Yes Martin I have never even understood that either. I would rather have a nice 65 without sticker I picked (plus bought right) than a 64 stickered had to pay thru the nose for / bid war.
One guys A coin might be an unattractive tarnished coin to somebody else.
Per a question above (I'm not sure how to copy in a prior post) JA clarified on the CAC forum that he would continue to sticker through at least 2033 (not phasing out stickers in 2023).
@Tazcollector said:
Per a question above (I'm not sure how to copy in a prior post) JA clarified on the CAC forum that he would continue to sticker through at least 2033 (not phasing out stickers in 2023).
And I think he is using 2033 because he signed a 10 year contract to stay with CAC.
…..For goodness sakes it seems some people would rather have a PCGS 64 with a green bean than a 65 without…….
Martin
While the comment above is somewhat off topic, I’d like to address it. While I’d prefer to have a 65 with a CAC than a 65 without a CAC, to your point of 64 w/CAC vs. 65 without a CAC:
While many coins have not been submitted to CAC, for this brief discussion, let’s assume the 65 with no CAC has indeed been submitted, but failed to get a sticker.
With your stickerless 65, would it concern you if it failed because it’s at the low end for the grade? Possibly not.
Would you be concerned if your stickerless 65 failed because there is a negative surface issue that bothers CAC, but probably not PCGS? Possibly not.
I assume you recognize that if a coin fails at CAC, there’s a reason for it, even if it’s not readily apparent to you and me. I believe the Emperor in this case is indeed wearing clothes.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@Cougar1978 said:
For specifics I would suggest you view his video here in this thread.
My understanding is his new slabs say for MS65 will be for A or B coins. A C coin will have the grade of 64 on his slab (so no stickers on his slabs is my take).
NO.
The "65 C" to 64 discussion in the video was about dark toned coins.
Please see my response to your prior post which said the same thing.
@asheland said:
I will most likely want a coin or two in these new CAC slabs just for the coolness factor, but like a few others have mentioned, I will still prefer PCGS or NGC slabs with the sticker. The more eyes confirming the coin, the better.
yes I agree I do too. However JA says there will be plus grades for A coins. So if you have stickered coins which you feel are A quality would you consider submitting for a plus sticker? Food for thought perhaps
For seated and bust coins the knowledge, experience, and grading ability of the graders is much more important to me than the number of graders that have viewed the coins. This is where CAC shines.
@Maywood said:
I wonder how long it will take for a CAC graded coin to be submitted for crossover to PCGS and what the reaction will be to a DNC??
I predict a triple digit thread that will eventually be shut down by the moderators.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@ironmanl63 said:
One benefit I see is crossing NGC stickered coins. The market rates them differently but CAC does not. The new CAC holder will solve that problem!
How do you know that will solve the “problem”? If the market prefers PCGS/CAC stickered coins to NGC/CAC ones, I wouldn’t take it as a given that the market will value CAC holdered coins the same as PCGS ones.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@ironmanl63 said:
One benefit I see is crossing NGC stickered coins. The market rates them differently but CAC does not. The new CAC holder will solve that problem!
How do you know that will solve the “problem”? If the market prefers PCGS/CAC stickered coins to NGC/CAC ones, I wouldn’t take it as a given that the market will value CAC holdered coins the same as PCGS ones.
@ironmanl63 said:
One benefit I see is crossing NGC stickered coins. The market rates them differently but CAC does not. The new CAC holder will solve that problem!
How do you know that will solve the “problem”? If the market prefers PCGS/CAC stickered coins to NGC/CAC ones, I wouldn’t take it as a given that the market will value CAC holdered coins the same as PCGS ones.
That’s certainly very true but the market may prefer a CAC holdered coin more than an NGC/CAC coin.
@ironmanl63 said:
One benefit I see is crossing NGC stickered coins. The market rates them differently but CAC does not. The new CAC holder will solve that problem!
How do you know that will solve the “problem”? If the market prefers PCGS/CAC stickered coins to NGC/CAC ones, I wouldn’t take it as a given that the market will value CAC holdered coins the same as PCGS ones.
That’s certainly very true but the market may prefer a CAC holdered coin more than an NGC/CAC coin.
It very well might - I just want to avoid making assumptions,
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@ironmanl63 said:
One benefit I see is crossing NGC stickered coins. The market rates them differently but CAC does not. The new CAC holder will solve that problem!
How do you know that will solve the “problem”? If the market prefers PCGS/CAC stickered coins to NGC/CAC ones, I wouldn’t take it as a given that the market will value CAC holdered coins the same as PCGS ones.
.
It is, of course, quite possible that a segment of the market will prefer CAC holdering to PCGS or NGC (with or without stickers) which could create a different "problem"
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Has there been any indication of what their slabs & labels will look like? It's a (somewhat minor) impediment for me with NGC and even ANACS. (I never buy ICG except to crack them.)
IMO PCGS has by far the best-looking slabs but they don't look good with stickers all over them. In a way, the announcement addresses that.
Has there been any announcement on the price for CAC grading? My impression was that the original idea was that CAC would be focused on very high-end, say $10,000+, coins for stickering. But the product is so popular that nowadays folks are sending in $100 coins, which CAC views as a waste of time because they have no interest in making a market in $100 coins. I could see avoiding the same scenario again by making the grading fee $300 or something like that.
@savitale said:
Has there been any announcement on the price for CAC grading? My impression was that the original idea was that CAC would be focused on very high-end, say $10,000+, coins for stickering. But the product is so popular that nowadays folks are sending in $100 coins, which CAC views as a waste of time because they have no interest in making a market in $100 coins. I could see avoiding the same scenario again by making the grading fee $300 or something like that.
I suggest you watch the video. JA is very much about the low cost coins. Part of why he is doing this is so that $500 to $1000 coins don't have to make trips all over the country to multiple places. He is not about high priced coins. The current CAC service is not very expensive.
@savitale said:
Has there been any announcement on the price for CAC grading? My impression was that the original idea was that CAC would be focused on very high-end, say $10,000+, coins for stickering. But the product is so popular that nowadays folks are sending in $100 coins, which CAC views as a waste of time because they have no interest in making a market in $100 coins. I could see avoiding the same scenario again by making the grading fee $300 or something like that.
I suggest you watch the video. JA is very much about the low cost coins. Part of why he is doing this is so that $500 to $1000 coins don't have to make trips all over the country to multiple places. He is not about high priced coins. The current CAC service is not very expensive.
To add to that, nothing I’ve read or heard would leave me with the impression that @savitale had. Additionally, just because CAC doesn’t make markets in certain areas doesn’t mean that they consider submissions of such coins to be a “waste of time”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
So on the cac forum JACAC has stated that coins that have been obviously cleaned but market acceptable will be details graded at CAC. Example was a coin with AU58 details but graded AU50 would grade AU details at CAC.
Second one, if a coin has no problems but just a 'C' coin due to marks, then CAC will grade that as a plus at the next lower grade. Example was a 65 with to many marks but no problems will be a 64+ at CAC.
Edit: Wait - JACAC has posted that he is going to think this over a bit. Not sure what. Maybe I was to quick on the draw to state JACAC prior post here?
A possible problem with this policy is that it does not differentiate between:
1. cleaned but market acceptable (would be allowed in a straight graded PCGS slab)
2. cleaned and not market acceptable (not allowed in a straight graded PCGS slab)
It appears that both of these types of coins would go into a CAC details graded slab.
In general, one could say that possibly too much is being aggregated into a single grade,
although a "Details" coin has a second attribute - the type of problem.
There is always potential to provide separate grades on different attributes,
like is done for NGC Ancients:
1. Strike (1-5)
2. Surface (1-5)
3. Style (nothing or Fine)
4. Beauty (nothing or Star)
or Rick Snow's proposed grading system (similar).
For CAC it could be something like:
1. Marks/wear (1-70)
2. Cleaning (3=none, 2=market acceptable, 1=market unacceptable)
3. Toning/beauty (4=beautiful toning, 3=average toning, 2=no toning, 1=ugly or dark toning)
This could even be presented as 65.3.4 , 58.2.2 , etc.
An overall grade could still be provided, so that it fits well with a price table.
So 65.65.3.4 (or just 65) , 50.58.2.2 , etc.
@lilolme said:
Second one, if a coin has no problems but just a 'C' coin due to marks, then CAC will grade that as a plus at the next lower grade. Example was a 65 with to many marks but no problems will be a 64+ at CAC.
Calling a coin that's currently accurately graded at MS65 an MS64+ instead? Ok, I guess. I would expect more, not less, confusion about what grades mean, though. Would that be a good thing?
@lilolme said:
Second one, if a coin has no problems but just a 'C' coin due to marks, then CAC will grade that as a plus at the next lower grade. Example was a 65 with to many marks but no problems will be a 64+ at CAC.
Calling a coin that's currently accurately graded at MS65 an MS64+ instead? Ok, I guess. I would expect more, not less, confusion about what grades mean, though. Would that be a good thing?
My take on this is that he wants to move grading away from the current market grading and back to something more like the early days of slabbing. I am uncertain how the market will react to this.
@lilolme said:
Second one, if a coin has no problems but just a 'C' coin due to marks, then CAC will grade that as a plus at the next lower grade. Example was a 65 with to many marks but no problems will be a 64+ at CAC.
Calling a coin that's currently accurately graded at MS65 an MS64+ instead? Ok, I guess. I would expect more, not less, confusion about what grades mean, though. Would that be a good thing?
I want to point out the Edit in my post. Maybe the thinking is about this? Maybe more to come.
My thought and probably silly, is the CAC label would have the familiar green bean on it for all coins. Except for coins that are no problems and a 'C' for the grade. No green bean on the label. So similar to current. There would also be the CAC plus grades (with the green bean of course). CAC could discount the no green bean labels in their registry also.
@yosclimber said:
Thanks for the update (in progress).
A possible problem with this policy is that it does not differentiate between:
1. cleaned but market acceptable (would be allowed in a straight graded PCGS slab)
2. cleaned and not market acceptable (not allowed in a straight graded PCGS slab)
It appears that both of these types of coins would go into a CAC details graded slab.
In general, one could say that possibly too much is being aggregated into a single grade,
although a "Details" coin has a second attribute - the type of problem.
There is always potential to provide separate grades on different attributes,
like is done for NGC Ancients:
1. Strike (1-5)
2. Surface (1-5)
3. Style (nothing or Fine)
4. Beauty (nothing or Star)
or Rick Snow's proposed grading system (similar).
For CAC it could be something like:
1. Marks/wear (1-70)
2. Cleaning (3=none, 2=market acceptable, 1=market unacceptable)
3. Toning/beauty (4=beautiful toning, 3=average toning, 2=no toning, 1=ugly or dark toning)
This could even be presented as 65.3.4 , 58.2.2 , etc.
An overall grade could still be provided, so that it fits well with a price table.
So 65.65.3.4 (or just 65) , 50.58.2.2 , etc.
@lilolme said:
My thought and probably silly, is the CAC label would have the familiar green bean on it for all coins. Except for coins that are no problems and a 'C' for the grade. No green bean on the label. So similar to current. There would also be the CAC plus grades (with the green bean of course). CAC could discount the no green bean labels in their registry also.
Yes, more complicated is a consequence of being more informative....
If it seems very complicated, then just focus on the overall grade and ignore the others.
The additional grades may not be interesting to some buyers.
The main question is whether they are interesting to enough buyers across different coin types to warrant the complexity.
For moderns, Cleaning is unusual and so is Toning, to the extra grades would likely not be very informative.
@yosclimber said:
Thanks for the update (in progress).
A possible problem with this policy is that it does not differentiate between:
1. cleaned but market acceptable (would be allowed in a straight graded PCGS slab)
2. cleaned and not market acceptable (not allowed in a straight graded PCGS slab)
It appears that both of these types of coins would go into a CAC details graded slab.
In general, one could say that possibly too much is being aggregated into a single grade,
although a "Details" coin has a second attribute - the type of problem.
There is always potential to provide separate grades on different attributes,
like is done for NGC Ancients:
1. Strike (1-5)
2. Surface (1-5)
3. Style (nothing or Fine)
4. Beauty (nothing or Star)
or Rick Snow's proposed grading system (similar).
For CAC it could be something like:
1. Marks/wear (1-70)
2. Cleaning (3=none, 2=market acceptable, 1=market unacceptable)
3. Toning/beauty (4=beautiful toning, 3=average toning, 2=no toning, 1=ugly or dark toning)
This could even be presented as 65.3.4 , 58.2.2 , etc.
An overall grade could still be provided, so that it fits well with a price table.
So 65.65.3.4 (or just 65) , 50.58.2.2 , etc.
@lilolme said:
My thought and probably silly, is the CAC label would have the familiar green bean on it for all coins. Except for coins that are no problems and a 'C' for the grade. No green bean on the label. So similar to current. There would also be the CAC plus grades (with the green bean of course). CAC could discount the no green bean labels in their registry also.
this is all getting very complicated IMO
I feel like many people are being too finely rules driven and heavily influenced by the current stickering process.
In my view, they're two separate and unrelated processes. ABC or +/- system is really irrelevant because, as many have pointed out, we're switching from a separate review service of TPGs to only the new TPG.
The new TPG might be a little stricter with their guidelines and have a focus on originality for grades and will be very anti-market acceptable problem coins getting straight grades. And that's great! But it is completely different than the CAC we've been used to and I don't think we should get stuck in the process of trying to map over what we've seen to what will be coming.
@yosclimber said:
Thanks for the update (in progress).
A possible problem with this policy is that it does not differentiate between:
1. cleaned but market acceptable (would be allowed in a straight graded PCGS slab)
2. cleaned and not market acceptable (not allowed in a straight graded PCGS slab)
It appears that both of these types of coins would go into a CAC details graded slab.
In general, one could say that possibly too much is being aggregated into a single grade,
although a "Details" coin has a second attribute - the type of problem.
There is always potential to provide separate grades on different attributes,
like is done for NGC Ancients:
1. Strike (1-5)
2. Surface (1-5)
3. Style (nothing or Fine)
4. Beauty (nothing or Star)
or Rick Snow's proposed grading system (similar).
For CAC it could be something like:
1. Marks/wear (1-70)
2. Cleaning (3=none, 2=market acceptable, 1=market unacceptable)
3. Toning/beauty (4=beautiful toning, 3=average toning, 2=no toning, 1=ugly or dark toning)
This could even be presented as 65.3.4 , 58.2.2 , etc.
An overall grade could still be provided, so that it fits well with a price table.
So 65.65.3.4 (or just 65) , 50.58.2.2 , etc.
@lilolme said:
My thought and probably silly, is the CAC label would have the familiar green bean on it for all coins. Except for coins that are no problems and a 'C' for the grade. No green bean on the label. So similar to current. There would also be the CAC plus grades (with the green bean of course). CAC could discount the no green bean labels in their registry also.
this is all getting very complicated IMO
I feel like many people are being too finely rules driven and heavily influenced by the current stickering process.
In my view, they're two separate and unrelated processes. ABC or +/- system is really irrelevant because, as many have pointed out, we're switching from a separate review service of TPGs to only the new TPG.
The new TPG might be a little stricter with their guidelines and have a focus on originality for grades and will be very anti-market acceptable problem coins getting straight grades. And that's great! But it is completely different than the CAC we've been used to and I don't think we should get stuck in the process of trying to map over what we've seen to what will be coming.
But how does the new service implement those standards, while continuing to distinguish problem-free, but low end coins from the ones that would currently sticker?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@yosclimber said:
Thanks for the update (in progress).
A possible problem with this policy is that it does not differentiate between:
1. cleaned but market acceptable (would be allowed in a straight graded PCGS slab)
2. cleaned and not market acceptable (not allowed in a straight graded PCGS slab)
It appears that both of these types of coins would go into a CAC details graded slab.
In general, one could say that possibly too much is being aggregated into a single grade,
although a "Details" coin has a second attribute - the type of problem.
There is always potential to provide separate grades on different attributes,
like is done for NGC Ancients:
1. Strike (1-5)
2. Surface (1-5)
3. Style (nothing or Fine)
4. Beauty (nothing or Star)
or Rick Snow's proposed grading system (similar).
For CAC it could be something like:
1. Marks/wear (1-70)
2. Cleaning (3=none, 2=market acceptable, 1=market unacceptable)
3. Toning/beauty (4=beautiful toning, 3=average toning, 2=no toning, 1=ugly or dark toning)
This could even be presented as 65.3.4 , 58.2.2 , etc.
An overall grade could still be provided, so that it fits well with a price table.
So 65.65.3.4 (or just 65) , 50.58.2.2 , etc.
It's my opinion that the NGC Ancients grading approach should be used for colonials, territorial gold, and maybe early copper since it seems to be somewhat consistent with EAC grading. I wouldn't use it for anything else.
I also would not "bodybag" all other coins due to a cleaning. I believe some latitude is warranted in limited circumstances.
@yosclimber said:
Thanks for the update (in progress).
A possible problem with this policy is that it does not differentiate between:
1. cleaned but market acceptable (would be allowed in a straight graded PCGS slab)
2. cleaned and not market acceptable (not allowed in a straight graded PCGS slab)
It appears that both of these types of coins would go into a CAC details graded slab.
In general, one could say that possibly too much is being aggregated into a single grade,
although a "Details" coin has a second attribute - the type of problem.
There is always potential to provide separate grades on different attributes,
like is done for NGC Ancients:
1. Strike (1-5)
2. Surface (1-5)
3. Style (nothing or Fine)
4. Beauty (nothing or Star)
or Rick Snow's proposed grading system (similar).
For CAC it could be something like:
1. Marks/wear (1-70)
2. Cleaning (3=none, 2=market acceptable, 1=market unacceptable)
3. Toning/beauty (4=beautiful toning, 3=average toning, 2=no toning, 1=ugly or dark toning)
This could even be presented as 65.3.4 , 58.2.2 , etc.
An overall grade could still be provided, so that it fits well with a price table.
So 65.65.3.4 (or just 65) , 50.58.2.2 , etc.
@lilolme said:
My thought and probably silly, is the CAC label would have the familiar green bean on it for all coins. Except for coins that are no problems and a 'C' for the grade. No green bean on the label. So similar to current. There would also be the CAC plus grades (with the green bean of course). CAC could discount the no green bean labels in their registry also.
this is all getting very complicated IMO
I feel like many people are being too finely rules driven and heavily influenced by the current stickering process.
In my view, they're two separate and unrelated processes. ABC or +/- system is really irrelevant because, as many have pointed out, we're switching from a separate review service of TPGs to only the new TPG.
The new TPG might be a little stricter with their guidelines and have a focus on originality for grades and will be very anti-market acceptable problem coins getting straight grades. And that's great! But it is completely different than the CAC we've been used to and I don't think we should get stuck in the process of trying to map over what we've seen to what will be coming.
Previous From JACAC
The same standards apply for both services. JA
Right. I interpret that to mean the same general viewpoint of coins and what a 65 should look like and what 58 should look like, what is acceptable old cleaning and what is not.
But trying to say that all C coins are going to be moved down to a lower grade with a plus score or all market acceptable cleaned coins that don't sticker will be details or any other blanket rule to move from stickers to TPG won't work. JA has been very clear that he's trying really hard to have a repeatable process but they're still people and people make mistakes and there are always judgment calls.
I love your system, however I don't think it's viable. JA seems to be going for the most consistent grading service to yet exist, and adding more subjectivity will just make that harder. The system you proposed makes it exponentially harder to maintain consistency, however great the idea is.
@MasonG said:
Grades are opinions. The more precise you try to make them, the less consistent they will be.
But CAC already divides each grade into A, B, and C coins. Going forward, with CAC agreeing to use plus grades, those three categories would still apply.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
But how does the new service implement those standards, while continuing to distinguish problem-free, but low end coins from the ones that would currently sticker?
I had thrown out my 'silly' idea above with the green bean label and no green bean label. I see that a minus was suggested by you on cac forum. Sounds good. I am guess some wouldn't like their cac slab without a green bean if all others had one. In general I like the idea of an identifier for the no problem 'C' coins.
But how does the new service implement those standards, while continuing to distinguish problem-free, but low end coins from the ones that would currently sticker?
Does it have to? After all "C" coins are properly graded but at the low end of the grade scale. Coins that fail to sticker due to other issues (overgraded, problems) would be graded accordingly. There is no reason why the new CAC slab needs to distinguish between A/B/C coins.
@MasonG said:
Grades are opinions. The more precise you try to make them, the less consistent they will be.
But CAC already divides each grade into A, B, and C coins. Going forward, with CAC agreeing to use plus grades, those three categories would still apply.
Steve
A "+" is not the same as a sticker. A + suggests a slightly higher grade not high end of the current grade. Maybe "PQ" would work. But I'm not sure why they would need to distinguish ABC when neither NGC nor PCGS do so.
But how does the new service implement those standards, while continuing to distinguish problem-free, but low end coins from the ones that would currently sticker?
Does it have to? After all "C" coins are properly graded but at the low end of the grade scale. Coins that fail to sticker due to other issues (overgraded, problems) would be graded accordingly. There is no reason why the new CAC slab needs to distinguish between A/B/C coins.
I don’t think it has to. But my guess is that one way or another, it might want to.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
No one has yet to address my post above. What happens to a coin that was deemed 'lightly cleaned in the past', that is in a graded holder from NGC or PCGS, that did not sticker? Does it get into a graded CAC slab with lower grade? This is an issue that breaks down the whole concept of CAC having graded slabs. They either make money by grading a coin that is unsuitable for a sticker, or they lose money. Catch 22. Again this degrades the whole concept of what CAC is now coins that do not allegedly have problems bc of human manipulation. Again, no one here even acknowledged my post. Come on................
@MasonG said:
Grades are opinions. The more precise you try to make them, the less consistent they will be.
But CAC already divides each grade into A, B, and C coins. Going forward, with CAC agreeing to use plus grades, those three categories would still apply.
Steve
A "+" is not the same as a sticker. A + suggests a slightly higher grade not high end of the current grade. Maybe "PQ" would work. But I'm not sure why they would need to distinguish ABC when neither NGC nor PCGS do so.
But CAC does, and will continue viewing coins as A, B, or C. From my understanding, going forward, coins that CAC deems as “A” coins will now get a “+” grade; “B” coins will mainly get just the whole grade number (but JA has said that some “high end B coins” - don’t laugh, can get a plus grade too). Coins they determine are properly graded problem free “C” coins, will apparently be graded in the next lower grade, but with a plus.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@spacehayduke said:
No one has yet to address my post above. What happens to a coin that was deemed 'lightly cleaned in the past', that is in a graded holder from NGC or PCGS, that did not sticker? Does it get into a graded CAC slab with lower grade? This is an issue that breaks down the whole concept of CAC having graded slabs. They either make money by grading a coin that is unsuitable for a sticker, or they lose money. Catch 22. Again this degrades the whole concept of what CAC is now coins that do not allegedly have problems bc of human manipulation. Again, no one here even acknowledged my post. Come on................
JA?????????????? Answer???????????????/
JA has said that such coins garner a details grade.
@spacehayduke said:
No one has yet to address my post above. What happens to a coin that was deemed 'lightly cleaned in the past', that is in a graded holder from NGC or PCGS, that did not sticker? Does it get into a graded CAC slab with lower grade? This is an issue that breaks down the whole concept of CAC having graded slabs. They either make money by grading a coin that is unsuitable for a sticker, or they lose money. Catch 22. Again this degrades the whole concept of what CAC is now coins that do not allegedly have problems bc of human manipulation. Again, no one here even acknowledged my post. Come on................
JA?????????????? Answer???????????????/
I don’t think he will be posting here.😉
Edited to add: That said, I would expect different results for different coins, depending upon whether they’re considered acceptable as straight grade examples. There are many different degrees of cleaning and they can’t all be addressed identically.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@spacehayduke said:
No one has yet to address my post above. What happens to a coin that was deemed 'lightly cleaned in the past', that is in a graded holder from NGC or PCGS, that did not sticker? Does it get into a graded CAC slab with lower grade? This is an issue that breaks down the whole concept of CAC having graded slabs. They either make money by grading a coin that is unsuitable for a sticker, or they lose money. Catch 22. Again this degrades the whole concept of what CAC is now coins that do not allegedly have problems bc of human manipulation. Again, no one here even acknowledged my post. Come on................
JA?????????????? Answer???????????????/
Nobody aside from JA knows and he may not even know for sure.
CAC has stickered coins that have been “lightly” dipped in the past.
Your guess is as good as mine and only time will tell.
@MasonG said:
Grades are opinions. The more precise you try to make them, the less consistent they will be.
But CAC already divides each grade into A, B, and C coins. Going forward, with CAC agreeing to use plus grades, those three categories would still apply.
Steve
A "+" is not the same as a sticker. A + suggests a slightly higher grade not high end of the current grade. Maybe "PQ" would work. But I'm not sure why they would need to distinguish ABC when neither NGC nor PCGS do so.
But CAC does, and will continue viewing coins as A, B, or C. From my understanding, going forward, coins that CAC deems as “A” coins will now get a “+” grade; “B” coins will mainly get just the whole grade number (but JA has said that some “high end B coins” - don’t laugh, can get a plus grade too). Coins they determine are properly graded problem free “C” coins, will apparently be graded in the next lower grade, but with a plus.
Steve
CAC, really JA, does not like + grades and currently ignores them when stickering. And CAC only differentiates AB from others, it's a binary system. Why would they create greater complexity?
Edited: I see they have said on the CAC forum that they will be using the + designation as you say. This is tremendously problematic.
Comments
Yes Martin I have never even understood that either. I would rather have a nice 65 without sticker I picked (plus bought right) than a 64 stickered had to pay thru the nose for / bid war.
One guys A coin might be an unattractive tarnished coin to somebody else.
Per a question above (I'm not sure how to copy in a prior post) JA clarified on the CAC forum that he would continue to sticker through at least 2033 (not phasing out stickers in 2023).
And I think he is using 2033 because he signed a 10 year contract to stay with CAC.
Successful BST with drddm, BustDMs, Pnies20, lkeigwin, pursuitofliberty, Bullsitter, felinfoel, SPalladino
$5 Type Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/type-sets/half-eagle-type-set-circulation-strikes-1795-1929/album/344192
CBH Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/everyman-collections/everyman-half-dollars/everyman-capped-bust-half-dollars-1807-1839/album/345572
While the comment above is somewhat off topic, I’d like to address it. While I’d prefer to have a 65 with a CAC than a 65 without a CAC, to your point of 64 w/CAC vs. 65 without a CAC:
I assume you recognize that if a coin fails at CAC, there’s a reason for it, even if it’s not readily apparent to you and me. I believe the Emperor in this case is indeed wearing clothes.
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
NO.
The "65 C" to 64 discussion in the video was about dark toned coins.
Please see my response to your prior post which said the same thing.
For seated and bust coins the knowledge, experience, and grading ability of the graders is much more important to me than the number of graders that have viewed the coins. This is where CAC shines.
I wonder what they will do for a "C" PO-01.
Young Numismatist
I wish I would have had the chance to be an investor.
I wonder how long it will take for a CAC graded coin to be submitted for crossover to PCGS and what the reaction will be to a DNC??
I was also wondering the same thing; from what I have read I don't think it will take very long at all before a crossover to PCGS will be tried.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I predict a triple digit thread that will eventually be shut down by the moderators.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
One benefit I see is crossing NGC stickered coins. The market rates them differently but CAC does not. The new CAC holder will solve that problem!
How do you know that will solve the “problem”? If the market prefers PCGS/CAC stickered coins to NGC/CAC ones, I wouldn’t take it as a given that the market will value CAC holdered coins the same as PCGS ones.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It may not but I feel pretty confident it will.
That’s certainly very true but the market may prefer a CAC holdered coin more than an NGC/CAC coin.
It very well might - I just want to avoid making assumptions,
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
.
It is, of course, quite possible that a segment of the market will prefer CAC holdering to PCGS or NGC (with or without stickers) which could create a different "problem"
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
My only prediction is that the market will look VERY different by the end of 2023.
Has there been any indication of what their slabs & labels will look like? It's a (somewhat minor) impediment for me with NGC and even ANACS. (I never buy ICG except to crack them.)
IMO PCGS has by far the best-looking slabs but they don't look good with stickers all over them. In a way, the announcement addresses that.
Has there been any announcement on the price for CAC grading? My impression was that the original idea was that CAC would be focused on very high-end, say $10,000+, coins for stickering. But the product is so popular that nowadays folks are sending in $100 coins, which CAC views as a waste of time because they have no interest in making a market in $100 coins. I could see avoiding the same scenario again by making the grading fee $300 or something like that.
LIBERTY SEATED DIMES WITH MAJOR VARIETIES CIRCULATION STRIKES (1837-1891) digital album
I suggest you watch the video. JA is very much about the low cost coins. Part of why he is doing this is so that $500 to $1000 coins don't have to make trips all over the country to multiple places. He is not about high priced coins. The current CAC service is not very expensive.
Successful BST with drddm, BustDMs, Pnies20, lkeigwin, pursuitofliberty, Bullsitter, felinfoel, SPalladino
$5 Type Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/type-sets/half-eagle-type-set-circulation-strikes-1795-1929/album/344192
CBH Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/everyman-collections/everyman-half-dollars/everyman-capped-bust-half-dollars-1807-1839/album/345572
To add to that, nothing I’ve read or heard would leave me with the impression that @savitale had. Additionally, just because CAC doesn’t make markets in certain areas doesn’t mean that they consider submissions of such coins to be a “waste of time”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
So on the cac forum JACAC has stated that coins that have been obviously cleaned but market acceptable will be details graded at CAC. Example was a coin with AU58 details but graded AU50 would grade AU details at CAC.
Second one, if a coin has no problems but just a 'C' coin due to marks, then CAC will grade that as a plus at the next lower grade. Example was a 65 with to many marks but no problems will be a 64+ at CAC.
Edit: Wait - JACAC has posted that he is going to think this over a bit. Not sure what. Maybe I was to quick on the draw to state JACAC prior post here?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wwmUMvhy-lY - Pink Me And Bobby McGee
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed
RLJ 1958 - 2023
Thanks for the update (in progress).
A possible problem with this policy is that it does not differentiate between:
1. cleaned but market acceptable (would be allowed in a straight graded PCGS slab)
2. cleaned and not market acceptable (not allowed in a straight graded PCGS slab)
It appears that both of these types of coins would go into a CAC details graded slab.
In general, one could say that possibly too much is being aggregated into a single grade,
although a "Details" coin has a second attribute - the type of problem.
There is always potential to provide separate grades on different attributes,
like is done for NGC Ancients:
1. Strike (1-5)
2. Surface (1-5)
3. Style (nothing or Fine)
4. Beauty (nothing or Star)
or Rick Snow's proposed grading system (similar).
For CAC it could be something like:
1. Marks/wear (1-70)
2. Cleaning (3=none, 2=market acceptable, 1=market unacceptable)
3. Toning/beauty (4=beautiful toning, 3=average toning, 2=no toning, 1=ugly or dark toning)
This could even be presented as 65.3.4 , 58.2.2 , etc.
An overall grade could still be provided, so that it fits well with a price table.
So 65.65.3.4 (or just 65) , 50.58.2.2 , etc.
Calling a coin that's currently accurately graded at MS65 an MS64+ instead? Ok, I guess. I would expect more, not less, confusion about what grades mean, though. Would that be a good thing?
My take on this is that he wants to move grading away from the current market grading and back to something more like the early days of slabbing. I am uncertain how the market will react to this.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I want to point out the Edit in my post. Maybe the thinking is about this? Maybe more to come.
My thought and probably silly, is the CAC label would have the familiar green bean on it for all coins. Except for coins that are no problems and a 'C' for the grade. No green bean on the label. So similar to current. There would also be the CAC plus grades (with the green bean of course). CAC could discount the no green bean labels in their registry also.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wwmUMvhy-lY - Pink Me And Bobby McGee
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed
RLJ 1958 - 2023
this is all getting very complicated IMO
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Yes, more complicated is a consequence of being more informative....
If it seems very complicated, then just focus on the overall grade and ignore the others.
The additional grades may not be interesting to some buyers.
The main question is whether they are interesting to enough buyers across different coin types to warrant the complexity.
For moderns, Cleaning is unusual and so is Toning, to the extra grades would likely not be very informative.
I feel like many people are being too finely rules driven and heavily influenced by the current stickering process.
In my view, they're two separate and unrelated processes. ABC or +/- system is really irrelevant because, as many have pointed out, we're switching from a separate review service of TPGs to only the new TPG.
The new TPG might be a little stricter with their guidelines and have a focus on originality for grades and will be very anti-market acceptable problem coins getting straight grades. And that's great! But it is completely different than the CAC we've been used to and I don't think we should get stuck in the process of trying to map over what we've seen to what will be coming.
Previous From JACAC
The same standards apply for both services. JA
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wwmUMvhy-lY - Pink Me And Bobby McGee
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed
RLJ 1958 - 2023
@lilolme said:
“> Previous From JACAC
But how does the new service implement those standards, while continuing to distinguish problem-free, but low end coins from the ones that would currently sticker?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It's my opinion that the NGC Ancients grading approach should be used for colonials, territorial gold, and maybe early copper since it seems to be somewhat consistent with EAC grading. I wouldn't use it for anything else.
I also would not "bodybag" all other coins due to a cleaning. I believe some latitude is warranted in limited circumstances.
Right. I interpret that to mean the same general viewpoint of coins and what a 65 should look like and what 58 should look like, what is acceptable old cleaning and what is not.
But trying to say that all C coins are going to be moved down to a lower grade with a plus score or all market acceptable cleaned coins that don't sticker will be details or any other blanket rule to move from stickers to TPG won't work. JA has been very clear that he's trying really hard to have a repeatable process but they're still people and people make mistakes and there are always judgment calls.
@yosclimber
I love your system, however I don't think it's viable. JA seems to be going for the most consistent grading service to yet exist, and adding more subjectivity will just make that harder. The system you proposed makes it exponentially harder to maintain consistency, however great the idea is.
Coin Photographer.
Grades are opinions. The more precise you try to make them, the less consistent they will be.
But CAC already divides each grade into A, B, and C coins. Going forward, with CAC agreeing to use plus grades, those three categories would still apply.
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
I had thrown out my 'silly' idea above with the green bean label and no green bean label. I see that a minus was suggested by you on cac forum. Sounds good. I am guess some wouldn't like their cac slab without a green bean if all others had one. In general I like the idea of an identifier for the no problem 'C' coins.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wwmUMvhy-lY - Pink Me And Bobby McGee
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed
RLJ 1958 - 2023
Does it have to? After all "C" coins are properly graded but at the low end of the grade scale. Coins that fail to sticker due to other issues (overgraded, problems) would be graded accordingly. There is no reason why the new CAC slab needs to distinguish between A/B/C coins.
A "+" is not the same as a sticker. A + suggests a slightly higher grade not high end of the current grade. Maybe "PQ" would work. But I'm not sure why they would need to distinguish ABC when neither NGC nor PCGS do so.
Then use MS65A, MS65B and MS65C on the labels.
I don’t think it has to. But my guess is that one way or another, it might want to.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
No one has yet to address my post above. What happens to a coin that was deemed 'lightly cleaned in the past', that is in a graded holder from NGC or PCGS, that did not sticker? Does it get into a graded CAC slab with lower grade? This is an issue that breaks down the whole concept of CAC having graded slabs. They either make money by grading a coin that is unsuitable for a sticker, or they lose money. Catch 22. Again this degrades the whole concept of what CAC is now coins that do not allegedly have problems bc of human manipulation. Again, no one here even acknowledged my post. Come on................
JA?????????????? Answer???????????????/
Here we go again
What will in be next, back to the old ANACS days of obv/rev grades
MS-64/65
But CAC does, and will continue viewing coins as A, B, or C. From my understanding, going forward, coins that CAC deems as “A” coins will now get a “+” grade; “B” coins will mainly get just the whole grade number (but JA has said that some “high end B coins” - don’t laugh, can get a plus grade too). Coins they determine are properly graded problem free “C” coins, will apparently be graded in the next lower grade, but with a plus.
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
JA has said that such coins garner a details grade.
Coin Photographer.
I don’t think he will be posting here.😉
Edited to add: That said, I would expect different results for different coins, depending upon whether they’re considered acceptable as straight grade examples. There are many different degrees of cleaning and they can’t all be addressed identically.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Nobody aside from JA knows and he may not even know for sure.
CAC has stickered coins that have been “lightly” dipped in the past.
Your guess is as good as mine and only time will tell.
CAC, really JA, does not like + grades and currently ignores them when stickering. And CAC only differentiates AB from others, it's a binary system. Why would they create greater complexity?
Edited: I see they have said on the CAC forum that they will be using the + designation as you say. This is tremendously problematic.