantasy land, after all.
I fully agree with each of your two points, but perhaps we can agree each of those two points are the exceptions, far from the majority of the time. Yes, CAC is human, and like each of the TPG’s, they do make errors. Additionally, there’s no doubt that there are subjective borderline calls that can go either way. But my point is talking about the vast majority of calls by CAC, not the few exceptions!
Steve
Would you accept a compromise and go with “large majority of calls” in place of “vast majority of calls”? 😉
If an “attractive” non CAC coin has been to CAC and been rejected, we all have to agree it’s either because it’s a “C” coin, has a negative “surface” issue, or some other problem that CAC has determined.
While there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a collector owning attractive non-CAC coins, those that think those coins that knowingly have been rejected by CAC have absolutely no issues are living in fantasy land!
Steve
Just because a coin is rejected by CAC doesn’t automatically mean it’s not a B (or even A) quality example. It just means that it’s wasn’t so in the opinion of CAC. Grading is subjective and as good as CAC is, it’s still far from perfect.
Don’t forget, they sometimes sticker coins that they previously rejected. Did the initially-rejected coins have issues that subsequently disappeared before they were resubmitted and stickered? Or maybe those who thought the initially-rejected coins had no issues weren’t really living in fantasy land, after all.
I fully agree with each of your two points, but perhaps we can agree each of those two points are the exceptions, far from the majority of the time. Yes, CAC is human, and like each of the TPG’s, they do make errors. Additionally, there’s no doubt that there are subjective borderline calls that can go either way. But my point is talking about the vast majority of calls by CAC, not the few exceptions!
Steve
Would you accept a compromise and go with “large majority of calls” in place of “vast majority of calls”? 😉
Ok, so please tell me which coins are below average?
Perhaps the coins that just made it to the next grade level as a C coin that were probably an A coin one level lower. Example: that A MS 65 coin that was submitted several times till it finally made MS 66
I agree with that. However, in my opinion, there are other “C” coins that are also below average.
Steve
I am glad we agree on something at least Steve. I think the most important thing is the eye appeal of the coin. There are some great non CAC coins that have much better eye appeal than even higher graded CAC coins. I will always choose those over the better CAC technical graded that have less eye appeal
I agree with that. However, in my opinion, there are other “C” coins that are also below average.
Steve
I am glad we agree on something at least Steve. I think the most important thing is the eye appeal of the coin. There are some great non CAC coins that have much better eye appeal than even higher graded CAC coins. I will always choose those over the better CAC technical graded that have less eye appeal
I agree with this. I will not have CAC be the final arbiter for what coins I like or are willing to accept into my collection. Slavish devotion is unhealthy 😮🙂
I also fully agree. While I’m patient enough to wait for the coin I really like that has a CAC, I regularly pass over many dozens of coins with CAC stickers in the grades I need, waiting for the coin with a CAC in the grade I want that has the eye appeal that I want!
Just because a C coin is below average in a very narow grade range does not make it a bad coin. It can still be accurately graded but too many of these C coins were upgraded from one lower grade which was what my friends cheered on.
Comments
Steve
I believe they’d evaluate the coin relative to other PR67 (Type 3) dates for the series and also take into account their standards for PR66 examples.
Steve
Steve
I agree with this. I will not have CAC be the final arbiter for what coins I like or are willing to accept into my collection. Slavish devotion is unhealthy 😮🙂
Steve
"MS63, 1/3 green sticker"
A half sticker could be clearly superior.
Huh? Eh?