A, B, C coin questions are answered!
A = Plus grade (I was right about that! It is the simplest way to designate a coin that is high within the grade.)
B = straight grade
C = details grade or net graded to lower grade (even though "market acceptable" in a different slab, not up to CAC standards).
This approach adds value, because now A coins are identified,
while before A and B coins both got the green sticker.
This implies that the C and borderline B/C coins will likely be sent to PCGS first.
Then the owner might try for a crossover to CAC at the same grade (equivalent to getting a sticker).
If a C or B/C coin is sent to CAC first and ends up in a details or lower grade holder,
then the owner might want to crack it out and send it to PCGS.
If it's in a PCGS holder with no sticker, buyers do not know if it has been to CAC and rejected for a straight CAC grade.
Same as it is today.
If it is in a CAC details holder, then a buyer would know this for certain.
Under the above scenario it seems the use of the + superlative will expand tremendously, CAC vis-a-vis PCGS/NGC. A large volume of MS straight graded coins at CAC will receive a +, right?
PCGS and NGC reserve the + for those pieces deemed to be in the top 10% of their grade iirc. With all A coins now receiving a +, that low 10% group should be much, much higher at CAC. Am I correct here? Do you think this might dilute the value of the +?
It could create a feeding frenzy for CAC + graded pieces, particularly early when many associate the + with the best of the best. CAC will be assigning the + superlative to many pieces in the given grade, or so it seems.
I like expanding the use of the +. There are more pluses than minuses to doing this imo.
@MasonG said:
If they're already thinking "A, B or C?" when grading, why not put A, B or C on the label?
My understanding is, because doing so (and thus identifying C coins and holdering them as such) would be inconsistent with the current CAC practice of stickering only A and B quality coins.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MasonG said:
If they're already thinking "A, B or C?" when grading, why not put A, B or C on the label?
My understanding is, because doing so (and thus identifying C coins and holdering them as such) would be inconsistent with the current CAC practice of stickering only A and B quality coins.
Put a sticker on the A and B coins and not the C ones. Seems to be kind of a waste to be distinguishing between the three when grading and discarding that info when printing the label. But that's just me.
A, B, C coin questions are answered!
A = Plus grade (I was right about that! It is the simplest way to designate a coin that is high within the grade.)
B = straight grade
C = details grade or net graded to lower grade (even though "market acceptable" in a different slab, not up to CAC standards).
This approach adds value, because now A coins are identified,
while before A and B coins both got the green sticker.
This implies that the C and borderline B/C coins will likely be sent to PCGS first.
Then the owner might try for a crossover to CAC at the same grade (equivalent to getting a sticker).
If a C or B/C coin is sent to CAC first and ends up in a details or lower grade holder,
then the owner might want to crack it out and send it to PCGS.
If it's in a PCGS holder with no sticker, buyers do not know if it has been to CAC and rejected for a straight CAC grade.
Same as it is today.
If it is in a CAC details holder, then a buyer would know this for certain.
Thanks for this info. I really fail to see the value here to the collector. It does give another path or two for crackout dealers to get into the most highly-valued holder for the same coin.
To me the CAC sticker is useful as it means the coin is "all there", but lack of a CAC is ambiguous. We don't know if it was for being overgraded, cleaned, altered, poor appeal, or what. Personally I weight those very differently when making a coin buying decision. The new CAC system doesn't seem to help clarify that at all; unless the coin is so bad as to get a Details grade, which is no different than what PCGS and NGC provide now. An MS64 CAC holder doesn't tell me if it is a problem-free MS64 or an MS65 (or higher) with problems.
A new and valuable service to collectors would be to assign separate grades for wear, surfaces (cleaning), strike, and eye appeal. They claim to be assessing all of those things so why not make it explicit? I understand it would make life harder for price guide companies, but they'll survive.
A, B, C coin questions are answered!
A = Plus grade (I was right about that! It is the simplest way to designate a coin that is high within the grade.)
B = straight grade
C = details grade or net graded to lower grade (even though "market acceptable" in a different slab, not up to CAC standards).
This approach adds value, because now A coins are identified,
while before A and B coins both got the green sticker.
This implies that the C and borderline B/C coins will likely be sent to PCGS first.
Then the owner might try for a crossover to CAC at the same grade (equivalent to getting a sticker).
If a C or B/C coin is sent to CAC first and ends up in a details or lower grade holder,
then the owner might want to crack it out and send it to PCGS.
If it's in a PCGS holder with no sticker, buyers do not know if it has been to CAC and rejected for a straight CAC grade.
Same as it is today.
If it is in a CAC details holder, then a buyer would know this for certain.
Under the above scenario it seems the use of the + superlative will expand tremendously, CAC vis-a-vis PCGS/NGC. A large volume of MS straight graded coins at CAC will receive a +, right?
PCGS and NGC reserve the + for those pieces deemed to be in the top 10% of their grade iirc. With all A coins now receiving a +, that low 10% group should be much, much higher at CAC. Am I correct here? Do you think this might dilute the value of the +?
It could create a feeding frenzy for CAC + graded pieces, particularly early when many associate the + with the best of the best. CAC will be assigning the + superlative to many pieces in the given grade, or so it seems.
I like expanding the use of the +. There are more pluses than minuses to doing this imo.
Maybe not as I am thinking most green sticker coins are of B quality not necessarily A coins which would be borderline for the next PCGS grade level. Probably only 10-15% of CAC green stickers are A quality
@VanHalen said:
Under the above scenario it seems the use of the + superlative will expand tremendously, CAC vis-a-vis PCGS/NGC. A large volume of MS straight graded coins at CAC will receive a +, right?
PCGS and NGC reserve the + for those pieces deemed to be in the top 10% of their grade iirc. With all A coins now receiving a +, that low 10% group should be much, much higher at CAC. Am I correct here? Do you think this might dilute the value of the +?
It could create a feeding frenzy for CAC + graded pieces, particularly early when many associate the + with the best of the best. CAC will be assigning the + superlative to many pieces in the given grade, or so it seems.
I like expanding the use of the +. There are more pluses than minuses to doing this imo.
A, B, C coin questions are answered!
A = Plus grade (I was right about that! It is the simplest way to designate a coin that is high within the grade.)
B = straight grade
C = details grade or net graded to lower grade (even though "market acceptable" in a different slab, not up to CAC standards).
This approach adds value, because now A coins are identified,
while before A and B coins both got the green sticker.
This implies that the C and borderline B/C coins will likely be sent to PCGS first.
Then the owner might try for a crossover to CAC at the same grade (equivalent to getting a sticker).
If a C or B/C coin is sent to CAC first and ends up in a details or lower grade holder,
then the owner might want to crack it out and send it to PCGS.
If it's in a PCGS holder with no sticker, buyers do not know if it has been to CAC and rejected for a straight CAC grade.
Same as it is today.
If it is in a CAC details holder, then a buyer would know this for certain.
Under the above scenario it seems the use of the + superlative will expand tremendously, CAC vis-a-vis PCGS/NGC. A large volume of MS straight graded coins at CAC will receive a +, right?
PCGS and NGC reserve the + for those pieces deemed to be in the top 10% of their grade iirc. With all A coins now receiving a +, that low 10% group should be much, much higher at CAC. Am I correct here? Do you think this might dilute the value of the +?
It could create a feeding frenzy for CAC + graded pieces, particularly early when many associate the + with the best of the best. CAC will be assigning the + superlative to many pieces in the given grade, or so it seems.
I like expanding the use of the +. There are more pluses than minuses to doing this imo.
As mentioned somewhere else in the forum by another member, there will be several sources of + coins.
Previously graded coins that the owner specifies a crossover only at a + grade. (I think CAC is going to be rather conservative with this, even a pcgs plus grade with a sticker is not guaranteed to cross with a + at CAC)
Previously graded coins that are problem free “C” coins, but downgraded to the next lowest grade with a +. (Again, not ALL downgrades are going to receive a +)
Raw coins, or crack outs.
With that being said, I agree that CAC pop reports are going to have much higher numbers of + coins, in comparison to P or N. I also agree that there will be a feeding frenzy for + coins, for multiple reasons. The “A” coins have finally been identified, there’s no longer ambiguity as to whether a previously stickered coin was considered to be “A” or “B”. I think this will encourage many collectors and dealers to try and crossover, as I would not be surprised if the value of a CAC 64+ carries a lofty premium over CAC 64, and could be right on the mark with PCGS or NGC non stickered 65.
In addition to that, I would also not be surprised if the CAC + coins are cherry picked, cracked out and sent to P or N to upgrade. I think that would be particularly prevalent with the non “legacy” slabs, which indicate that a coin was likely slabbed at the next grade up before it was downgraded. Also, as @pcgscacgold mentioned, a lot of P/N 62-63 coins could be downgraded to CAC 58+, and as the value jump from 58 to MS is often pretty significant with a low pop coin, they will be coveted for upgrades. This could be hindered if PCGS or NGC adjusts to be more conservative in light of all of this.
Those who stand to gain the most are those who are successfully able to cross a stickered 64, in which they paid 64 money for, to a CAC 64+. I’m interested to see how the market values a CAC 64+ vs a PCGS 64+ CAC. I’m also curious to see what this to the CAC pop reports through all of this. The current business model makes it simple to keep track, but with the new grading service, and resulting crack out shenanigans, I’d be concerned with dilution of the census numbers.
@VanHalen said:
Under the above scenario it seems the use of the + superlative will expand tremendously, CAC vis-a-vis PCGS/NGC. A large volume of MS straight graded coins at CAC will receive a +, right?
PCGS and NGC reserve the + for those pieces deemed to be in the top 10% of their grade iirc. With all A coins now receiving a +, that low 10% group should be much, much higher at CAC. Am I correct here? Do you think this might dilute the value of the +?
It could create a feeding frenzy for CAC + graded pieces, particularly early when many associate the + with the best of the best. CAC will be assigning the + superlative to many pieces in the given grade, or so it seems.
I like expanding the use of the +. There are more pluses than minuses to doing this imo.
@VanHalen said:
Under the above scenario it seems the use of the + superlative will expand tremendously, CAC vis-a-vis PCGS/NGC. A large volume of MS straight graded coins at CAC will receive a +, right?
PCGS and NGC reserve the + for those pieces deemed to be in the top 10% of their grade iirc. With all A coins now receiving a +, that low 10% group should be much, much higher at CAC. Am I correct here? Do you think this might dilute the value of the +?
It could create a feeding frenzy for CAC + graded pieces, particularly early when many associate the + with the best of the best. CAC will be assigning the + superlative to many pieces in the given grade, or so it seems.
I like expanding the use of the +. There are more pluses than minuses to doing this imo.
Albeit that the pcgs website states 30%, a look at the pop report of any coin would show that is just not true. In many cases, it’s less than 10%
I appreciate MetroD posting the PCGS "standard" for determining what gets a +. When the + was originated, talk of the top 10% within a grade getting a + were bandied about. For those interested in a little tpg history: pcgs.com/news/two-leading-grading-services-announce-plus-grading
Now from what I read in in the link and from MetroD's post the coin must exhibit exceptional eye appeal AND be in the top 30% for the grade. David Hall speculated back in 2010 (see link above) that 15% to 20% of the coins at a given grade would qualify for a +. It seems time has demonstrated the real numbers to be closer to 10% to 15% as DeporableDan notes.
@VanHalen said:
Under the above scenario it seems the use of the + superlative will expand tremendously, CAC vis-a-vis PCGS/NGC. A large volume of MS straight graded coins at CAC will receive a +, right?
PCGS and NGC reserve the + for those pieces deemed to be in the top 10% of their grade iirc. With all A coins now receiving a +, that low 10% group should be much, much higher at CAC. Am I correct here? Do you think this might dilute the value of the +?
It could create a feeding frenzy for CAC + graded pieces, particularly early when many associate the + with the best of the best. CAC will be assigning the + superlative to many pieces in the given grade, or so it seems.
I like expanding the use of the +. There are more pluses than minuses to doing this imo.
Albeit that the pcgs website states 30%, a look at the pop report of any coin would show that is just not true. In many cases, it’s less than 10%
I appreciate MetroD posting the PCGS "standard" for determining what gets a +. When the + was originated, talk of the top 10% within a grade getting a + were bandied about. For those interested in a little tpg history: pcgs.com/news/two-leading-grading-services-announce-plus-grading
Now from what I read in in the link and from MetroD's post the coin must exhibit exceptional eye appeal AND be in the top 30% for the grade. David Hall speculated back in 2010 (see link above) that 15% to 20% of the coins at a given grade would qualify for a +. It seems time has demonstrated the real numbers to be closer to 10% to 15% as DeporableDan notes.
Thanks fellas. It's fun speculating.
I don’t think that the populations and your “closer to 10% to 15%” figure fully take into account all the non-plus coins that were graded prior to the introduction of plus grading by PCGS.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I don’t think that the populations and your “closer to 10% to 15%” figure fully take into account all the non-plus coins that were graded prior to the introduction of plus grading by PCGS.
No, it doesn't but based on anecdotal information over the past 12 years we should know it's nowhere near 30% and probably not even 20%.
Do you guys remember a top PCGS/CAC numismatics firm's Market Report from 2010? They resummited a volume of PCGS pieces looking for + grades. They didn't get many at all and in the report stated, "Nothing infuriates us more!"
I'll see if I can dig that column up but it was linked on these boards. We can revisit some of the 2010 threads on + grades too. They were tough to get then and it hasn't changed that much. Now with CACG putting a + on all A coins that might change.
Just go to a 100 point scale and be done with it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, NOT,,,,,,, Just Kidding,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
@GRANDAM That is what they are doing. Instead of numbers they are using letters and symbols. Stability is what the collecting / investing community needs not change. It’s hurting the hobby. Changing the grading standards is detrimental.
A properly graded MS65 "C" coin is still better than a properly graded MS64+ CAC, bean, fancy holder, or even one with a rotating disco ball and flashy lights.....
Right????
I sorta think a 64+ CAC coin is sometimes regarded as having "really super-duper cool" attributes....... but in reality it's sometimes just a "butt-for" coin. "This coin would be in a gem holder but for the scratch across the eagle's head."
All this A/B/C plus, sticker, and new holder stuff adds something, but also takes away something from the hobby.
Seems like a lot of shipping and grading fees. Why not learn how to grade and pick out nice coins?
Any TPG coin can be subject to damage from reaction to the atmosphere and heat over time. To take some badly tarnished C coin that was damaged over time from reaction to the atmosphere blaming a TPG is incorrect.
@Martin said: @GRANDAM That is what they are doing. Instead of numbers they are using letters and symbols. Stability is what the collecting / investing community needs not change. It’s hurting the hobby. Changing the grading standards is detrimental.
Martin
I'm not sure who you are referring to as "they", but both PCGS an and NGC have been using a + system for 12 years. There's no other letters or symbols that are being introduced. The internal "A,B,C" grading has been a unspoken system that's been in place for advanced collectors, and dealers who are experienced with grading. CAC has stickered A and B coins, which has been very insightful for collectors who rely on a third party to identify a problem free desirable, solid for the grade coin. The ONLY difference now is that the "A" coins will be differentiated from the "B" coins, to which we already know that the market has fully embraced CAC's opinion, by virtue of the lack of aforementioned "Stability" in recent years.
@Cougar1978 said:
Seems like a lot of shipping and grading fees. Why not learn how to grade and pick out nice coins?
Because unfortunately there are a few dealers who would then potentially take advantage of the collector selling that coin, saying the grading on the holder is not as good as the collector (even with excellent grading skills) says it is. Same as at auction - collectors mostly will not bid the same level on an attractive coin without a CAC sticker as the same coin with a sticker.
Separately, with coins valued in the mid four figures and higher, due to the often pricing differentials of coins with CAC's vs. non-CAC's, many bidders at auction will bid on non-CAC coins as if that coin failed getting a CAC sticker, whether that is the case or not, and they will assume it failed, either due to being low end for the grade, or having surface issues that disturb CAC but not the TPG's. The mentality is the owner of a mid four figure coin will have have spent the $16 (and shipping) to get a CAC sticker before selling or consigning it to get better value.
My guess is you're a dealer (but an honest one).
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
If C coins are simply graded lower, as I expect will be the case, there will be good money to be made buying ugly CAC coins and upgrading them at PCGS and NGC. Funny, I’ve spent close to 50 years hunting for the best looking coins, and now I’m going to have to have to get used to doing just the opposite!
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Well I guess they might roll the dice get the ugly coins but not the game for me. Now a dealer I know who specializes in problem material he might go for those as he knows that market segment.
If it was a take it all deal then that is different.
Now they are just another grading service and now another independent service will pop up to give their unbiased opinion and a new sticker. You won’t be happy until your new CAC has a new sticker.
A, B, C coin questions are answered!
A = Plus grade (I was right about that! It is the simplest way to designate a coin that is high within the grade.)
B = straight grade
C = details grade or net graded to lower grade (even though "market acceptable" in a different slab, not up to CAC standards).
This approach adds value, because now A coins are identified,
while before A and B coins both got the green sticker.
This implies that the C and borderline B/C coins will likely be sent to PCGS first.
Then the owner might try for a crossover to CAC at the same grade (equivalent to getting a sticker).
If a C or B/C coin is sent to CAC first and ends up in a details or lower grade holder,
then the owner might want to crack it out and send it to PCGS.
If it's in a PCGS holder with no sticker, buyers do not know if it has been to CAC and rejected for a straight CAC grade.
Same as it is today.
If it is in a CAC details holder, then a buyer would know this for certain.
I think it will be reasonable to assume for most expensive coins that are being sold in a NGC or PCGS slab without a sticker that it either didn’t cross at CAC or it previously didn’t earn a sticker assuming the CAC grading service becomes successful and has a significant presence in the market.
Yes I can see that selectivity with big ticket material but that based on assumption most owners sent to CAC. But / Many low end coins today are the result of exposure to the atmosphere not necessarily some TPG grade given back in the past.
So , A coin may earn a sticker now but at some point in the future exposure to the atmosphere, heat, humidity, salt air, biological attack could make it go bad in the holder.
Consequently even if it has a sticker…..watch out.
More clarity on the high end. More resubmissions, which the business side of the hobby wants. Gives me a headache.
Will wait for this to sort itself out. The idea of resubmitting my stickered coins to the new service to see if they get the 'A' grade, resubmitting my + coins likewise, etc., at the moment doesn't sit well with me. Have paid enough grading fees over the years. If / when I sell, I'll probably have to do this, though.
I haven't bought anything in six years, and I may or may not find the three coins I need to complete my abridged type set. If I find something, I will be asking lots of questions, though.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
I would go broke playing TPG musical chairs. Not to mention worry about being lost during shipment. I will see how this all sorts out. If somebody offers at my table or auction some of the new TPG coins I can buy right might buy a few see how they do. Otherwise no great loss.
Like an aspiring new WR on roster the new service is going to have show me he can play.
Two words: integrity and consistency. Add reputation. IF (and that's IF) CAC gets the business end right it will be the prominent service for most serious collectors and those who want to optimize their "investment". IMO by the end of next year. Grumble and naysay all you want, the trajectory is clear.
@oldabeintx said:
IF (and that's IF) CAC gets the business end right it will be the prominent service for most serious collectors and those who want to optimize their "investment". IMO by the end of next year.
@oldabeintx said:
IF (and that's IF) CAC gets the business end right it will be the prominent service for most serious collectors and those who want to optimize their "investment". IMO by the end of next year.
Is that with or without the cartoon mascot?
Your guess appears to be that it matters. If so, they will change or drop it. Part of getting the business end right.
@oldabeintx said:
IF (and that's IF) CAC gets the business end right it will be the prominent service for most serious collectors and those who want to optimize their "investment". IMO by the end of next year.
Is that with or without the cartoon mascot?
Your guess appears to be that it matters. If so, they will change or drop it. Part of getting the business end right.
I don't have a guess. I don't care one way or the other what they do, it's their business to run however they choose. But let's say they don't "get the business end right". How much money per year do you think it will cost them in lost business to keep the mascot as-is?
@oldabeintx said:
IF (and that's IF) CAC gets the business end right it will be the prominent service for most serious collectors and those who want to optimize their "investment". IMO by the end of next year.
Is that with or without the cartoon mascot?
Your guess appears to be that it matters. If so, they will change or drop it. Part of getting the business end right.
I don't have a guess. I don't care one way or the other what they do, it's their business to run however they choose. But let's say they don't "get the business end right". How much money per year do you think it will cost them in lost business to keep the mascot as-is?
If it matters we'll still never know unless they change or drop it and see a surge in business.
@oldabeintx said:
If it matters we'll still never know unless they change or drop it and see a surge in business.
I don't think there are any people who changed their minds about sending coins in when they saw the mascot because they think it's unprofessional, so I don't think it will make any difference if they change or drop it.
@coinbuf said:
Funny that so many are so hung up about the mascot.
@oldabeintx said:
If it matters we'll still never know unless they change or drop it and see a surge in business.
I don't think there are any people who changed their minds about sending coins in when they saw the mascot because they think it's unprofessional, so I don't think it will make any difference if they change or drop it.
@coinbuf said:
Funny that so many are so hung up about the mascot.
"Hung up" like in commenting on it? Like you did?
No hung up as in their tidy whites are in a bunch over it, coin collecting should be fun.
@Elcontador said:
More resubmissions, which the business side of the hobby wants. Gives me a headache.
One of my pet peeves is when people attribute a single thought process to something that does not actually think. Like, for example, the stock market, "big pharma", and the coin business.
That said, I'm a coin dealer and I loathe having to submit coins to a grading service to get them sold for a fair price. Having to sometimes submit them multiple times is even worse.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
Think I will go off to sleep ,hibernate, with the bears for the winter. Upon a spring awakening maybe this will be sorted out.
I've done my sorting out. No intention of cracking present slabs to get a new one.
I find it hard to believe that all of a sudden, no one will be able to make a decision on a coin if it's in a holder that has been around and accepted (or rejected) for decades.
Let's see a show of hands who has no idea what a coin should look like in a presently recognized slab.
Coin World: "CAC Grading reveals its holders for future submissions"
By Larry Jewett , Coin World
Published: Nov 23, 2022, 9 AM
CAC Grading has created holders for submissions to the firm expected in 2023.
Holder images courtesy of CAC, coin images by Justin Lee.
Certified Acceptance Corp. Grading has taken a first step toward the firm’s planned “soft opening” in the first quarter of 2023 with the reveal of product holders that will be used for submissions.
The holders were developed after feedback from customers who gave their view on what they expected to see from an upgraded holder, according to the firm. CAC members received recent email notification about the new holders.
Suggestions for the new holder began to appear on the forums at caccoin.com two weeks after the announcement of the new grading firm. The intent was to offer an upgraded product “superior to what is currently available,” according to the firm.
Many of the suggestions offered were taken into consideration in the creation of the new holder. For example, one recommendation was that the holders be compatible with existing Professional Coin Grading Service boxes.
In a recent interview, CAC founder John Albanese confirmed the new holders would stack and fit in those boxes. Long-range future plans for CAC Grading include manufacture of their own boxes.
Preparation of the physical facility in Virginia Beach, Virginia, is well underway. CAC Grading is planning a gradual rollout of services, including the introduction of two unique registry sets. A universal registry will include those coins graded and certified by Numismatic Guaranty Co., PCGS and CAC-stickered coins. A special CAC registry will be offered exclusively for CAC-graded and CAC-stickered coins.
The new service is embarking on the creation of what it says will be the highest quality grading sets to be used to set the standards for determining the level of a coin’s grade. While there are no plans to conduct coin grading at shows, CAC Grading plans to display its grading sets to educate consumers as to the standards in the future, according to the firm.
Plan pickup a few of the CACG coins when they come out to see for myself how compare. However I see no effect on market for Slabs currently accepted by eBay: PCGS ,NGC, Anacs, ICG. The CAC material already has its own pricing in CDN CPG which is at a premium vs non CAC. Consumers will decide on their own like they do on autos whether standard car is a match for them vs some more expensive sports or luxury make.
Comments
Under the above scenario it seems the use of the + superlative will expand tremendously, CAC vis-a-vis PCGS/NGC. A large volume of MS straight graded coins at CAC will receive a +, right?
PCGS and NGC reserve the + for those pieces deemed to be in the top 10% of their grade iirc. With all A coins now receiving a +, that low 10% group should be much, much higher at CAC. Am I correct here? Do you think this might dilute the value of the +?
It could create a feeding frenzy for CAC + graded pieces, particularly early when many associate the + with the best of the best. CAC will be assigning the + superlative to many pieces in the given grade, or so it seems.
I like expanding the use of the +. There are more pluses than minuses to doing this imo.
My understanding is, because doing so (and thus identifying C coins and holdering them as such) would be inconsistent with the current CAC practice of stickering only A and B quality coins.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Put a sticker on the A and B coins and not the C ones. Seems to be kind of a waste to be distinguishing between the three when grading and discarding that info when printing the label. But that's just me.
Thanks for this info. I really fail to see the value here to the collector. It does give another path or two for crackout dealers to get into the most highly-valued holder for the same coin.
To me the CAC sticker is useful as it means the coin is "all there", but lack of a CAC is ambiguous. We don't know if it was for being overgraded, cleaned, altered, poor appeal, or what. Personally I weight those very differently when making a coin buying decision. The new CAC system doesn't seem to help clarify that at all; unless the coin is so bad as to get a Details grade, which is no different than what PCGS and NGC provide now. An MS64 CAC holder doesn't tell me if it is a problem-free MS64 or an MS65 (or higher) with problems.
A new and valuable service to collectors would be to assign separate grades for wear, surfaces (cleaning), strike, and eye appeal. They claim to be assessing all of those things so why not make it explicit? I understand it would make life harder for price guide companies, but they'll survive.
LIBERTY SEATED DIMES WITH MAJOR VARIETIES CIRCULATION STRIKES (1837-1891) digital album
Maybe not as I am thinking most green sticker coins are of B quality not necessarily A coins which would be borderline for the next PCGS grade level. Probably only 10-15% of CAC green stickers are A quality
At PCGS:
Source: https://www.pcgs.com/grades
As mentioned somewhere else in the forum by another member, there will be several sources of + coins.
Previously graded coins that the owner specifies a crossover only at a + grade. (I think CAC is going to be rather conservative with this, even a pcgs plus grade with a sticker is not guaranteed to cross with a + at CAC)
Previously graded coins that are problem free “C” coins, but downgraded to the next lowest grade with a +. (Again, not ALL downgrades are going to receive a +)
Raw coins, or crack outs.
With that being said, I agree that CAC pop reports are going to have much higher numbers of + coins, in comparison to P or N. I also agree that there will be a feeding frenzy for + coins, for multiple reasons. The “A” coins have finally been identified, there’s no longer ambiguity as to whether a previously stickered coin was considered to be “A” or “B”. I think this will encourage many collectors and dealers to try and crossover, as I would not be surprised if the value of a CAC 64+ carries a lofty premium over CAC 64, and could be right on the mark with PCGS or NGC non stickered 65.
In addition to that, I would also not be surprised if the CAC + coins are cherry picked, cracked out and sent to P or N to upgrade. I think that would be particularly prevalent with the non “legacy” slabs, which indicate that a coin was likely slabbed at the next grade up before it was downgraded. Also, as @pcgscacgold mentioned, a lot of P/N 62-63 coins could be downgraded to CAC 58+, and as the value jump from 58 to MS is often pretty significant with a low pop coin, they will be coveted for upgrades. This could be hindered if PCGS or NGC adjusts to be more conservative in light of all of this.
Those who stand to gain the most are those who are successfully able to cross a stickered 64, in which they paid 64 money for, to a CAC 64+. I’m interested to see how the market values a CAC 64+ vs a PCGS 64+ CAC. I’m also curious to see what this to the CAC pop reports through all of this. The current business model makes it simple to keep track, but with the new grading service, and resulting crack out shenanigans, I’d be concerned with dilution of the census numbers.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Albeit that the pcgs website states 30%, a look at the pop report of any coin would show that is just not true. In many cases, it’s less than 10%
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I appreciate MetroD posting the PCGS "standard" for determining what gets a +. When the + was originated, talk of the top 10% within a grade getting a + were bandied about. For those interested in a little tpg history: pcgs.com/news/two-leading-grading-services-announce-plus-grading
Now from what I read in in the link and from MetroD's post the coin must exhibit exceptional eye appeal AND be in the top 30% for the grade. David Hall speculated back in 2010 (see link above) that 15% to 20% of the coins at a given grade would qualify for a +. It seems time has demonstrated the real numbers to be closer to 10% to 15% as DeporableDan notes.
Thanks fellas. It's fun speculating.
….> @VanHalen said:
I don’t think that the populations and your “closer to 10% to 15%” figure fully take into account all the non-plus coins that were graded prior to the introduction of plus grading by PCGS.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld
Ahh yes, I didn’t take that into consideration either, great point
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
No, it doesn't but based on anecdotal information over the past 12 years we should know it's nowhere near 30% and probably not even 20%.
Do you guys remember a top PCGS/CAC numismatics firm's Market Report from 2010? They resummited a volume of PCGS pieces looking for + grades. They didn't get many at all and in the report stated, "Nothing infuriates us more!"
I'll see if I can dig that column up but it was linked on these boards. We can revisit some of the 2010 threads on + grades too. They were tough to get then and it hasn't changed that much. Now with CACG putting a + on all A coins that might change.
Just go to a 100 point scale and be done with it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, NOT,,,,,,, Just Kidding,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
@GRANDAM That is what they are doing. Instead of numbers they are using letters and symbols. Stability is what the collecting / investing community needs not change. It’s hurting the hobby. Changing the grading standards is detrimental.
Martin
A properly graded MS65 "C" coin is still better than a properly graded MS64+ CAC, bean, fancy holder, or even one with a rotating disco ball and flashy lights.....
Right????
I sorta think a 64+ CAC coin is sometimes regarded as having "really super-duper cool" attributes....... but in reality it's sometimes just a "butt-for" coin. "This coin would be in a gem holder but for the scratch across the eagle's head."
All this A/B/C plus, sticker, and new holder stuff adds something, but also takes away something from the hobby.
Seems like a lot of shipping and grading fees. Why not learn how to grade and pick out nice coins?
Any TPG coin can be subject to damage from reaction to the atmosphere and heat over time. To take some badly tarnished C coin that was damaged over time from reaction to the atmosphere blaming a TPG is incorrect.
I'm not sure who you are referring to as "they", but both PCGS an and NGC have been using a + system for 12 years. There's no other letters or symbols that are being introduced. The internal "A,B,C" grading has been a unspoken system that's been in place for advanced collectors, and dealers who are experienced with grading. CAC has stickered A and B coins, which has been very insightful for collectors who rely on a third party to identify a problem free desirable, solid for the grade coin. The ONLY difference now is that the "A" coins will be differentiated from the "B" coins, to which we already know that the market has fully embraced CAC's opinion, by virtue of the lack of aforementioned "Stability" in recent years.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Because unfortunately there are a few dealers who would then potentially take advantage of the collector selling that coin, saying the grading on the holder is not as good as the collector (even with excellent grading skills) says it is. Same as at auction - collectors mostly will not bid the same level on an attractive coin without a CAC sticker as the same coin with a sticker.
Separately, with coins valued in the mid four figures and higher, due to the often pricing differentials of coins with CAC's vs. non-CAC's, many bidders at auction will bid on non-CAC coins as if that coin failed getting a CAC sticker, whether that is the case or not, and they will assume it failed, either due to being low end for the grade, or having surface issues that disturb CAC but not the TPG's. The mentality is the owner of a mid four figure coin will have have spent the $16 (and shipping) to get a CAC sticker before selling or consigning it to get better value.
My guess is you're a dealer (but an honest one).
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
If C coins are simply graded lower, as I expect will be the case, there will be good money to be made buying ugly CAC coins and upgrading them at PCGS and NGC. Funny, I’ve spent close to 50 years hunting for the best looking coins, and now I’m going to have to have to get used to doing just the opposite!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Newsflash -
Many of us wont buy ugly coins or coins we perceive as being low end for the grade especially if paying big money.
It’s nothing personal just business and risk mgt.
Newsflash -
Many people will gladly buy ugly coins or those that they perceive as being low end for the grade, if they think they can make money on them.
It's nothing personal, just just business and risk management.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Well I guess they might roll the dice get the ugly coins but not the game for me. Now a dealer I know who specializes in problem material he might go for those as he knows that market segment.
If it was a take it all deal then that is different.
Newsflash -
Many people will gladly buy ugly coins if the slab has a little green sticker on it.
It's nothing personal, just business and risk management.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Now they are just another grading service and now another independent service will pop up to give their unbiased opinion and a new sticker. You won’t be happy until your new CAC has a new sticker.
I think it will be reasonable to assume for most expensive coins that are being sold in a NGC or PCGS slab without a sticker that it either didn’t cross at CAC or it previously didn’t earn a sticker assuming the CAC grading service becomes successful and has a significant presence in the market.
>
Really?
Yes I can see that selectivity with big ticket material but that based on assumption most owners sent to CAC. But / Many low end coins today are the result of exposure to the atmosphere not necessarily some TPG grade given back in the past.
So , A coin may earn a sticker now but at some point in the future exposure to the atmosphere, heat, humidity, salt air, biological attack could make it go bad in the holder.
Consequently even if it has a sticker…..watch out.
More clarity on the high end. More resubmissions, which the business side of the hobby wants. Gives me a headache.
Will wait for this to sort itself out. The idea of resubmitting my stickered coins to the new service to see if they get the 'A' grade, resubmitting my + coins likewise, etc., at the moment doesn't sit well with me. Have paid enough grading fees over the years. If / when I sell, I'll probably have to do this, though.
I haven't bought anything in six years, and I may or may not find the three coins I need to complete my abridged type set. If I find something, I will be asking lots of questions, though.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
I would go broke playing TPG musical chairs. Not to mention worry about being lost during shipment. I will see how this all sorts out. If somebody offers at my table or auction some of the new TPG coins I can buy right might buy a few see how they do. Otherwise no great loss.
Like an aspiring new WR on roster the new service is going to have show me he can play.
Two words: integrity and consistency. Add reputation. IF (and that's IF) CAC gets the business end right it will be the prominent service for most serious collectors and those who want to optimize their "investment". IMO by the end of next year. Grumble and naysay all you want, the trajectory is clear.
Is that with or without the cartoon mascot?
Your guess appears to be that it matters. If so, they will change or drop it. Part of getting the business end right.
I don't have a guess. I don't care one way or the other what they do, it's their business to run however they choose. But let's say they don't "get the business end right". How much money per year do you think it will cost them in lost business to keep the mascot as-is?
If it matters we'll still never know unless they change or drop it and see a surge in business.
Funny that so many are so hung up about the mascot.
There are sure some dull and grouchy old farts on this thread.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I don't think there are any people who changed their minds about sending coins in when they saw the mascot because they think it's unprofessional, so I don't think it will make any difference if they change or drop it.
"Hung up" like in commenting on it? Like you did?
No hung up as in their tidy whites are in a bunch over it, coin collecting should be fun.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
You mean like this?
I don't see any harm in having a little fun with a cartoon mascot if that's what they want to do.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/13363840#Comment_13363840
Yes exactly, too many stuffed shirts at times here. I get that this is a business and investment for some, but some actually enjoy coin collecting.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
One of my pet peeves is when people attribute a single thought process to something that does not actually think. Like, for example, the stock market, "big pharma", and the coin business.
That said, I'm a coin dealer and I loathe having to submit coins to a grading service to get them sold for a fair price. Having to sometimes submit them multiple times is even worse.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Think I will go off to sleep ,hibernate, with the bears for the winter. Upon a spring awakening maybe this will be sorted out.
I've done my sorting out. No intention of cracking present slabs to get a new one.
I find it hard to believe that all of a sudden, no one will be able to make a decision on a coin if it's in a holder that has been around and accepted (or rejected) for decades.
Let's see a show of hands who has no idea what a coin should look like in a presently recognized slab.
Coin World: "CAC Grading reveals its holders for future submissions"
CAC Grading has created holders for submissions to the firm expected in 2023.
Holder images courtesy of CAC, coin images by Justin Lee.
Certified Acceptance Corp. Grading has taken a first step toward the firm’s planned “soft opening” in the first quarter of 2023 with the reveal of product holders that will be used for submissions.
The holders were developed after feedback from customers who gave their view on what they expected to see from an upgraded holder, according to the firm. CAC members received recent email notification about the new holders.
Suggestions for the new holder began to appear on the forums at caccoin.com two weeks after the announcement of the new grading firm. The intent was to offer an upgraded product “superior to what is currently available,” according to the firm.
Many of the suggestions offered were taken into consideration in the creation of the new holder. For example, one recommendation was that the holders be compatible with existing Professional Coin Grading Service boxes.
In a recent interview, CAC founder John Albanese confirmed the new holders would stack and fit in those boxes. Long-range future plans for CAC Grading include manufacture of their own boxes.
Preparation of the physical facility in Virginia Beach, Virginia, is well underway. CAC Grading is planning a gradual rollout of services, including the introduction of two unique registry sets. A universal registry will include those coins graded and certified by Numismatic Guaranty Co., PCGS and CAC-stickered coins. A special CAC registry will be offered exclusively for CAC-graded and CAC-stickered coins.
The new service is embarking on the creation of what it says will be the highest quality grading sets to be used to set the standards for determining the level of a coin’s grade. While there are no plans to conduct coin grading at shows, CAC Grading plans to display its grading sets to educate consumers as to the standards in the future, according to the firm.
https://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/cac-grading-reveals-its-holders-for-future-submissions
Plan pickup a few of the CACG coins when they come out to see for myself how compare. However I see no effect on market for Slabs currently accepted by eBay: PCGS ,NGC, Anacs, ICG. The CAC material already has its own pricing in CDN CPG which is at a premium vs non CAC. Consumers will decide on their own like they do on autos whether standard car is a match for them vs some more expensive sports or luxury make.