It should as that is as important of an education as finding out why a coin did cac. I think something people forget is CAC is not just grading the coin but the plastic as well. Many solid coins fail because the plastic isn’t as solid.
i also think that the conversation about compromising while buying is important. Every coin that isn’t ms70 is a compromise at some level. I don’t buy that it is always better to have an all there VF vs an pleasing AU with an *. I have serval coins that will never cac but I might never own a nicer example.
I chose an completely original skinned, mark free 1854 o 3$ gold piece EF40 details but net graded VF30 in an OGH at a discount vs the countless dipped to death XF40 examples out there. My coin would green sticker save for an old staple ding hidden on the rev. It faces up like a completely higher quality coin. If I ever find a better coin I’ll trade up but original color gold is few and far between and surfaces are more important than what some would consider upgradable damage…at least to me . Truly rare coins don’t often come perfect. Knowing when to jump can be a wiser strat than always jumping granted, some have stronger legs than others
A wonderful XF45 in a NGC AU53 holder. CAC standers for luster/mint surface preservation seem to these eyes to align more with PCGS especially in the AU range. Not that PCGS doesn’t go up when CAC goes down on the scale from time to time so my point is TPG agnostic but CAC will decline if it doesn’t like the coin or it doesn’t like the plastic is a point people often forget. People are quick to condemn the coin when often it is the plastic holding a sticker back
@ColonelJessup Confucius also said “man with hole in pocket feels cocky” so we should all gauge the advice by how many libations were consumed prior. Smoke em if you got ‘em
Postings of any coin that failed to CAC should also include the grade assigned. A piece that failed because it was over graded in the holder might pass if the grade is at the proper level.
Shallow mirrors or a hidden line/spot. This is an assumption but the TPGs have been loser with the PL designation over the years for coins that show cameo contrast. I don’t think cac is
Here's one from my collection that didn't CAC. There's old chatter or scrapes on the obverse from about 3 o'clock to 5 o'clock that I'd suspected was the reason, but notice the toning on this one and it's resemblance to that of the 1848 CAL posted in this thread. I've long liked the toning and have seen at least one other 1857-S $5 with similar toning. Is this AT?
I read on a different thread that if the coin holder is not in good condition, then the coin will not CAC. Can someone provide more details or confirm that? Thanks
I believe that they are referring to holders that are so old and hazy and scratched that they graders cannot get a clear enough look at the coin to make an accurate assessment. I always look over my old rattlers and polish them up with some Maguires to remove haze and scratches as needed.
I believe @Crypto was saying that if the coin is terrific but overgraded (a wonderful XF45 in an NGC AU53 holder, e.g.) then its failure to get stickered should not be taken as a condemnation of the coin. The coin suffers from a bad holder.
Comments
I don’t think that would be in bad taste.
It should as that is as important of an education as finding out why a coin did cac. I think something people forget is CAC is not just grading the coin but the plastic as well. Many solid coins fail because the plastic isn’t as solid.
i also think that the conversation about compromising while buying is important. Every coin that isn’t ms70 is a compromise at some level. I don’t buy that it is always better to have an all there VF vs an pleasing AU with an *. I have serval coins that will never cac but I might never own a nicer example.
I chose an completely original skinned, mark free 1854 o 3$ gold piece EF40 details but net graded VF30 in an OGH at a discount vs the countless dipped to death XF40 examples out there. My coin would green sticker save for an old staple ding hidden on the rev. It faces up like a completely higher quality coin. If I ever find a better coin I’ll trade up but original color gold is few and far between and surfaces are more important than what some would consider upgradable damage…at least to me . Truly rare coins don’t often come perfect. Knowing when to jump can be a wiser strat than always jumping granted, some have stronger legs than others
Love love love the Cal, I would give it a sticker regardless of anything else
I did too. But my hard and fast RULE (now) is to require the bean on all higher end gold.
What do you mean about the plastic isn’t solid?
A wonderful XF45 in a NGC AU53 holder. CAC standers for luster/mint surface preservation seem to these eyes to align more with PCGS especially in the AU range. Not that PCGS doesn’t go up when CAC goes down on the scale from time to time so my point is TPG agnostic but CAC will decline if it doesn’t like the coin or it doesn’t like the plastic is a point people often forget. People are quick to condemn the coin when often it is the plastic holding a sticker back
@ColonelJessup Confucius also said “man with hole in pocket feels cocky” so we should all gauge the advice by how many libations were consumed prior. Smoke em if you got ‘em
Postings of any coin that failed to CAC should also include the grade assigned. A piece that failed because it was over graded in the holder might pass if the grade is at the proper level.
Here is a coin that did not CAC. What do you think?
Shallow mirrors or a hidden line/spot. This is an assumption but the TPGs have been loser with the PL designation over the years for coins that show cameo contrast. I don’t think cac is
Here is a better picture of 85 cc Morgan that did not CAC
Ask JA. He'll tell you.
Lance.
Here's one from my collection that didn't CAC. There's old chatter or scrapes on the obverse from about 3 o'clock to 5 o'clock that I'd suspected was the reason, but notice the toning on this one and it's resemblance to that of the 1848 CAL posted in this thread. I've long liked the toning and have seen at least one other 1857-S $5 with similar toning. Is this AT?
I read on a different thread that if the coin holder is not in good condition, then the coin will not CAC. Can someone provide more details or confirm that? Thanks
I believe that they are referring to holders that are so old and hazy and scratched that they graders cannot get a clear enough look at the coin to make an accurate assessment. I always look over my old rattlers and polish them up with some Maguires to remove haze and scratches as needed.
It may be the lighting, but is the Reverse less PL around the tail feathers and arrows/branches? Love the coin regardless.
I believe @Crypto was saying that if the coin is terrific but overgraded (a wonderful XF45 in an NGC AU53 holder, e.g.) then its failure to get stickered should not be taken as a condemnation of the coin. The coin suffers from a bad holder.
Lance.