How Bad Is The 'Market Acceptable' Problem With Seated Dollars? This Bad!

How much do coins like this usually sell for?

Like do you think it will sell for only a fraction of book price, or does the PCGS label keep the bidding pretty close to fbv?

Their pictures managed to wash out some of the detail on the obverse particularly in the head and neck. There's more detail than shows. That was graded between 2005 and 2011 or at least reholder then if it was graded prior to that. It's by no means egregious even if it's not a gem for the grade and better pictures which do exist for that coin would show that. Even though I'd assume it's failed CAC it's not a pariah.

Again though trashing active auctions is bad form and a tactic that some use to try and suppress the price for what they want.




1800-2500 for a 40 usually but they don't come up for auction all that often. There's only 10 40s in the PCGS population and 45s can go anywhere from 2300 to well over 5k for the stunners with CAC. There's more 45s than 40s but you're likely facing a big price jump with those. Both XF grades usually only come up a couple times a year in auction so you may also be facing a long wait if you don't want to pay a dealer price.

It's a pretty scare date with a low mintage and a lot of what's graded is in higher grades with obviously a bigger price tag. This one brought a price right in line with expected prices at the time last time it was auctioned so obviously bidders didn't think it was atrocious.

And yea the label did slip loose over the years which can happen on some of those older holders like that

I doubt it, but from the color and surfaces it looks to have been very harshly cleaned. Most Bust Dollars in this condition would have a cleaned designation. I don't know if its because of the rarity of the date that they straight graded it, but something like this would never appear in my collection.

I sold 4 coins on GreatCollections a month ago and I wasn't happy at all with how they photographed my coins. The two CAC coins looked washed out with hairlines and nothing like they do in hand. The one coin that the toning was too dark looked like a gem. The winning bids were disappointing too. I don't think I will buy or sell there again, at least, until their photos improve. I will say that I'd be further upset if I then saw one of them on a forum like this disparaging their appearance.

It's also another reason why I just like to work with my dealer network and try to avoid the auctions. They know me and what I like and my coins are a more consistent quality. There are no surprises that way. I'm sure I'm missing out on some coins I'd otherwise be interested to acquire but I'm also not wasting money chasing after coins that I'll end up being disappointed with.

Definitely cleaned and I wouldn't pay XF straight money for it. Although the cleaning isn't so bad it still should be details.

I love and hate the term "market acceptable".

Screams - "PROBLEM with COIN" or "CLEANED COIN" or "lowest possible condition for assigned grade" alert.

Just had a facebook discussion with a new dealer about "market acceptable" cleaning/enhancing (if you wish to call it a discussion) about "market acceptable".

Cleaned coins should be in a details holder.

"Conserved" coins....is tough to decide sometimes. Stopping obvious problems from continuing is fine. Otherwise, the coin would be lost.

I should have known you had a dog in the fight, Baseball. Sorry for the poor results to both of you.

No dog in the fight just had to learn from experience the hard way not to send them better stuff or premium stuff with the exception of monster toned moderns and probably rare holders as well. They seem to do very well there in those areas.

I wish they would fix their picture issue, I was hoping they would be a viable alternative but they went right along with the price hike the Heritage and Stacks did so they didn't even do anything to slow down the fees.

They're an internet only auction house with no floor bidding so they live and die on the quality of their pictures. Considering they generally just take two pictures not writing descriptions or providing any additional info they should be doing a much better job with the pictures than they are. Between no floor bidding and minimal marketing at best of what they are selling where generally if you're lucky it'll get mentioned in a BST post on a chat forum or be one of 20+ scrolling pictures on the home page, I find their fees to be very high for what you get.

Between the buyers sellers and listing fees for things under $500 they're getting almost 20% and the lower the price goes the higher their cut goes. 500-999 They're still getting at least 17.5%. Even over 1k it's still 12.5% plus listing fee unless you are one of the initial dealers who got fee cuts to sign up or you get them to budge off the fees some.


I understand they have to make money that's fine, but for those fees when all you're getting is a picture and little to no marketing those pictures better be more accurate than they have been. It's to much of a risk to wonder if your items are going to look good or not. If they improve their pictures I will certainly change my opinion on them, but from what I have seem the pictures seem to be getting worse this year