@winesteven said:
Perhaps we're splitting hairs. Can we agree in your scenario that the coins that remain in that grade meet the CAC standards for being solid for the grade, since the "C" coins (those that did not meet their standards for being solid for the grade) are no longer there?
We can agree that the coins that remain in that grade meet the CAC standards for being solid for the old, no longer being used grade. They are not solid for the new grade, they are low end now since the previous low end "C" coins are not good enough to remain and have been reduced in grade.
It doesn't matter how you slice it, there will be coins that are at the bottom of the grade and just barely make it. You could get rid of the "B" and "C" coins and then, there'd be some "A" coins that were low end for the grade.
@VanHalen said:
What you're saying is coins that CAC previously green stickered as "solid for the grade B coins" are now low end for grade at CAC Grading company. That's splitting hairs and likely not what the new CAC Grading company has in mind.
It's not splitting hairs. Coins that are solid for the grade are solid because there are coins of the same grade below them in quality. If you remove the coins at the bottom, the solid for the grade coins become the bottom.
Take a coin you're grading- currently, you're deciding between B and C for it. If you go with B, it's solid for the grade and if C, it's low end. Now, with your new system, that coin either makes the grade or it's one grade lower. So- you decide it does make it and you're saying that makes it "solid for the grade"?
Yes.
It need not be solid for the grade, compared only to other examples in the new holders. But rather, it can be solid for the grade with respect to the overall population in other holders, including coins of the same date, as well as others of the type. In other words, it is solid for the grade, compared to the general population of MS65's.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
On a related subject, CAC says this on their website:
If a coin doesn’t receive a CAC sticker, does this mean CAC believes the coin is over-graded? Absolutely not. There are many coins that are certified accurately for their grade. Unfortunately, it is an inescapable reality that many are at the lower end of the quality range for the assigned grade. CAC’s rejection of a coin does not necessarily mean that CAC believes the coin has been over-graded. It simply means that there are other coins with CAC stickers that are of higher quality for the grade. CAC will eventually reject tens of thousands of accurately graded coins.
So going forward, those "certified accurately for their grade" coins will be considered overgraded?
If, for the purpose of distinguishing them from solid for the grade (or better) examples, those rejected coins are assigned lower grades, that's not the same thing as calling them over-graded.
How about if we just agree now that the new service wont be anywhere close to perfect?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said:
If, for the purpose of distinguishing them from solid for the grade (or better) examples, those rejected coins are assigned lower grades, that's not the same thing as calling them over-graded.
How about if we just agree now that the new service wont be anywhere close to perfect?
Nothing ever is. But I’d wager they will have the strictest standards in the industry. Would you?
Seems pretty simple. Prior to the new grading service, a PCGS or NGC coin with a sticker was "A" or "B" for the grade assigned. A coin in a holder from the new CAC grading service will still be "A" or "B" for the assigned grade. That is to say, a coin in a CAC holder graded 65 is equivalent to a coin in a PCGS or NGC holder graded 65 with a green sticker. On a crossover, say for a non-stickered coin in a PCGS holder graded 65, the collector will probably have to specify a "minimum grade of 65", to avoid the possibility of it being crossed at a lower grade.
@ms71 said:
Seems pretty simple. Prior to the new grading service, a PCGS or NGC coin with a sticker was "A" or "B" for the grade assigned. A coin in a holder from the new CAC grading service will still be "A" or "B" for the assigned grade. That is to say, a coin in a CAC holder graded 65 is equivalent to a coin in a PCGS or NGC holder graded 65 with a green sticker.
Yep, in general, an equivalent coin that did not sticker in the past, and was not messed with, will probably get a lower grade. So many variables are involved. I have faith JA and team will properly grade coins in the future and not everyone will be happy as today.
In my experience submitting 100's of Bust coins to CAC, the ones that did not get the green sticker were ones that were likely C coins bc they were 'lightly cleaned in the past', 'old cleaning', 'spot removal', etc. Hence my concern listed above. These minor surface issues, represent most that did not make the bean (in my experience with bust coins) and not because the numeric grade was incorrect. Using PCGS Photograde to look at whether a coin has the wear of the grade on the slab, most or all of these certainly fit into the numeric grade PCGS or NGC has assigned. So this leads me to believe that many if not most, of the 'C' coins in the Bust series' are 'C' because of slight problems due to human intervention and are essentially 'problem coins', in terms of BBW, even though they have the correct numeric grade. If so, then, if CAC holds to their current standards where these coins can't bean, then how can they possibly receive a numeric grade in a CAC slab? The other TPG's have been grading accurately for the numeric grade due to wear and are very good at this, but they have been more lenient for small to minor surface issues caused by human intervention. This is why the CAC beaned coins stand out. BBW is a big deal and separates coins into these categories for many series - those w/o surface issues versus those with.
Further, almost anyone that has studied seated dollars (for example) in G to AU grades can resoundingly attest to the fact that a large percentage of the numerically graded seated dollars out there have been 'lightly cleaned'. They are mostly graded properly for wear, but that means they are again, 'C' coins for their numeric grade, but not BBW. The differences in surfaces between seated dollars that meet the bean expectations versus those that don't are so obvious it is stunning, and why so few can actually rise to the level of BBW. And now in CAC slabs they are going to be downgraded to a + in the next grade down and receive a numeric grade? No, that is not CAC standards if we believe their slabs are going to stick to the standards CAC has used for beaning. The alternative is that 70% of more of the seated dollars submitted to CAC will be rejected for a numeric grade. How is that going to sell to the submitters for CAC slabbing?
Let's say you have a coin in a TPG slab. It is correctly graded in terms of wear and has stunning toning and eye appeal. You send it to CAC and it comes back 'lightly cleaned' and does not sticker. Let's say it is AU53, nice colorful toning and a great coin. So that coin still has a market value based on the TPG price guide, and probably a very nice one bc of eye appeal even tho it did not bean. So you think, aha, I will send it to the CAC slabbing company for crossing. Now the CAC slabbing company realizes it is a C coin in that grade based on their standards bc of the light cleaning even tho it has great eye appeal and correctly graded for wear. Are they going to 'detail' that C coin that did not pass because of the light cleaning? Are they going to give it a net numeric downgrade to 50 or 50+? Or are they going to grade it as a 53 bc by all things but a very light cleaning that kept it from beaning it is very much a 53 A or B coin? For the first 2 examples, which might be what they plan on (we will see) you the submitter will lose value putting that coin in that CAC slab. You can't keep customers that way, said customers learn quickly and will keep their 'C' coins in the other TPG slabs from hereon. To keep customers submitting coins to them so they can pay their bills, I see no way this works by keeping the same standards they have for stickers which was a completely difference concept than trying to make money on a slabbing buisness. This whole CAC slabbing thing seems to be a problem and will ultimately just be redundant to the leading TPG's if they are going to make ends meet. It is about the surfaces after all, with CAC, for stickering and they can't survive that way for slabbing..................................
So I am skeptical about what a CAC slab will achieve besides watering down in quality what the sticker means, and I don't see what CAC is trying to achieve by having a slabbing company, we already slabbers that are doing fine, CAC will just be redundant and water down the whole meaning of what is BBW. And who will it cost? Well those of us who bought into the BBW concept.
I'm trying to determine how to play a new game or if I want to play the game.
I need quite a bit more info to plan my moves.
Then, I can decide, whether to call it a day or keep on truckin'.
@ms71 said:
Seems pretty simple. Prior to the new grading service, a PCGS or NGC coin with a sticker was "A" or "B" for the grade assigned. A coin in a holder from the new CAC grading service will still be "A" or "B" for the assigned grade. That is to say, a coin in a CAC holder graded 65 is equivalent to a coin in a PCGS or NGC holder graded 65 with a green sticker.
Opening salvo......
So... Am I loathe to send in any graded generic Liberty DE that failed CAC since they should be downgraded in the new slab?
Which coin sells for more... An old MS65 generic or new generic MS64? How much differential?
Will the new service predominantly be receiving ungraded coins?
Should I send in a CAC ms64 generic saint ? Any edge?
What if my coins are graded the 3 weeks JA isn't there? Will I fare better or worse?
Who is behind the new grading co? Are the principals coin sellers?
Y'all remember that the grading companies don't manufacture the coins we collect, right? They are what they are. These kinds of threads simultaneously amuse and annoy me a little. To be clear, I'm not saying grading isn't important. It clearly is, but I think people have unrealistic expectations.
Just because a coin with a few issues "accidentally" gets into a particular slab doesn't mean it will sell for "all the money." Usually, it doesn't. Likewise, a coin that gets a numerical "upgrade" on a crackout or resubmission doesn't always sell for more. Superb 64+ coins often sell for the same price as a weak 65. The market is pretty good at sorting this stuff out, on average. Finding exceptions is remarkably easy. These are called anecdotes.
Grading is (and always will be) subjective in nature. If you did an actual scientific analysis (nobody is willing to pay the money or take the time), you'd see poor inter-observer reliability, even among the best. There isn't even very good reliability of the same observer on different days. In comparison, diamonds are graded reasonably consistently. That industry established and uses measurable, well-defined standards.
There is a common theme in threads like this that somehow the best graders are expert at divining a coin's "actual" grade. Memo.... coins don't have grades. There are no standards. There is no defined line beyond which a coin is "improperly" cleaned. Worn or not worn? That particular line has wandered off a tremendous amount in just a decade. It used to be difficult to see why a coin got an AU58. Now, visible wear is seen all the way up to MS63.
This doesn't mean JA doesn't have an expert eye. He does. Is he the best? How would you even begin to define that? He certainly knows coins, understands coin chicanery, has a great feel for the market, and has exceptional business acumen. Shifting "standards" seem to annoy him quite a bit. He's a great advocate for regular hobbyists too.
C coins? What is that even? There's no reason to fuss about it if we can't even define it. The days of MS60, 63, 65, and 67 were probably good enough for most practical purposes. Anyone with eyes can see that some "gems" are better than others. BTW, that's still true if you use a 70 or 100 or 1000 point scale.
If they can grade coins reasonably consistently, reasonably quickly, and the broader market accepts them (good bet, IMO), they'll gain acceptance. Like I said earlier in this thread, there's a huge zone of gray space between PQ and "details" that they'll have to navigate. The other TPGs deal with it, more or less, and the market eventually speaks for itself.
If you look at my posts, I have said that CAC sticker company may consider a coin in a PCGS holder a "C" coin because it is overgraded but in the next lower graded PCGS holder would be an "A" coin because the quality of the coin is excellent. I agree that these C coins would be straight graded by CAC Grading company. If they came for grading as a crossover, the PCGS coin would be downgraded (and even, as you suggested, might receive a "+
grade). If these came in raw, it would never have been considered a C coin to begin with since it didn't have a technical grade on it - CAC would assign the technical grade in the first instance.
Conversely, CAC sticker company may consider a coin in a PCGS holder a "C" coin because it has problems (which PCGS might not deem severe enough to details grade). This coin would not be given a sticker by CAC even if it were downgraded to a lower grade holder because it is a "C" coin no matter what grade is assigned by PCGS. To say it another way, the C quality of the coin does not change by downgrading the coin. CAC sticker company has higher standards as to what is a problem than does PCGS or NGC which is why the quality of the coins sticker by CAC is higher than coins that fail to receive a sticker which is proven by the higher prices garnered for CAC sticker coins. CAC Grading company will not be lowering their standards for what a problem coin is and will not net grade these coins (by straight grading but with a lower grade on the holder).
@beboplawyer said:
In JA eyes, a coin that is lightly cleaned and would holder a PCGS but would not receive a sticker a CAC sticking company (a C coin) would not be put into a CAC holder at any grade. Such a coin is not "problem free".
A coin that is in a PCGS holder grading AU 50 which doesn't receive a sticker at CAC sticking company because JA thinks it is an EF 45 (a C coin as an AU 50) would holder at CAC Grading company as an EF 45.
Bottom line, CAC Grading Service will not net grade coins with problems like the other grading companies might do.
@beboplawyer said:
CAC Grading company will not put C coins in a straight graded holder. I.e., they will not down downgrade a C coin (say light cleaning) with a technical grade of AU 50 into an EF 45 holder (commonly referred to as net grading). The coin will be put into a details holder.
@spacehayduke said:
Back from camping for 3 days and off the grid. My my what I missed in politics, and now we have a CAC grading company coming up with CAC slabs. Well at least it wasn't nuclear war, at least not yet............
So I am still not sure what to make of the new CAC grading company. 85% of my non-modern US coins are in NGC/PCGS slabs with green stickers. When the ones that did not bean come back, I have always asked JA to let me know why and he puts little round stickers with the problem on it, or pointing to an obvious problem he found, like where a spot was removed. So that has given me confidence that for most of the coins I have with a sticker means they the did not have a spot removed, were not lightly cleaned in the past, or any of the other things that CAC thought was wrong with a coin. To me, those coins are not anywhere near as valuable, the ones that did not pass bc of a problem, than those with stickers. And I have confidence that I mostly have strong for the grade coins with them stickers.
So now, if say I have an 1820 bust quarter that was 'lightly cleaned in the past' but in an AU50 slab, will it mean that it can make the grade in a CAC slab at 45? Or will CAC put 'lightly cleaned in the past' on the label and keep it at AU50 implying a C coin? Or? The point is, my confidence is gone with CAC if that coin can make it into a CAC slab. IT HAS A PROBLEM, I don't want to buy problem coins that make the grade in other slabs, that was the whole point of confidence in CAC stickers.
So I want to hear how this rolls out. If that 1820 bust quarter can now be put into a gradeable CAC slab w/o specifying the problem, my confidence in their slabs will be no more than for other grading companies. So what would be the point of that? If however, the goal is to transfer CAC sticker requirements to a slab of theirs, where that 1820 bust quarter cannot have a numeric grade, just as it cannot have a CAC sticker, then okay. But that would mean eliminating 60% of coins sent in for CAC slabbing wouldn't it? So how will this roll out? What really is going to go on here? Is this just a substitute for NGC and PCGS? I want to wait for the specifics. Grading companies want to make money, so there seems to be conflicting issues here......... It might also put the market in a turmoil given potentially conflicting perceptions of what a numeric grade on a CAC slab means. Caveat emptor.
Best, SH
You are incorrect about that. CAC Grading co. has stated on their site that they will be placing problem-free, C quality coins in straight grade holders. Please stop misstating facts.
You're mixing up two separate issues - coins that do not sticker because of problems, and coins that are problem-free, but don't sticker because they are low end for the grade, otherwise known as "C" coins. As Mark has correctly said more than once, JA has said that "C" coins WILL indeed be slabbed by CAC in their new holders, but at a grade for which they feel the coin is solid. This will often be one grade lower, often with a "+".
You are exactly correct. CAC Grading company will not be changing their standards and will be details grading a lot of coins that PCGS and NGC will straight grade. In the short run, this may cost them money because might not submit as many questionable coins to CAC Grading but in the long run CAC hollered coins will trade for significantly higher premiums (like CAC sticker coins do now). Most of the really nice coins for the grade will be in CAC holders because they will be worth more in the CAC holder.
JA has said the CAC Grading company is not all about maximizing revenues and profits. It is about cleaning up the coin business by eliminating the profitability of coin doctoring. If revenues suffer a bit because CAC holds the line on coin doctoring and certifying problem coins, so be it. However, holding the line may actually be more profitable in the long run since a great coin should be worth more in the CAC holder and serious collectors will want to see their coins in CAC holders. I'm not taking about legacy CAC stickered coins in PCGS/NGC holders.
@spacehayduke said: Being Bean Worthy (BBW) Versus a Numeric Grade
In my experience submitting 100's of Bust coins to CAC, the ones that did not get the green sticker were ones that were likely C coins bc they were 'lightly cleaned in the past', 'old cleaning', 'spot removal', etc. Hence my concern listed above. These minor surface issues, represent most that did not make the bean (in my experience with bust coins) and not because the numeric grade was incorrect. Using PCGS Photograde to look at whether a coin has the wear of the grade on the slab, most or all of these certainly fit into the numeric grade PCGS or NGC has assigned. So this leads me to believe that many if not most, of the 'C' coins in the Bust series' are 'C' because of slight problems due to human intervention and are essentially 'problem coins', in terms of BBW, even though they have the correct numeric grade. If so, then, if CAC holds to their current standards where these coins can't bean, then how can they possibly receive a numeric grade in a CAC slab? The other TPG's have been grading accurately for the numeric grade due to wear and are very good at this, but they have been more lenient for small to minor surface issues caused by human intervention. This is why the CAC beaned coins stand out. BBW is a big deal and separates coins into these categories for many series - those w/o surface issues versus those with.
Further, almost anyone that has studied seated dollars (for example) in G to AU grades can resoundingly attest to the fact that a large percentage of the numerically graded seated dollars out there have been 'lightly cleaned'. They are mostly graded properly for wear, but that means they are again, 'C' coins for their numeric grade, but not BBW. The differences in surfaces between seated dollars that meet the bean expectations versus those that don't are so obvious it is stunning, and why so few can actually rise to the level of BBW. And now in CAC slabs they are going to be downgraded to a + in the next grade down and receive a numeric grade? No, that is not CAC standards if we believe their slabs are going to stick to the standards CAC has used for beaning. The alternative is that 70% of more of the seated dollars submitted to CAC will be rejected for a numeric grade. How is that going to sell to the submitters for CAC slabbing?
Let's say you have a coin in a TPG slab. It is correctly graded in terms of wear and has stunning toning and eye appeal. You send it to CAC and it comes back 'lightly cleaned' and does not sticker. Let's say it is AU53, nice colorful toning and a great coin. So that coin still has a market value based on the TPG price guide, and probably a very nice one bc of eye appeal even tho it did not bean. So you think, aha, I will send it to the CAC slabbing company for crossing. Now the CAC slabbing company realizes it is a C coin in that grade based on their standards bc of the light cleaning even tho it has great eye appeal and correctly graded for wear. Are they going to 'detail' that C coin that did not pass because of the light cleaning? Are they going to give it a net numeric downgrade to 50 or 50+? Or are they going to grade it as a 53 bc by all things but a very light cleaning that kept it from beaning it is very much a 53 A or B coin? For the first 2 examples, which might be what they plan on (we will see) you the submitter will lose value putting that coin in that CAC slab. You can't keep customers that way, said customers learn quickly and will keep their 'C' coins in the other TPG slabs from hereon. To keep customers submitting coins to them so they can pay their bills, I see no way this works by keeping the same standards they have for stickers which was a completely difference concept than trying to make money on a slabbing buisness. This whole CAC slabbing thing seems to be a problem and will ultimately just be redundant to the leading TPG's if they are going to make ends meet. It is about the surfaces after all, with CAC, for stickering and they can't survive that way for slabbing..................................
So I am skeptical about what a CAC slab will achieve besides watering down in quality what the sticker means, and I don't see what CAC is trying to achieve by having a slabbing company, we already slabbers that are doing fine, CAC will just be redundant and water down the whole meaning of what is BBW. And who will it cost? Well those of us who bought into the BBW concept.
@yosclimber said:
Note: I listened more carefully to what was said in the video and transcribed that part into my prior post.
I think John Albanese was talking about a dark coin that he personally grades as a MS-65 C,
but apparently the market grades as a MS-64, so CAC will grade such a coin as a MS-64.
So it is more about changing his grading standards for dark coins, rather than what happens to all C coins.
My interpretation of this part of the conversation was directly specifically at the fact (and he and I have discussed this numerous times over the years) that John loves originally toned coins, even if they are darkly toned. The market doesn't appreciate darkly toned Seated dimes, for example, and these are less desirable than a lightly toned coin of the same date. Over the years, CAC adjusted their perspective to respect this market response, and now a darkly toned coin is not likely to get a sticker... and in the new service, will get a point deduction for the eye appeal. That was my takeaway. He may expand on this topic later.
John
My take on the above is that this applies only to dark coins CAC would put into the C category, not to the rest of them. So an MS 65 fill in the blank that isn't dark / ugly but is a C coin wouldn't be downgraded. But if he's only putting what he considers A & B tiered coins in the new holder, what would happen to said C level coin, even though it is properly graded? More clarity in this area would be appreciated.
And, opinions change over time. That C classified coin may no longer be such in the future, and a B graded coin may no longer be such.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
@beboplawyer said:
Actually, you are confusing the issues.
Conversely, CAC sticker company may consider a coin in a PCGS holder a "C" coin because it has problems (which PCGS might not deem severe enough to details grade). This coin would not be given a sticker by CAC even if it were downgraded to a lower grade holder because it is a "C" coin no matter what grade is assigned by PCGS. To say it another way, the C quality of the coin does not change by downgrading the coin. CAC sticker company has higher standards as to what is a problem than does PCGS or NGC which is why the quality of the coins sticker by CAC is higher than coins that fail to receive a sticker which is proven by the higher prices garnered for CAC sticker coins. CAC Grading company will not be lowering their standards for what a problem coin is and will not net grade these coins (by straight grading but with a lower grade on the holder).
CAC sticker company does not consider "problem coins" C coins. They are problem coins, that you and I agree regardless of the grade of the TPG holder, CAC sticker company will not sticker, and CAC holder company will not holder.
"C" coins refers only to problem free coins that for the most part are lower end for the current grade, and in some cases, overgraded.
As I stated above, C coins and problem coins are two different things!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
CAC holdered coins would be automatically stickered at the same grade. The holder means that the coin would be CAC stickered at the same grade if they were in a PCGS or NGC slab.
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.
I believe there definitely has to be something that distinguishes the difference between a C coin from others. If not, coins with stickers will be looked at as better then his slabbed coins. Stickered coins have the track record that prove they are A and B coins. If new CAC slabs are holding A,B and C coins with no difference CACs mission of helping collectors decipher them is non existent.
That's at least three times now that you've misstated facts. CAC Grading co. has stated on their site that they will be placing problem-free, C quality coins in straight grade holders.
@winesteven said:
Actually, they CAN all be solid for the grade, which is different than all being "Average" for the grade!
No, they can't. There are always going to be coins that are just good enough to make the cut. That's not "solid", that's "just barely made it". You can adjust the cutoff between grades to wherever you want it to be but all that does is change which coins are at the bottom.
I sort of disagree. You can round down (or up) which creates a giant gap in quality between a 64 and 65, for example. So anything that is "65.3" or lower gets tagged with a 64, even though it is a low end 65. That makes all the 65s better than the 65 standard.
I know what you're saying, the 65.4 is now barely a 65. But if the 65.4 is truly above the 65 standard, it isn't a low end 65.
@jmlanzaf said:
I know what you're saying, the 65.4 is now barely a 65. But if the 65.4 is truly above the 65 standard, it isn't a low end 65.
Fair enough. But then again, if a 65.3 gets lowered to 64.x, then "the 65 standard" has changed. It seems wrong (to me, anyway) to identify a currently graded coin as "solid" compared to a coin one grade lower, because that coin used to be the same grade before the standards changed.
I'm sure that's not entirely clear but it's the best I can do for now.
Coins that are accurately graded (not overgraded) but don't get a sticker are C coins. These coins may be straight graded by PCGS but CAC sees problems with them and won't give them a sticker even if they are downgraded into a lower graded PCGS holder. CAC Grading company will not straight grade these coins because their standards as to what is a "problem" coin is different (and more exacting) than PCGS's. If your (and Mark F's) use of the term "problem free" is CACs definiation of problem free, then I agree with you that C coins that are problem free will be holdered by CAC Grading (but at a lower technical grade than what's on the PCGS holder) because these coins meet the "quality" standards for CAC but not the technical grade standards.
However, if you use the term "problem free" (but accurately graded) to refer to a coin that might be straight graded by PCGS or NGC but that CAC sees as C coins, then these coins will not be holdered by CAC Grading even at a lower grade.
@beboplawyer said:
Actually, you are confusing the issues.
Conversely, CAC sticker company may consider a coin in a PCGS holder a "C" coin because it has problems (which PCGS might not deem severe enough to details grade). This coin would not be given a sticker by CAC even if it were downgraded to a lower grade holder because it is a "C" coin no matter what grade is assigned by PCGS. To say it another way, the C quality of the coin does not change by downgrading the coin. CAC sticker company has higher standards as to what is a problem than does PCGS or NGC which is why the quality of the coins sticker by CAC is higher than coins that fail to receive a sticker which is proven by the higher prices garnered for CAC sticker coins. CAC Grading company will not be lowering their standards for what a problem coin is and will not net grade these coins (by straight grading but with a lower grade on the holder).
CAC sticker company does not consider "problem coins" C coins. They are problem coins, that you and I agree regardless of the grade of the TPG holder, CAC sticker company will not sticker, and CAC holder company will not holder.
"C" coins refers only to problem free coins that for the most part are lower end for the current grade, and in some cases, overgraded.
As I stated above, C coins and problem coins are two different things!
@jmlanzaf said:
I know what you're saying, the 65.4 is now barely a 65. But if the 65.4 is truly above the 65 standard, it isn't a low end 65.
Fair enough. But then again, if a 65.3 gets lowered to 64.x, then "the 65 standard" has changed. It seems wrong (to me, anyway) to identify a currently graded coin as "solid" compared to a coin one grade lower, because that coin used to be the same grade before the standards changed.
I'm sure that's not entirely clear but it's the best I can do for now.
I know what you mean but we call it "rounding". LOL. You can make somebody clear the hurdle by 6 inches to call it clearance. You're saying that the hurdle is then 6 inches higher. I'm saying that the hurdle stays the same height but you're not allowed to just barely clear it. You round down anything that isn't well above the standard. [That will make a lot of submitters unhappy, but it will make all the buyers extremely happy.] That's where many of the C coins come from now, they get rounded up. People submit them a dozen times until that one day they accidentally slip into the + grade or the next highest grade. If the graders are always rounding down, that will happen a lot less.
Coins that are accurately graded (not overgraded) but don't get a sticker are C coins. These coins may be straight graded by PCGS but CAC sees problems with them and won't give them a sticker even if they are downgraded into a lower graded PCGS holder. CAC Grading company will not straight grade these coins because their standards as to what is a "problem" coin is different (and more exacting) than PCGS's. If your (and Mark F's) use of the term "problem free" is CACs definiation of problem free, then I agree with you that C coins that are problem free will be holdered by CAC Grading (but at a lower technical grade than what's on the PCGS holder) because these coins meet the "quality" standards for CAC but not the technical grade standards.
However, if you use the term "problem free" (but accurately graded) to refer to a coin that might be straight graded by PCGS or NGC but that CAC sees as C coins, then these coins will not be holdered by CAC Grading even at a lower grade.
@beboplawyer said:
Actually, you are confusing the issues.
Conversely, CAC sticker company may consider a coin in a PCGS holder a "C" coin because it has problems (which PCGS might not deem severe enough to details grade). This coin would not be given a sticker by CAC even if it were downgraded to a lower grade holder because it is a "C" coin no matter what grade is assigned by PCGS. To say it another way, the C quality of the coin does not change by downgrading the coin. CAC sticker company has higher standards as to what is a problem than does PCGS or NGC which is why the quality of the coins sticker by CAC is higher than coins that fail to receive a sticker which is proven by the higher prices garnered for CAC sticker coins. CAC Grading company will not be lowering their standards for what a problem coin is and will not net grade these coins (by straight grading but with a lower grade on the holder).
CAC sticker company does not consider "problem coins" C coins. They are problem coins, that you and I agree regardless of the grade of the TPG holder, CAC sticker company will not sticker, and CAC holder company will not holder.
"C" coins refers only to problem free coins that for the most part are lower end for the current grade, and in some cases, overgraded.
As I stated above, C coins and problem coins are two different things!
Steve
I'll give this a shot as my betters don't seem to be able to crack your shell.
Not all C coins are problem coins.
Some C coins have surface/manmade issues and will not be straight graded at CAC. These are also referred to as problem coins.
Some C coins are NOT problem coins. These C coins will be straight graded a grade lower, often with a plus (PCGS 65 C becomes a CAC 64 or 64+).
This is not that complicated and also straight from JA.
Coins that are accurately graded (not overgraded) but don't get a sticker are C coins. These coins may be straight graded by PCGS but CAC sees problems with them and won't give them a sticker even if they are downgraded into a lower graded PCGS holder. CAC Grading company will not straight grade these coins because their standards as to what is a "problem" coin is different (and more exacting) than PCGS's. If your (and Mark F's) use of the term "problem free" is CACs definiation of problem free, then I agree with you that C coins that are problem free will be holdered by CAC Grading (but at a lower technical grade than what's on the PCGS holder) because these coins meet the "quality" standards for CAC but not the technical grade standards.
However, if you use the term "problem free" (but accurately graded) to refer to a coin that might be straight graded by PCGS or NGC but that CAC sees as C coins, then these coins will not be holdered by CAC Grading even at a lower grade.
@beboplawyer said:
Actually, you are confusing the issues.
Keep saying it, but you are straight up trolling. C coins do not have to have ANY PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER and they also DON'T HAVE TO BE OVERGRADED. So, keep reposting this nonsense. Hopefully you don't value this forum because you won't be a participant for long.
Just in case you aren't actually trolling, consider the following metaphor.
You have to be over 5 foot tall to ride the roller coaster. There's a sign and your head must be higher than the line to get on. Sometimes, someone comes along wearing high heels (overgraded) and they sneak through. Sometimes people put gel in their hair and make it stand up (problem) and they sneak through. Sometimes, someone is exactly 5 foot tall and not one hair over. They get to ride the roller coaster, but they are also a C coin because they legitimately made the height but just barely.
My issue in reading @beboplawyer is that his assertions seem like he speaks for CAC as if he knows what they will do. I see no reason to infer that he speaks for the company.
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@beboplawyer - I think it will vary depending on series. Us Seated dollar collectors are used to seeing a ton of crap straight graded coins in plastic. But that is not the case with other series. Franklins,mercs,Lincoln’s,Morgan’s etc… JA has no plans to put problem coins in his straight graded plastic.
So now, if say I have an 1820 bust quarter that was 'lightly cleaned in the past' but in an AU50 slab, will it mean that it can make the grade in a CAC slab at 45? Or will CAC put 'lightly cleaned in the past' on the label and keep it at AU50 implying a C coin? Or? The point is, my confidence is gone with CAC if that coin can make it into a CAC slab. IT HAS A PROBLEM, I don't want to buy problem coins that make the grade in other slabs, that was the whole point of confidence in CAC stickers.
So I want to hear how this rolls out. If that 1820 bust quarter can now be put into a gradeable CAC slab w/o specifying the problem, my confidence in their slabs will be no more than for other grading companies. So what would be the point of that? If however, the goal is to transfer CAC sticker requirements to a slab of theirs, where that 1820 bust quarter cannot have a numeric grade, just as it cannot have a CAC sticker, then okay. But that would mean eliminating 60% of coins sent in for CAC slabbing wouldn't it? So how will this roll out? What really is going to go on here? Is this just a substitute for NGC and PCGS? I want to wait for the specifics. Grading companies want to make money, so there seems to be conflicting issues here......... It might also put the market in a turmoil given potentially conflicting perceptions of what a numeric grade on a CAC slab means. Caveat emptor.
Best, SH
I think if it doesn’t have a sticker and it’s been there it won’t make it into a holder.
If it hasn’t been there it might be a good test. My feeling is if you can tell it was lightly cleaned so will JA.
@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
I really doubt it. 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?
On the other forum, JA has UNEQUIVOCALLY stated their new grading company will be using plus grades. He further went on to say coins they deem as “A” coins will get their plus grade!!!
Steve
Didn’t he also say that a C coin will be given a + designation at the next lower grade? So how will you know if your 66+ is a 66 A or a 67C?
@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
I really doubt it. 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?
On the other forum, JA has UNEQUIVOCALLY stated their new grading company will be using plus grades. He further went on to say coins they deem as “A” coins will get their plus grade!!!
Steve
Didn’t he also say that a C coin will be given a + designation at the next lower grade? So how will you know if your 66+ is a 66 A or a 67C?
You won't! (In theory they should be pretty similar)
@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
I really doubt it. 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?
On the other forum, JA has UNEQUIVOCALLY stated their new grading company will be using plus grades. He further went on to say coins they deem as “A” coins will get their plus grade!!!
Steve
Didn’t he also say that a C coin will be given a + designation at the next lower grade? So how will you know if your 66+ is a 66 A or a 67C?
As @lermish said, you won’t, and in theory they they should be close to each other.
BUT, JA just announced a few minutes ago that coins that previously had stickers that cross to the new CAC holder will have a CAC sticker embedded in the new CAC holder that shows it originally had a CAC sticker!!!!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@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
I really doubt it. 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?
On the other forum, JA has UNEQUIVOCALLY stated their new grading company will be using plus grades. He further went on to say coins they deem as “A” coins will get their plus grade!!!
Steve
Didn’t he also say that a C coin will be given a + designation at the next lower grade? So how will you know if your 66+ is a 66 A or a 67C?
As @lermish said, you won’t, and in theory they they should be close to each other.
BUT, JA just announced a few minutes ago that coins that previously had stickers that cross to the new CAC holder will have a CAC sticker embedded in the new CAC holder that shows it originally had a CAC sticker!!!!
Steve
I thought one of JA's stated purposes was to be a one stop shop so collectors and dealers didn't have to send their coins all over the country to unlock their maximum value. Now a coin has to go from PCGS/NGC, to NJ to get a sticker, to Virginia Beach to get a special embedded sticker? Starting to feel a bit gimmicky.
Hey, Tom - I'm all over it! 1st generation holders, samples, luncheon slabs - can't wait!
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose.
@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
I really doubt it. 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?
On the other forum, JA has UNEQUIVOCALLY stated their new grading company will be using plus grades. He further went on to say coins they deem as “A” coins will get their plus grade!!!
Steve
Didn’t he also say that a C coin will be given a + designation at the next lower grade? So how will you know if your 66+ is a 66 A or a 67C?
As @lermish said, you won’t, and in theory they they should be close to each other.
BUT, JA just announced a few minutes ago that coins that previously had stickers that cross to the new CAC holder will have a CAC sticker embedded in the new CAC holder that shows it originally had a CAC sticker!!!!
Steve
I thought one of JA's stated purposes was to be a one stop shop so collectors and dealers didn't have to send their coins all over the country to unlock their maximum value. Now a coin has to go from PCGS/NGC, to NJ to get a sticker, to Virginia Beach to get a special embedded sticker? Starting to feel a bit gimmicky.
My sense is the embedded stickers are MAINLY an “accommodation” for those with existing CAC stickers who want to cross, so this way their new holder will “prove” that not only it meets current CAC standards by being in the new CAC holder, but also PREVIOUSLY met CAC standards by having had a CAC sticker.
To me, it’s redundant. A coin in a new CAC holder graded MS65 obviously meets CAC standards for that grade. Having that same coin in a new CAC holder graded MS 65 with an embedded CAC sticker means it met those standards previously too.
As you point out, for those looking to cross coins with no sticker and want an embedded sticker in their new CAC holder, yes, first attempt to get the CAC sticker on the other slab, and if successful, then cross. I think it’s silly, but every collector decides for themselves what they want for their coins. I know for a fact there are MANY things I do with my coins that many knowledgeable collectors think are silly.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
I predict CAC plus coins will explode in value as I doubt there are many A coins that are borderline next grade level coins that JA has mentioned. A coins I would think represent the top 10-15% of coins for that grade level, as most green sticker coins are mainly B or B+ coins.
@Walkerlover said:
I predict CAC plus coins will explode in value as I doubt there are many A coins that are borderline next grade level coins that JA has mentioned. A coins I would think represent the top 10-15% of coins for that grade level, as most green sticker coins are mainly B or B+ coins.
If you’re correct, that’s good for me, since roughly 50% to 60% of my coins have plus grades with CAC stickers. However, I’m not sure your prediction will be true, since the value of the plus CAC coins are limited based on the value of CAC coins in the next whole grade number. For example, there’s no logical reason why a PCGS 65+ with a CAC should get very close, or even higher in value, than a PCGS 66 with a CAC. Small potential increases? Yes. Giant jumps? I doubt it.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
Just get to a 100 point system and all the TPGs would be happy. Because that is what is happing with A B C
Plus and minus symbols. When the frowney and smile faces go next to the grade. Gee lets
Do a GTG. No sorry guys you don’t get it it in a MS64- * and a 😀 grade
Martin
Yes if anyone cares I’m back from cow camp. To tired to think
@winesteven said:
To me, it’s redundant. A coin in a new CAC holder graded MS65 obviously meets CAC standards for that grade.
Could it have been in a PCGS/NGC MS66 holder that was previously considered accurately graded by CAC as a "C" coin and didn't sticker, maybe?
My understanding is the embedded stickers in the new CAC holders will only be for coins previously with a CAC sticker. In your example, that 66 C did not have a sticker, so if it crosses in a new CAC holder to 65 or 65+, it won’t get the embedded sticker.
But my point is, so what? That coin in a 65 or 65+ new CAC holder without an embedded sticker STILL MEETS CAC standards for the grade on the holder!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@Walkerlover said:
I predict CAC plus coins will explode in value as I doubt there are many A coins that are borderline next grade level coins that JA has mentioned. A coins I would think represent the top 10-15% of coins for that grade level, as most green sticker coins are mainly B or B+ coins.
What about B-? Or c+, or c-? How complex does it really need to be?
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
@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
I really doubt it. 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?
On the other forum, JA has UNEQUIVOCALLY stated their new grading company will be using plus grades. He further went on to say coins they deem as “A” coins will get their plus grade!!!
Steve
Didn’t he also say that a C coin will be given a + designation at the next lower grade? So how will you know if your 66+ is a 66 A or a 67C?
As @lermish said, you won’t, and in theory they they should be close to each other.
BUT, JA just announced a few minutes ago that coins that previously had stickers that cross to the new CAC holder will have a CAC sticker embedded in the new CAC holder that shows it originally had a CAC sticker!!!!
Steve
I thought one of JA's stated purposes was to be a one stop shop so collectors and dealers didn't have to send their coins all over the country to unlock their maximum value. Now a coin has to go from PCGS/NGC, to NJ to get a sticker, to Virginia Beach to get a special embedded sticker? Starting to feel a bit gimmicky.
My sense is the embedded stickers are MAINLY an “accommodation” for those with existing CAC stickers who want to cross, so this way their new holder will “prove” that not only it meets current CAC standards by being in the new CAC holder, but also PREVIOUSLY met CAC standards by having had a CAC sticker.
To me, it’s redundant. A coin in a new CAC holder graded MS65 obviously meets CAC standards for that grade. Having that same coin in a new CAC holder graded MS 65 with an embedded CAC sticker means it met those standards previously too.
As you point out, for those looking to cross coins with no sticker and want an embedded sticker in their new CAC holder, yes, first attempt to get the CAC sticker on the other slab, and if successful, then cross. I think it’s silly, but every collector decides for themselves what they want for their coins. I know for a fact there are MANY things I do with my coins that many knowledgeable collectors think are silly.
Steve
I hear what you're saying but I just think when flashy cosmetics like this are available, people will clamor for it. This is actually a little bit surprising to me because JA and his crew always struck me as the ultimate coin guys, meaning their focus was on the coin and the sticker was a necessary tool to bring the focus back to the quality of the coin, not just the grade on the slab. Even as sticker mania raged around them (a mania they created by being so talented), it felt like they never really bought into the hype (e.g., taking every chance to bemoan the amount of 38 D Buffalo nickels and 1940s Mercury dimes they were receiving). This feels like something directly in their control that will end up detracting or at least diverting attention from the coin itself.
Edit: But like you said, likely a case of good businessmen making an accommodation that will be very popular to a segment of the marketplace.
@winesteven said:
But my point is, so what? That coin in a 65 or 65+ new CAC holder without an embedded sticker STILL MEETS CAC standards for the grade on the holder!
My point is that the coin in a PCGS/NGC MS66 holder that was previously considered accurately graded by CAC as a "C" coin MET CAC standards for the grade on the holder.
@privatecoin said:
And after CAC grading spreads through the market I can see a new stickering company. Triple S. The Super Strict Standard.
Well, that’s the beauty of this whole endeavor eliminating the need for stickers in the first place. Now you will have a product that has reached its full potential and in only one trip.
The Bishop just took the queen (ngc) and put the king in check in one move.
@winesteven said:
But my point is, so what? That coin in a 65 or 65+ new CAC holder without an embedded sticker STILL MEETS CAC standards for the grade on the holder!
My point is that the coin in a PCGS/NGC MS66 holder that was previously considered accurately graded by CAC as a "C" coin MET CAC standards for the grade on the holder.
Actually, the CAC standard from Day One is that coins should be “solid for the grade”, and if a coin met that standard (in their opinion), it would get a sticker. So while they say that a problem-free C coin is accurately graded, they are also saying it does not meet their standard as being solid for the grade. Hence “No soup for you!!!!”
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
Actually, the CAC standard from Day One is that coins should be “solid for the grade”, and if a coin met that standard (in their opinion), it would get a sticker. So while they say that a problem-free C coin is accurately graded, they are also saying it does not meet their standard as being solid for the grade. Hence “No soup for you!!!!”
I didn't say anything about meeting their standard as "solid for the grade". I said CAC said that "C" coins (some of them, anyway) are accurately graded.
Copied directly from the CAC website:
If a coin doesn’t receive a CAC sticker, does this mean CAC believes the coin is over-graded?
Absolutely not. There are many coins that are certified accurately for their grade. Unfortunately, it is an inescapable reality that many are at the lower end of the quality range for the assigned grade. CAC’s rejection of a coin does not necessarily mean that CAC believes the coin has been over-graded. It simply means that there are other coins with CAC stickers that are of higher quality for the grade. CAC will eventually reject tens of thousands of accurately graded coins.
Actually, if you look back in this thread, I'm pretty sure I already posted this. Just sayin'.
edited to add... Ok- I think I see what upset you in my previous post. At this point, I don't think it is possible to explain to you what I am trying to say, so I will stop trying. Carry on.
I’m not following your point. I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that you were suggesting a 66 with no CAC sticker, if crossed to the new CAC holder as a 65 or 65+, would have an embedded sticker in that new holder. It will not. If I’m talking about something that you are not talking about, my apologies, please clarify.
Thanks.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
Comments
We can agree that the coins that remain in that grade meet the CAC standards for being solid for the old, no longer being used grade. They are not solid for the new grade, they are low end now since the previous low end "C" coins are not good enough to remain and have been reduced in grade.
It doesn't matter how you slice it, there will be coins that are at the bottom of the grade and just barely make it. You could get rid of the "B" and "C" coins and then, there'd be some "A" coins that were low end for the grade.
It's not splitting hairs. Coins that are solid for the grade are solid because there are coins of the same grade below them in quality. If you remove the coins at the bottom, the solid for the grade coins become the bottom.
Take a coin you're grading- currently, you're deciding between B and C for it. If you go with B, it's solid for the grade and if C, it's low end. Now, with your new system, that coin either makes the grade or it's one grade lower. So- you decide it does make it and you're saying that makes it "solid for the grade"?
Yes
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
Yes x 2
Yes.
It need not be solid for the grade, compared only to other examples in the new holders. But rather, it can be solid for the grade with respect to the overall population in other holders, including coins of the same date, as well as others of the type. In other words, it is solid for the grade, compared to the general population of MS65's.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Ok. Lake Woebegone, but with coins. I get it now.
On a related subject, CAC says this on their website:
If a coin doesn’t receive a CAC sticker, does this mean CAC believes the coin is over-graded?
Absolutely not. There are many coins that are certified accurately for their grade. Unfortunately, it is an inescapable reality that many are at the lower end of the quality range for the assigned grade. CAC’s rejection of a coin does not necessarily mean that CAC believes the coin has been over-graded. It simply means that there are other coins with CAC stickers that are of higher quality for the grade. CAC will eventually reject tens of thousands of accurately graded coins.
So going forward, those "certified accurately for their grade" coins will be considered overgraded?
If, for the purpose of distinguishing them from solid for the grade (or better) examples, those rejected coins are assigned lower grades, that's not the same thing as calling them over-graded.
How about if we just agree now that the new service wont be anywhere close to perfect?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Nothing ever is. But I’d wager they will have the strictest standards in the industry. Would you?
Still too little info for me.
I'm trying to determine how to play a new game or if I want to play the game.
I need quite a bit more info to plan my moves.
Then, I can decide, whether to call it a day or keep on truckin'.
Seems pretty simple. Prior to the new grading service, a PCGS or NGC coin with a sticker was "A" or "B" for the grade assigned. A coin in a holder from the new CAC grading service will still be "A" or "B" for the assigned grade. That is to say, a coin in a CAC holder graded 65 is equivalent to a coin in a PCGS or NGC holder graded 65 with a green sticker. On a crossover, say for a non-stickered coin in a PCGS holder graded 65, the collector will probably have to specify a "minimum grade of 65", to avoid the possibility of it being crossed at a lower grade.
Coinlearner, Ahrensdad, Nolawyer, RG, coinlieutenant, Yorkshireman, lordmarcovan, Soldi, masscrew, JimTyler, Relaxn, jclovescoins
Now listen boy, I'm tryin' to teach you sumthin' . . . . that ain't no optical illusion, it only looks like an optical illusion.
My mind reader refuses to charge me....
Yep, in general, an equivalent coin that did not sticker in the past, and was not messed with, will probably get a lower grade. So many variables are involved. I have faith JA and team will properly grade coins in the future and not everyone will be happy as today.
Of subject…. But at this rate, this threads view count will catch the Hansen thread by Thanksgiving!
Being Bean Worthy (BBW) Versus a Numeric Grade
In my experience submitting 100's of Bust coins to CAC, the ones that did not get the green sticker were ones that were likely C coins bc they were 'lightly cleaned in the past', 'old cleaning', 'spot removal', etc. Hence my concern listed above. These minor surface issues, represent most that did not make the bean (in my experience with bust coins) and not because the numeric grade was incorrect. Using PCGS Photograde to look at whether a coin has the wear of the grade on the slab, most or all of these certainly fit into the numeric grade PCGS or NGC has assigned. So this leads me to believe that many if not most, of the 'C' coins in the Bust series' are 'C' because of slight problems due to human intervention and are essentially 'problem coins', in terms of BBW, even though they have the correct numeric grade. If so, then, if CAC holds to their current standards where these coins can't bean, then how can they possibly receive a numeric grade in a CAC slab? The other TPG's have been grading accurately for the numeric grade due to wear and are very good at this, but they have been more lenient for small to minor surface issues caused by human intervention. This is why the CAC beaned coins stand out. BBW is a big deal and separates coins into these categories for many series - those w/o surface issues versus those with.
Further, almost anyone that has studied seated dollars (for example) in G to AU grades can resoundingly attest to the fact that a large percentage of the numerically graded seated dollars out there have been 'lightly cleaned'. They are mostly graded properly for wear, but that means they are again, 'C' coins for their numeric grade, but not BBW. The differences in surfaces between seated dollars that meet the bean expectations versus those that don't are so obvious it is stunning, and why so few can actually rise to the level of BBW. And now in CAC slabs they are going to be downgraded to a + in the next grade down and receive a numeric grade? No, that is not CAC standards if we believe their slabs are going to stick to the standards CAC has used for beaning. The alternative is that 70% of more of the seated dollars submitted to CAC will be rejected for a numeric grade. How is that going to sell to the submitters for CAC slabbing?
Let's say you have a coin in a TPG slab. It is correctly graded in terms of wear and has stunning toning and eye appeal. You send it to CAC and it comes back 'lightly cleaned' and does not sticker. Let's say it is AU53, nice colorful toning and a great coin. So that coin still has a market value based on the TPG price guide, and probably a very nice one bc of eye appeal even tho it did not bean. So you think, aha, I will send it to the CAC slabbing company for crossing. Now the CAC slabbing company realizes it is a C coin in that grade based on their standards bc of the light cleaning even tho it has great eye appeal and correctly graded for wear. Are they going to 'detail' that C coin that did not pass because of the light cleaning? Are they going to give it a net numeric downgrade to 50 or 50+? Or are they going to grade it as a 53 bc by all things but a very light cleaning that kept it from beaning it is very much a 53 A or B coin? For the first 2 examples, which might be what they plan on (we will see) you the submitter will lose value putting that coin in that CAC slab. You can't keep customers that way, said customers learn quickly and will keep their 'C' coins in the other TPG slabs from hereon. To keep customers submitting coins to them so they can pay their bills, I see no way this works by keeping the same standards they have for stickers which was a completely difference concept than trying to make money on a slabbing buisness. This whole CAC slabbing thing seems to be a problem and will ultimately just be redundant to the leading TPG's if they are going to make ends meet. It is about the surfaces after all, with CAC, for stickering and they can't survive that way for slabbing..................................
So I am skeptical about what a CAC slab will achieve besides watering down in quality what the sticker means, and I don't see what CAC is trying to achieve by having a slabbing company, we already slabbers that are doing fine, CAC will just be redundant and water down the whole meaning of what is BBW. And who will it cost? Well those of us who bought into the BBW concept.
Best, SH
Still too little info for me.
I'm trying to determine how to play a new game or if I want to play the game.
I need quite a bit more info to plan my moves.
Then, I can decide, whether to call it a day or keep on truckin'.
Opening salvo......
So... Am I loathe to send in any graded generic Liberty DE that failed CAC since they should be downgraded in the new slab?
Which coin sells for more... An old MS65 generic or new generic MS64? How much differential?
Will the new service predominantly be receiving ungraded coins?
Should I send in a CAC ms64 generic saint ? Any edge?
What if my coins are graded the 3 weeks JA isn't there? Will I fare better or worse?
Who is behind the new grading co? Are the principals coin sellers?
Y'all remember that the grading companies don't manufacture the coins we collect, right? They are what they are. These kinds of threads simultaneously amuse and annoy me a little. To be clear, I'm not saying grading isn't important. It clearly is, but I think people have unrealistic expectations.
Just because a coin with a few issues "accidentally" gets into a particular slab doesn't mean it will sell for "all the money." Usually, it doesn't. Likewise, a coin that gets a numerical "upgrade" on a crackout or resubmission doesn't always sell for more. Superb 64+ coins often sell for the same price as a weak 65. The market is pretty good at sorting this stuff out, on average. Finding exceptions is remarkably easy. These are called anecdotes.
Grading is (and always will be) subjective in nature. If you did an actual scientific analysis (nobody is willing to pay the money or take the time), you'd see poor inter-observer reliability, even among the best. There isn't even very good reliability of the same observer on different days. In comparison, diamonds are graded reasonably consistently. That industry established and uses measurable, well-defined standards.
There is a common theme in threads like this that somehow the best graders are expert at divining a coin's "actual" grade. Memo.... coins don't have grades. There are no standards. There is no defined line beyond which a coin is "improperly" cleaned. Worn or not worn? That particular line has wandered off a tremendous amount in just a decade. It used to be difficult to see why a coin got an AU58. Now, visible wear is seen all the way up to MS63.
This doesn't mean JA doesn't have an expert eye. He does. Is he the best? How would you even begin to define that? He certainly knows coins, understands coin chicanery, has a great feel for the market, and has exceptional business acumen. Shifting "standards" seem to annoy him quite a bit. He's a great advocate for regular hobbyists too.
C coins? What is that even? There's no reason to fuss about it if we can't even define it. The days of MS60, 63, 65, and 67 were probably good enough for most practical purposes. Anyone with eyes can see that some "gems" are better than others. BTW, that's still true if you use a 70 or 100 or 1000 point scale.
If they can grade coins reasonably consistently, reasonably quickly, and the broader market accepts them (good bet, IMO), they'll gain acceptance. Like I said earlier in this thread, there's a huge zone of gray space between PQ and "details" that they'll have to navigate. The other TPGs deal with it, more or less, and the market eventually speaks for itself.
Actually, you are confusing the issues.
If you look at my posts, I have said that CAC sticker company may consider a coin in a PCGS holder a "C" coin because it is overgraded but in the next lower graded PCGS holder would be an "A" coin because the quality of the coin is excellent. I agree that these C coins would be straight graded by CAC Grading company. If they came for grading as a crossover, the PCGS coin would be downgraded (and even, as you suggested, might receive a "+
grade). If these came in raw, it would never have been considered a C coin to begin with since it didn't have a technical grade on it - CAC would assign the technical grade in the first instance.
Conversely, CAC sticker company may consider a coin in a PCGS holder a "C" coin because it has problems (which PCGS might not deem severe enough to details grade). This coin would not be given a sticker by CAC even if it were downgraded to a lower grade holder because it is a "C" coin no matter what grade is assigned by PCGS. To say it another way, the C quality of the coin does not change by downgrading the coin. CAC sticker company has higher standards as to what is a problem than does PCGS or NGC which is why the quality of the coins sticker by CAC is higher than coins that fail to receive a sticker which is proven by the higher prices garnered for CAC sticker coins. CAC Grading company will not be lowering their standards for what a problem coin is and will not net grade these coins (by straight grading but with a lower grade on the holder).
SH,
You are exactly correct. CAC Grading company will not be changing their standards and will be details grading a lot of coins that PCGS and NGC will straight grade. In the short run, this may cost them money because might not submit as many questionable coins to CAC Grading but in the long run CAC hollered coins will trade for significantly higher premiums (like CAC sticker coins do now). Most of the really nice coins for the grade will be in CAC holders because they will be worth more in the CAC holder.
JA has said the CAC Grading company is not all about maximizing revenues and profits. It is about cleaning up the coin business by eliminating the profitability of coin doctoring. If revenues suffer a bit because CAC holds the line on coin doctoring and certifying problem coins, so be it. However, holding the line may actually be more profitable in the long run since a great coin should be worth more in the CAC holder and serious collectors will want to see their coins in CAC holders. I'm not taking about legacy CAC stickered coins in PCGS/NGC holders.
My take on the above is that this applies only to dark coins CAC would put into the C category, not to the rest of them. So an MS 65 fill in the blank that isn't dark / ugly but is a C coin wouldn't be downgraded. But if he's only putting what he considers A & B tiered coins in the new holder, what would happen to said C level coin, even though it is properly graded? More clarity in this area would be appreciated.
And, opinions change over time. That C classified coin may no longer be such in the future, and a B graded coin may no longer be such.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
CAC sticker company does not consider "problem coins" C coins. They are problem coins, that you and I agree regardless of the grade of the TPG holder, CAC sticker company will not sticker, and CAC holder company will not holder.
"C" coins refers only to problem free coins that for the most part are lower end for the current grade, and in some cases, overgraded.
As I stated above, C coins and problem coins are two different things!
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
CAC holdered coins would be automatically stickered at the same grade. The holder means that the coin would be CAC stickered at the same grade if they were in a PCGS or NGC slab.
Sunshine Rare Coins
sunshinecoins.com/store/c1/Featured_Products.html
There are FAQs on the CAC forum> @MFeld said:
I think he's just trolling
I sort of disagree. You can round down (or up) which creates a giant gap in quality between a 64 and 65, for example. So anything that is "65.3" or lower gets tagged with a 64, even though it is a low end 65. That makes all the 65s better than the 65 standard.
I know what you're saying, the 65.4 is now barely a 65. But if the 65.4 is truly above the 65 standard, it isn't a low end 65.
Fair enough. But then again, if a 65.3 gets lowered to 64.x, then "the 65 standard" has changed. It seems wrong (to me, anyway) to identify a currently graded coin as "solid" compared to a coin one grade lower, because that coin used to be the same grade before the standards changed.
I'm sure that's not entirely clear but it's the best I can do for now.
Hi Steve,
Coins that are accurately graded (not overgraded) but don't get a sticker are C coins. These coins may be straight graded by PCGS but CAC sees problems with them and won't give them a sticker even if they are downgraded into a lower graded PCGS holder. CAC Grading company will not straight grade these coins because their standards as to what is a "problem" coin is different (and more exacting) than PCGS's. If your (and Mark F's) use of the term "problem free" is CACs definiation of problem free, then I agree with you that C coins that are problem free will be holdered by CAC Grading (but at a lower technical grade than what's on the PCGS holder) because these coins meet the "quality" standards for CAC but not the technical grade standards.
However, if you use the term "problem free" (but accurately graded) to refer to a coin that might be straight graded by PCGS or NGC but that CAC sees as C coins, then these coins will not be holdered by CAC Grading even at a lower grade.
I know what you mean but we call it "rounding". LOL. You can make somebody clear the hurdle by 6 inches to call it clearance. You're saying that the hurdle is then 6 inches higher. I'm saying that the hurdle stays the same height but you're not allowed to just barely clear it. You round down anything that isn't well above the standard. [That will make a lot of submitters unhappy, but it will make all the buyers extremely happy.] That's where many of the C coins come from now, they get rounded up. People submit them a dozen times until that one day they accidentally slip into the + grade or the next highest grade. If the graders are always rounding down, that will happen a lot less.
I'll give this a shot as my betters don't seem to be able to crack your shell.
Not all C coins are problem coins.
Some C coins have surface/manmade issues and will not be straight graded at CAC. These are also referred to as problem coins.
Some C coins are NOT problem coins. These C coins will be straight graded a grade lower, often with a plus (PCGS 65 C becomes a CAC 64 or 64+).
This is not that complicated and also straight from JA.
Keep saying it, but you are straight up trolling. C coins do not have to have ANY PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER and they also DON'T HAVE TO BE OVERGRADED. So, keep reposting this nonsense. Hopefully you don't value this forum because you won't be a participant for long.
Just in case you aren't actually trolling, consider the following metaphor.
You have to be over 5 foot tall to ride the roller coaster. There's a sign and your head must be higher than the line to get on. Sometimes, someone comes along wearing high heels (overgraded) and they sneak through. Sometimes people put gel in their hair and make it stand up (problem) and they sneak through. Sometimes, someone is exactly 5 foot tall and not one hair over. They get to ride the roller coaster, but they are also a C coin because they legitimately made the height but just barely.
My issue in reading @beboplawyer is that his assertions seem like he speaks for CAC as if he knows what they will do. I see no reason to infer that he speaks for the company.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@beboplawyer - I think it will vary depending on series. Us Seated dollar collectors are used to seeing a ton of crap straight graded coins in plastic. But that is not the case with other series. Franklins,mercs,Lincoln’s,Morgan’s etc… JA has no plans to put problem coins in his straight graded plastic.
>
I think if it doesn’t have a sticker and it’s been there it won’t make it into a holder.
If it hasn’t been there it might be a good test. My feeling is if you can tell it was lightly cleaned so will JA.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
Didn’t he also say that a C coin will be given a + designation at the next lower grade? So how will you know if your 66+ is a 66 A or a 67C?
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
You won't! (In theory they should be pretty similar)
As @lermish said, you won’t, and in theory they they should be close to each other.
BUT, JA just announced a few minutes ago that coins that previously had stickers that cross to the new CAC holder will have a CAC sticker embedded in the new CAC holder that shows it originally had a CAC sticker!!!!
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 thought one of JA's stated purposes was to be a one stop shop so collectors and dealers didn't have to send their coins all over the country to unlock their maximum value. Now a coin has to go from PCGS/NGC, to NJ to get a sticker, to Virginia Beach to get a special embedded sticker? Starting to feel a bit gimmicky.
Hey, Tom - I'm all over it! 1st generation holders, samples, luncheon slabs - can't wait!
My sense is the embedded stickers are MAINLY an “accommodation” for those with existing CAC stickers who want to cross, so this way their new holder will “prove” that not only it meets current CAC standards by being in the new CAC holder, but also PREVIOUSLY met CAC standards by having had a CAC sticker.
To me, it’s redundant. A coin in a new CAC holder graded MS65 obviously meets CAC standards for that grade. Having that same coin in a new CAC holder graded MS 65 with an embedded CAC sticker means it met those standards previously too.
As you point out, for those looking to cross coins with no sticker and want an embedded sticker in their new CAC holder, yes, first attempt to get the CAC sticker on the other slab, and if successful, then cross. I think it’s silly, but every collector decides for themselves what they want for their coins. I know for a fact there are MANY things I do with my coins that many knowledgeable collectors think are silly.
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 predict CAC plus coins will explode in value as I doubt there are many A coins that are borderline next grade level coins that JA has mentioned. A coins I would think represent the top 10-15% of coins for that grade level, as most green sticker coins are mainly B or B+ coins.
Could it have been in a PCGS/NGC MS66 holder that was previously considered accurately graded by CAC as a "C" coin and didn't sticker, maybe?
And after CAC grading spreads through the market I can see a new stickering company. Triple S. The Super Strict Standard.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
If you’re correct, that’s good for me, since roughly 50% to 60% of my coins have plus grades with CAC stickers. However, I’m not sure your prediction will be true, since the value of the plus CAC coins are limited based on the value of CAC coins in the next whole grade number. For example, there’s no logical reason why a PCGS 65+ with a CAC should get very close, or even higher in value, than a PCGS 66 with a CAC. Small potential increases? Yes. Giant jumps? I doubt it.
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
Geeeez. My head still hurts from all this.
Just get to a 100 point system and all the TPGs would be happy. Because that is what is happing with A B C
Plus and minus symbols. When the frowney and smile faces go next to the grade. Gee lets
Do a GTG. No sorry guys you don’t get it it in a MS64- * and a 😀 grade
Martin
Yes if anyone cares I’m back from cow camp. To tired to think
My understanding is the embedded stickers in the new CAC holders will only be for coins previously with a CAC sticker. In your example, that 66 C did not have a sticker, so if it crosses in a new CAC holder to 65 or 65+, it won’t get the embedded sticker.
But my point is, so what? That coin in a 65 or 65+ new CAC holder without an embedded sticker STILL MEETS CAC standards for the grade on the holder!
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
What about B-? Or c+, or c-? How complex does it really need to be?
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
I hear what you're saying but I just think when flashy cosmetics like this are available, people will clamor for it. This is actually a little bit surprising to me because JA and his crew always struck me as the ultimate coin guys, meaning their focus was on the coin and the sticker was a necessary tool to bring the focus back to the quality of the coin, not just the grade on the slab. Even as sticker mania raged around them (a mania they created by being so talented), it felt like they never really bought into the hype (e.g., taking every chance to bemoan the amount of 38 D Buffalo nickels and 1940s Mercury dimes they were receiving). This feels like something directly in their control that will end up detracting or at least diverting attention from the coin itself.
Edit: But like you said, likely a case of good businessmen making an accommodation that will be very popular to a segment of the marketplace.
My point is that the coin in a PCGS/NGC MS66 holder that was previously considered accurately graded by CAC as a "C" coin MET CAC standards for the grade on the holder.
Well, that’s the beauty of this whole endeavor eliminating the need for stickers in the first place. Now you will have a product that has reached its full potential and in only one trip.
The Bishop just took the queen (ngc) and put the king in check in one move.
Actually, the CAC standard from Day One is that coins should be “solid for the grade”, and if a coin met that standard (in their opinion), it would get a sticker. So while they say that a problem-free C coin is accurately graded, they are also saying it does not meet their standard as being solid for the grade. Hence “No soup for you!!!!”
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 didn't say anything about meeting their standard as "solid for the grade". I said CAC said that "C" coins (some of them, anyway) are accurately graded.
Copied directly from the CAC website:
If a coin doesn’t receive a CAC sticker, does this mean CAC believes the coin is over-graded?
Absolutely not. There are many coins that are certified accurately for their grade. Unfortunately, it is an inescapable reality that many are at the lower end of the quality range for the assigned grade. CAC’s rejection of a coin does not necessarily mean that CAC believes the coin has been over-graded. It simply means that there are other coins with CAC stickers that are of higher quality for the grade. CAC will eventually reject tens of thousands of accurately graded coins.
Actually, if you look back in this thread, I'm pretty sure I already posted this. Just sayin'.
edited to add... Ok- I think I see what upset you in my previous post. At this point, I don't think it is possible to explain to you what I am trying to say, so I will stop trying. Carry on.
I’m not following your point. I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that you were suggesting a 66 with no CAC sticker, if crossed to the new CAC holder as a 65 or 65+, would have an embedded sticker in that new holder. It will not. If I’m talking about something that you are not talking about, my apologies, please clarify.
Thanks.
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