Early American Copper — Welcome to the CAC Educational Forum
›

Early American Copper

hbarbeehbarbee
in Copper Coins
I am new to the forum and look forward to participating. I recently invested in a significant example of an 1808 Classic Head Large Cent. It is PCGS MS66BN with no CAC. It is my understanding that due to the different grading standards of EAC, that the prescience of CAC approval is not that important among collectors of early copper. Is this true or am I mistaken?

Comments

  • CatbertCatbert
    edited May 2022
    I think the presence of a slab, much less a CAC approval sticker, doesn’t mean much to many early copper collectors. However since you used the term investment, the general market will value both when it comes time to sell. Many high flying early copper collections, when it comes time to sell, get slabbed.
  • hbarbeehbarbee
    Catbert, thanks for the comment. I recognize you from the PCGS forum. I probably misused the term investment. I specialize in Lincoln Cents and recently expanded to a type set for pre-Lincoln cents. The 1808 will definitely be with me for the long run. But when trying to learn more about the EAC world, I find that TPG grades and CAC approval may not be that important in that area. This particular coin came from a dealer who is highly respected in EAC. He indicates it would grade at least at MS63 to their current standards, which is quite rare for the issue. I am very proud of it.
  • BillJonesBillJones
    edited October 2022
    Many "old time" copper collectors prefer their coins raw. There are good reasons for this, especially the "third side", the edge, matters, and it is hard to see it when the coin is certified. Early half cents and large cents have lettered or ornamented edges from 1793 to 1795. Most of these collectors collect by die variety. To date there are well over 300 varieties for the large cents from 1793 to 1814 and around 100 half cents from 1793 to 1857.

    EAC grading also compensates the problems that many old copper coins have. Copper is the most reactive of the three classic coinage metals, copper, silver and gold. Therefore, most early copper coins have condition issues of one sort or another. Many of them were "no grades" for slabbing in the old days, or "details grade" pieces today. For some very rare varieties, it is almost impossible to find a problem free example.

    Here is a Sheldon 73, 1795, lettered edge large cent. There are about 40 examples of this variety known. This one probably is among the top 20 known. It would never get a straight grade from a third party grading service, but most large cent variety collectors would find it attractive. The EAC net grade on this piece is Fine-12.





    I purchased this piece recently for a exhibit I plan to display at the Winter FUN show in January about the coins the mint issued in 1795.

  • LarryCLarryC
    Here is my 1795 1c. CAC comment was “Nice but reverse corrosion” thus no CAC. Still a decent piece and better than most at this grade level.
  • totallyoriginaltotallyoriginal
    LarryC said:
    Here is my 1795 1c. CAC comment was “Nice but reverse corrosion” thus no CAC. Still a decent piece and better than most at this grade level.

    this is very cool and interesting to me on many levels .. cac comments are super valuable

    thank you so much!
  • CACfanCACfan
    hbarbee said:

    I am new to the forum and look forward to participating. I recently invested in a significant example of an 1808 Classic Head Large Cent. It is PCGS MS66BN with no CAC. It is my understanding that due to the different grading standards of EAC, that the prescience of CAC approval is not that important among collectors of early copper. Is this true or am I mistaken?

    It is definitely true for hardcore early copper collectors but anything with a CAC bean can explode at auction, where some wealthy non-EAC types always seem to bid.
  • BillJonesBillJones
    @LarryC, that is a very nice example for a lower grade Liberty Cap cent. When I was young collector, finding one of those coins with all of the reverse lettering readable was hard. The reason that the lettering is shallow, and there was very little rim to protect it in circulation.

    I would not worry about the lack of a CAC sticker; the coin speaks for itself.
  • LarryCLarryC
    I may ask JA to reconsider as the rev corrosion is negligible and the fields in the reverse pic don’t look like that in hand. Just my quick photo without camera stand. I have seen stickered copper with worse potential corrosion than mine. These old copper coins should be given a slight break as most have issues so when one is this nice in lower grades concessions need to be considered.
  • CACfanCACfan
    LarryC said:

    I may ask JA to reconsider as the rev corrosion is negligible and the fields in the reverse pic don’t look like that in hand. Just my quick photo without camera stand. I have seen stickered copper with worse potential corrosion than mine. These old copper coins should be given a slight break as most have issues so when one is this nice in lower grades concessions need to be considered.

    Regarding corrosion, JA seems to be the most lenient with 1799's and 1804's, my two favorite dates because they are the easiest to sell.
  • hbarbeehbarbee
    I noticed that I had not posted any images previously.

    Showing the 1808 that I originally referenced in this thread. My research did not show any evidence that it had been submitted to CAC. It might have a chance of earning a sticker.

    I will also show the 1795 that I referenced in another thread here concerning the fact that it had been broken out of a a classic PCGS holder with CAC and resubmitted to PCGS by a previous owner. In this case it would probably earn a sticker.

    As mentioned by the folks above, CAC approval may not influence EAC experts, but would certainly be significant if the coins ever went to auction.













  • CACfanCACfan
    hbarbee said:

    I noticed that I had not posted any images previously.

    Showing the 1808 that I originally referenced in this thread. My research did not show any evidence that it had been submitted to CAC. It might have a chance of earning a sticker.

    I will also show the 1795 that I referenced in another thread here concerning the fact that it had been broken out of a a classic PCGS holder with CAC and resubmitted to PCGS by a previous owner. In this case it would probably earn a sticker.

    As mentioned by the folks above, CAC approval may not influence EAC experts, but would certainly be significant if the coins ever went to auction.













    If you include a photo of the coin in its CAC-approved slab, even if it lacks a CAC bean, CAC will sticker the new slab assuming that the coin was not played with between slabs. But you will need to pay the full $36 fee rather than the $5 re-sticker fee because the serial number was changed.
Sign In or Register to comment.