@cameonut2011 said:
My next serious question: JA started both PCGS and NGC. Why will CACG’s long term fate and grading practices be any different? And to those bringing up CAC the sticker company, it is not a grading service so it would be difficult to draw parallels. And if it will operate like the sticker company, does anyone else see a conflict in buying/selling the coins you grade?
I’m all for a new TPGS, but I hope it is well thought through or it will only create total chaos.
Because JA is still at CAC...
What happens after he leaves is speculation on top of current speculation. You could also simply speculate that PCGS will become the least respected TPGS grading service in 20 years or ceaseto exist entirely... because no one has a crystal ball.
@coinhack said: One of the recurring claims is that PCGS MS65 coins that CAC sees as lower end or C coins will be downgraded to MS64+. Now, on the surface, that may seem to make sense because who wants ugly low end coins anyway. But in reality, coins that have not stickered are not necessarily coins that you might guess would be low end. Many collectors, including quite a few on the board have sent in coins that they bought for their own collections thinking that they were especially nice coins for the grade only to have them come back without a sticker.
This is not an assumption, this came directly from the horses mouth. JA stated that manyproblem free C coins would downgrade to the next lowest grade with a +. It was also stated that some will downgrade to the next lowest grade with no +, or even lower than that. Many other coins will not straight grade at all, whether it be due to damage, cleaning, or other types of surface manipulation.
That sounds like a mere statement that CACG has its own standards and not a statement that all C quality for the grade coins will automatically downgrade as the way it was presented in this thread. There is a BIG difference there.
So, does it really matter? Most of the posters who have claimed that non stickered coins will downgrade say that financially it will not matter because now that the coin is correctly graded in its new CACG holder they will be happy and it will still be worth the same (in dollars, that is). There are many quotes similar to this: " I don’t think the majority of collectors are worrying about the slight differences between a 65C and a 64A, and I doubt that they’ll care if the 65C ends up in a 64+ holder."
It really depends on the coin. What I said was that I don't think theres going to be a line of people ready to accept a downgrade, unless the downgraded coin in the CACG + holder will be of similar value to its former holder. Some collectors are more idealistic, and that small minority may accept downgrades simply because they prefer CAC standards.
Unless the market shows an early preference for CACG (possible but far from guaranteed), there is little incentive to submit for stricter standards from a financial perspective for the submitter, meaning CACG will be severely limiting its own revenue/volume. I’m fine with that except it is just as likely if not more likely CACG will similarly loosen, kill the value of CAC,
and then CAC won’t accomplish its goal and it may cause confusion as collectors and the market sort out the value between CAC the sticker company and CACG which will likely be forced financially to toe the line and acquiesce to grade inflation at least somewhat if it wants to compete financially.
Really? Why didn't PCGS acquiesce to SEGS grading standards?
Did SEGS ever have a large following, particularly of higher value coins? SEGS is pretty much irrelevant to the market. The overwhelming majority of the higher end market (or even low four figure coins and up) end up in PCGS and NGC holders. Both companies have a firm base and reputation. Both companies have reasonably broad acceptance in the market place. Few are going to trade that for CACG unless there is a financial incentive to doing so. And unless there is a financial incentive for submissions, CACG volume and revenue will be limited. CAC will either hold firm (resulting in fewer submissions and revenue) or make itself attractive to submitters. Few are going to have their coins downgraded if that means the coins are worth less.
@coinhack said: One of the recurring claims is that PCGS MS65 coins that CAC sees as lower end or C coins will be downgraded to MS64+. Now, on the surface, that may seem to make sense because who wants ugly low end coins anyway. But in reality, coins that have not stickered are not necessarily coins that you might guess would be low end. Many collectors, including quite a few on the board have sent in coins that they bought for their own collections thinking that they were especially nice coins for the grade only to have them come back without a sticker.
This is not an assumption, this came directly from the horses mouth. JA stated that manyproblem free C coins would downgrade to the next lowest grade with a +. It was also stated that some will downgrade to the next lowest grade with no +, or even lower than that. Many other coins will not straight grade at all, whether it be due to damage, cleaning, or other types of surface manipulation.
That sounds like a mere statement that CACG has its own standards and not a statement that all C quality for the grade coins will automatically downgrade as the way it was presented in this thread. There is a BIG difference there.
So, does it really matter? Most of the posters who have claimed that non stickered coins will downgrade say that financially it will not matter because now that the coin is correctly graded in its new CACG holder they will be happy and it will still be worth the same (in dollars, that is). There are many quotes similar to this: " I don’t think the majority of collectors are worrying about the slight differences between a 65C and a 64A, and I doubt that they’ll care if the 65C ends up in a 64+ holder."
It really depends on the coin. What I said was that I don't think theres going to be a line of people ready to accept a downgrade, unless the downgraded coin in the CACG + holder will be of similar value to its former holder. Some collectors are more idealistic, and that small minority may accept downgrades simply because they prefer CAC standards.
Unless the market shows an early preference for CACG (possible but far from guaranteed), there is little incentive to submit for stricter standards from a financial perspective for the submitter, meaning CACG will be severely limiting its own revenue/volume. I’m fine with that except it is just as likely if not more likely CACG will similarly loosen, kill the value of CAC,
and then CAC won’t accomplish its goal and it may cause confusion as collectors and the market sort out the value between CAC the sticker company and CACG which will likely be forced financially to toe the line and acquiesce to grade inflation at least somewhat if it wants to compete financially.
Really? Why didn't PCGS acquiesce to SEGS grading standards?
Did SEGS ever have a large following, particularly of higher value coins? SEGS is pretty much irrelevant to the market. The overwhelming majority of the higher end market (or even low four figure coins and up) end up in PCGS and NGC holders. Both companies have a firm base and reputation. Both companies have reasonably broad acceptance in the market place. Few are going to trade that for CACG unless there is a financial incentive to doing so. And unless there is a financial incentive for submissions, CACG volume and revenue will be limited. CAC will either hold firm (resulting in fewer submissions and revenue) or make itself attractive to submitters. Few are going to have their coins downgraded if that means the coins are worth less.
So, you're (now) saying that you don't have to acquiesce to looser standards to survive as long as the market accepts you and values you. Glad I convinced you.
@cameonut2011 said:
My next serious question: JA started both PCGS and NGC. Why will CACG’s long term fate and grading practices be any different? And to those bringing up CAC the sticker company, it is not a grading service so it would be difficult to draw parallels. And if it will operate like the sticker company, does anyone else see a conflict in buying/selling the coins you grade?
I’m all for a new TPGS, but I hope it is well thought through or it will only create total chaos.
Because JA is still at CAC...
What happens after he leaves is speculation on top of current speculation. You could also simply speculate that PCGS will become the least respected TPGS grading service in 20 years or ceaseto exist entirely... because no one has a crystal ball.
JA can’t handle a large volume by himself. CAC couldn’t even handle sticker volume (hence the suspension of the economy tier at least twice recently) and now we’re talking about a full fledged grading service? JA also is approaching retirement age. To think this time is going to be different requires a lot of magical thinking. I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it. Again, I’d love to see a third major service compete with the big two and hold firm, but I think the odds of that are small.
@coinhack said: One of the recurring claims is that PCGS MS65 coins that CAC sees as lower end or C coins will be downgraded to MS64+. Now, on the surface, that may seem to make sense because who wants ugly low end coins anyway. But in reality, coins that have not stickered are not necessarily coins that you might guess would be low end. Many collectors, including quite a few on the board have sent in coins that they bought for their own collections thinking that they were especially nice coins for the grade only to have them come back without a sticker.
This is not an assumption, this came directly from the horses mouth. JA stated that manyproblem free C coins would downgrade to the next lowest grade with a +. It was also stated that some will downgrade to the next lowest grade with no +, or even lower than that. Many other coins will not straight grade at all, whether it be due to damage, cleaning, or other types of surface manipulation.
That sounds like a mere statement that CACG has its own standards and not a statement that all C quality for the grade coins will automatically downgrade as the way it was presented in this thread. There is a BIG difference there.
So, does it really matter? Most of the posters who have claimed that non stickered coins will downgrade say that financially it will not matter because now that the coin is correctly graded in its new CACG holder they will be happy and it will still be worth the same (in dollars, that is). There are many quotes similar to this: " I don’t think the majority of collectors are worrying about the slight differences between a 65C and a 64A, and I doubt that they’ll care if the 65C ends up in a 64+ holder."
It really depends on the coin. What I said was that I don't think theres going to be a line of people ready to accept a downgrade, unless the downgraded coin in the CACG + holder will be of similar value to its former holder. Some collectors are more idealistic, and that small minority may accept downgrades simply because they prefer CAC standards.
Unless the market shows an early preference for CACG (possible but far from guaranteed), there is little incentive to submit for stricter standards from a financial perspective for the submitter, meaning CACG will be severely limiting its own revenue/volume. I’m fine with that except it is just as likely if not more likely CACG will similarly loosen, kill the value of CAC,
and then CAC won’t accomplish its goal and it may cause confusion as collectors and the market sort out the value between CAC the sticker company and CACG which will likely be forced financially to toe the line and acquiesce to grade inflation at least somewhat if it wants to compete financially.
Really? Why didn't PCGS acquiesce to SEGS grading standards?
Did SEGS ever have a large following, particularly of higher value coins? SEGS is pretty much irrelevant to the market. The overwhelming majority of the higher end market (or even low four figure coins and up) end up in PCGS and NGC holders. Both companies have a firm base and reputation. Both companies have reasonably broad acceptance in the market place. Few are going to trade that for CACG unless there is a financial incentive to doing so. And unless there is a financial incentive for submissions, CACG volume and revenue will be limited. CAC will either hold firm (resulting in fewer submissions and revenue) or make itself attractive to submitters. Few are going to have their coins downgraded if that means the coins are worth less.
So, you're (now) saying that you don't have to acquiesce to looser standards to survive as long as the market accepts you and values you. Glad I convinced you.
SEGS never had market widespread acceptance or currency. Your comparison is not apt. You might as well have thrown NNC or NTC in there.
Actually, it was made clear by CACG there will be 0% Guarantee Premium on crossovers. So basically just the grading fee and minimal handling fee, plus postage.
Steve
Thank you for making that clarification, Steve! I sometimes have difficulty recalling all the details from the CAC forum discussions, glad your memory is better than mine.
That’s because Steve is on the marketing staff of CAC and CACG!!! 😉😉😉😉
I'm an Unpaid Volunteer, lol.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@coinhack said: One of the recurring claims is that PCGS MS65 coins that CAC sees as lower end or C coins will be downgraded to MS64+. Now, on the surface, that may seem to make sense because who wants ugly low end coins anyway. But in reality, coins that have not stickered are not necessarily coins that you might guess would be low end. Many collectors, including quite a few on the board have sent in coins that they bought for their own collections thinking that they were especially nice coins for the grade only to have them come back without a sticker.
This is not an assumption, this came directly from the horses mouth. JA stated that manyproblem free C coins would downgrade to the next lowest grade with a +. It was also stated that some will downgrade to the next lowest grade with no +, or even lower than that. Many other coins will not straight grade at all, whether it be due to damage, cleaning, or other types of surface manipulation.
That sounds like a mere statement that CACG has its own standards and not a statement that all C quality for the grade coins will automatically downgrade as the way it was presented in this thread. There is a BIG difference there.
No there isn't. Remember, not all coins that fail to sticker are "C" coins. Basically JA is saying that the coins that just miss the mark for 64 (by his standards), get downgraded to the next lowest grade (63+). The coins that are worse, will be graded lower or not at all.
Can we entertain the notion that a "C coin" is just a clever euphemism in place so that JA didn't have to tell his customers that their rejected submissions are either over graded (by his standards), or details coins? lol
Whatever CAC does, I hope they stop stickering really crappy, pitted, and corroded "C-" coins like this one. It might hurt their reputation if collectors find environmentally damaged coins with CAC stickers on them. Original toning is nice, heavy corrosion and pitting is not nice.
@Cougar1978 said:
Well what I would be curious to see -
Dealer A has 700 slabbed coins all USA Classic Coins - Walkers, Dollars, Commmems, Gold, Type. All PCGS / NGC nice coins but not CAC. He is submitter to CACG. He has spreadsheet of his coins priced out at CPG Non CAC. He knows how pick out nice coins. Sends them all to CACG - cross at any grade. Gets them back and inputs to spreadsheet w the CACG grade and valued at CPG CAC MV. Would love to see the delta on that. I bet he probably comes out way in the green assuming he has nice coins. What say ye?
Then at next show he has them all in newly slabbed CACG holders in what 4 display cases? Of course many wb stacked. Impressive display - can you imagine the people crowding around to buy. Agree or disagree? Will the CACG coins come on market via big bang like that?
You forgot the two-four month turnaround where dealer A has nothing to sell.
-----Burton ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
@Barberian said:
Whatever CAC does, I hope they stop stickering really crappy, pitted, and corroded "C-" coins like this one. It might hurt their reputation if collectors find environmentally damaged coins with CAC stickers on them. Original toning is nice, heavy corrosion and pitting is not nice.
Seriously? Your entry into this thread is one example you've found where perhaps something slipped through the cracks? Should I go and find 100 PCGS coins that shouldn't even been holdered in the first place, and post them here?
GRADERS ARE HUMANS, TOO. Mistakes get made. CAC doesn't need to be perfect, they just need to make sure their mistakes are far less frequent than the other guys.
@jmlanzaf said:
They work in teams. Even if you're right and they are individually only 50% correct, the consensus will be fast now accurate from 3 graders + finalizer
Singular team. That's the bottleneck, but required for consistency. Everybody sees every coin and agrees or it goes to the judge of appeals (JA).
-----Burton ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
@jmlanzaf said:
They work in teams. Even if you're right and they are individually only 50% correct, the consensus will be fast now accurate from 3 graders + finalizer
Singular team. That's the bottleneck, but required for consistency. Everybody sees every coin and agrees or it goes to the judge of appeals (JA).
I'm not sure if you're talking about CAC stickering, or the upcoming CAC grading. Regarding the CAC grading, based on what they said on the CAC forum, they will be starting out with the three graders working together on each coin. Only after time, when they believe they're all on the same page, will they then divide up.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
One point not previously raised regarding grading consistency is that CACG will build physical grading sets for each series. This will reinforce grading consistency by allowing graders to use these for reference.
JA said that these sets will periodically displayed at coin shows.
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@Barberian said:
Whatever CAC does, I hope they stop stickering really crappy, pitted, and corroded "C-" coins like this one. It might hurt their reputation if collectors find environmentally damaged coins with CAC stickers on them. Original toning is nice, heavy corrosion and pitting is not nice.
I think you are being a little harsh. It's a VG10 coin. I don't collect early coins so I wouldn't know how to judge them. However, if you feel it's unacceptable based on the picture, that's where you make the decision not to buy it based on your belief that the coin is unattractive..
I turn down gold commemoratives that have CACs on them because I see "bubbling" in their fields. Look at the 3:00 area.
I'm more concerned that CAC catch things that I can't catch.
@Barberian said:
Whatever CAC does, I hope they stop stickering really crappy, pitted, and corroded "C-" coins like this one. It might hurt their reputation if collectors find environmentally damaged coins with CAC stickers on them. Original toning is nice, heavy corrosion and pitting is not nice.
Seriously? Your entry into this thread is one example you've found where perhaps something slipped through the cracks? Should I go and find 100 PCGS coins that shouldn't even been holdered in the first place, and post them here?
GRADERS ARE HUMANS, TOO. Mistakes get made. CAC doesn't need to be perfect, they just need to make sure their mistakes are far less frequent than the other guys.
Yes. Seriously! Sure, you can find a hundred poor coins in PCGS holders as there are many of them.
I generally like CAC coins for their quality and own about a dozen of them already stickered. However, this was a particularly bad oversight by CAC, IMO. This was a "How the hell did this ever straight-grade, let alone sticker?!" sort of mistake. Do you want more? I've got more, though not as egregious as this 1843 half. Some CAC coins you have to see in hand to appreciate just how much the coin has been messed with. Their only saving grace is that they're CAC stickered. CAC seems to be very forgiving of PVC, corrosion and even pitting. CAC should be held accountable, too.
Maybe I can start my own grading approval service for problematic CAC coins, featuring the Turd emoji.
Here's another worthy of a Turd emoji. Do you see the light brown 'stains' on the reverse near the eagle's neck and right wing? Those are the only surfaces that are NOT corroded on this coin. It's one of the worst purchases I've made lately (I should be flogged), but at least it has that CAC sticker going for it, right? And it came in an "Intercept Shield" cardboard package to protect it from corrosion. LOL!
@Barberian said:
Whatever CAC does, I hope they stop stickering really crappy, pitted, and corroded "C-" coins like this one. It might hurt their reputation if collectors find environmentally damaged coins with CAC stickers on them. Original toning is nice, heavy corrosion and pitting is not nice.
Seriously? Your entry into this thread is one example you've found where perhaps something slipped through the cracks? Should I go and find 100 PCGS coins that shouldn't even been holdered in the first place, and post them here?
GRADERS ARE HUMANS, TOO. Mistakes get made. CAC doesn't need to be perfect, they just need to make sure their mistakes are far less frequent than the other guys.
Yes. Seriously! Sure, you can find a hundred poor coins in PCGS holders as there are many of them.
I generally like CAC coins for their quality and own about a dozen of them already stickered. However, this was a particularly bad oversight by CAC, IMO. This was a "How the hell did this ever straight-grade, let alone sticker?!" sort of mistake. Do you want more? I've got more, though not as egregious as this 1843 half. Some CAC coins you have to see in hand to appreciate just how much the coin has been messed with. Their only saving grace is that they're CAC stickered. CAC seems to be very forgiving of PVC, corrosion and even pitting. CAC should be held accountable, too.
Maybe I can start my own grading approval service for problematic CAC coins, featuring the Turd emoji.
Here's another worthy of a Turd emoji. Do you see the light brown 'stains' on the reverse near the eagle's neck and right wing? Those are the only surfaces that are NOT corroded on this coin. It's one of the worst purchases I've made lately (I should be flogged), but at least it has that CAC sticker going for it, right? And it came in an "Intercept Shield" cardboard package to protect it from corrosion. LOL!
Ok, but my comment stands. They don't have to be perfect, they just have to be better. If you were to line up 10 CAC seated coins next to 10 seated CAC rejects, which group do you think are better coins? Just because JA would buy the coin sight unseen, doesn't mean you have to.
@JohnBCoins said:
CACG doesn't have a live web site. These are two separate businesses. That is the CAC stickering business web site you reference. I will not be participating in the stickering portion of the business. I will only be involved in the coin grading portion of the business. If a coin is a 65 then that coin will be either 65 or 65+. That company has an entirely different purpose. I believe it is to designate which coins John Albanese is willing to purchase or make markets. They have purchased well over $500 million of coins since they started stickering. He can do whatever he wants when he stickers coins since its his business on what he is willing to purchase. CACG will not be in the coin buying business. It is a grading company not a coin buying company.
Apologies for my confusion. I haven't read everything on the CAC website and haven't yet encountered anything there that explains that CAC and CACG are two separate businesses.
One of the FAQs for CACG on the CAC website says that previously CAC-stickered coins will have a physical CAC sticker on the insert inside the holder. As a general rule, one wouldn't expect that one company would be putting stickers on the coins that another company is grading, so I hope you can see where some of that confusion is coming from.
@JohnBCoins said:
CACG doesn't have a live web site. These are two separate businesses. That is the CAC stickering business web site you reference. I will not be participating in the stickering portion of the business. I will only be involved in the coin grading portion of the business. If a coin is a 65 then that coin will be either 65 or 65+. That company has an entirely different purpose. I believe it is to designate which coins John Albanese is willing to purchase or make markets. They have purchased well over $500 million of coins since they started stickering. He can do whatever he wants when he stickers coins since its his business on what he is willing to purchase. CACG will not be in the coin buying business. It is a grading company not a coin buying company.
Apologies for my confusion. I haven't read everything on the CAC website and haven't yet encountered anything there that explains that CAC and CACG are two separate businesses.
One of the FAQs for CACG on the CAC website says that previously CAC-stickered coins will have a physical CAC sticker on the insert inside the holder. As a general rule, one wouldn't expect that one company would be putting stickers on the coins that another company is grading, so I hope you can see where some of that confusion is coming from.
@winesteven correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that may have been amended. I believe the ONLY indicator of a previously sticker coin that crossed will be an "L" (legacy) in the serial number. From what Ive read, I thought ALL of the slabs will have an image of a sticker printed on the insert, not a physical sticker.
@Barberian said:
Whatever CAC does, I hope they stop stickering really crappy, pitted, and corroded "C-" coins like this one. It might hurt their reputation if collectors find environmentally damaged coins with CAC stickers on them. Original toning is nice, heavy corrosion and pitting is not nice.
I think you are being a little harsh. It's a VG10 coin. I don't collect early coins so I wouldn't know how to judge them. However, if you feel it's unacceptable based on the picture, that's where you make the decision not to buy it based on your belief that the coin is unattractive..
I turn down gold commemoratives that have CACs on them because I see "bubbling" in their fields. Look at the 3:00 area.
I'm more concerned that CAC catch things that I can't catch.
Yes, this may come across as harsh, but who holds CAC and JA accountable?
I don't own the VG10 CAC 1843 but I have similar PCGS (no CAC) coins with comparable corrosion and pitting on them that, IMO should be graded as "environmentally damaged." I purchased the second coin, though (a VG10 1887) because of its price and scarcity in low grades...and it's CAC stickered to assure quality and good resale value. In fact, the coin sucks and I'm the only one to blame because I knew it sucked regardless of the TPG approval and stickers it had. I should have no problem selling it, though. It has a CAC sticker!
This must be really exciting times for those guys! Just think how that conversation must’ve played out years ago when that sticker was first born and how exciting that must’ve been.
So you’re saying we just stick this green sticker to the outside of the slab and that’s gonna get people excited.
Yes but it’s not just any sticker it’s going to be made from The stickiest sticker sauce that man has ever seen. Yea you can’t even pull it off.
And not just any coin gets them only the best ones approved by Jabba!
When do I get to meet this Jabba guy and what happens to the coins that don’t get a green sticker?
@Barberian said:
Whatever CAC does, I hope they stop stickering really crappy, pitted, and corroded "C-" coins like this one. It might hurt their reputation if collectors find environmentally damaged coins with CAC stickers on them. Original toning is nice, heavy corrosion and pitting is not nice.
Seriously? Your entry into this thread is one example you've found where perhaps something slipped through the cracks? Should I go and find 100 PCGS coins that shouldn't even been holdered in the first place, and post them here?
GRADERS ARE HUMANS, TOO. Mistakes get made. CAC doesn't need to be perfect, they just need to make sure their mistakes are far less frequent than the other guys.
Yes. Seriously! Sure, you can find a hundred poor coins in PCGS holders as there are many of them.
I generally like CAC coins for their quality and own about a dozen of them already stickered. However, this was a particularly bad oversight by CAC, IMO. This was a "How the hell did this ever straight-grade, let alone sticker?!" sort of mistake. Do you want more? I've got more, though not as egregious as this 1843 half. Some CAC coins you have to see in hand to appreciate just how much the coin has been messed with. Their only saving grace is that they're CAC stickered. CAC seems to be very forgiving of PVC, corrosion and even pitting. CAC should be held accountable, too.
Maybe I can start my own grading approval service for problematic CAC coins, featuring the Turd emoji.
Here's another worthy of a Turd emoji. Do you see the light brown 'stains' on the reverse near the eagle's neck and right wing? Those are the only surfaces that are NOT corroded on this coin. It's one of the worst purchases I've made lately (I should be flogged), but at least it has that CAC sticker going for it, right? And it came in an "Intercept Shield" cardboard package to protect it from corrosion. LOL!
Ok, but my comment stands. They don't have to be perfect, they just have to be better. If you were to line up 10 CAC seated coins next to 10 seated CAC rejects, which group do you think are better coins? Just because JA would buy the coin sight unseen, doesn't mean you have to.
Your points are all well received, but, IMO, they have to be better than just "better" on average. These are bad oversights, IMO. Yes, buyer beware.
It's too bad there aren't more low-grade 1887s to choose from. The last one I had my eye on was an AU58 CAC that 'Everyman' and their uncle bid on, and it sold for MS65 money. LOL!
@JohnBCoins said:
CACG doesn't have a live web site. These are two separate businesses. That is the CAC stickering business web site you reference. I will not be participating in the stickering portion of the business. I will only be involved in the coin grading portion of the business. If a coin is a 65 then that coin will be either 65 or 65+. That company has an entirely different purpose. I believe it is to designate which coins John Albanese is willing to purchase or make markets. They have purchased well over $500 million of coins since they started stickering. He can do whatever he wants when he stickers coins since its his business on what he is willing to purchase. CACG will not be in the coin buying business. It is a grading company not a coin buying company.
Apologies for my confusion. I haven't read everything on the CAC website and haven't yet encountered anything there that explains that CAC and CACG are two separate businesses.
One of the FAQs for CACG on the CAC website says that previously CAC-stickered coins will have a physical CAC sticker on the insert inside the holder. As a general rule, one wouldn't expect that one company would be putting stickers on the coins that another company is grading, so I hope you can see where some of that confusion is coming from.
@winesteven correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that may have been amended. I believe the ONLY indicator of a previously sticker coin that crossed will be an "L" (legacy) in the serial number. From what Ive read, I thought ALL of the slabs will have an image of a sticker printed on the insert, not a physical sticker.
Yes, that is my understanding. When coins cross that had a CAC sticker, whether from PCGS or NGC, the CACG cert number will end with the letter “L”, for Legacy.
Somewhere on the holder on the inside, either on the front or back, will be the CAC green oval image.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@DeplorableDan said:
Each of those talking points was used in a different context, but they are both correct. When trying to put it in perspective, by comparing to PCGS or NGC standards or using the "ABC" theory, you could say they're "moving the line". However, the grading service is going to closely mirror the sticker service, which has been rather consistent over the past 15 years. In addition to that, JA was considered to be an authority on grading decades before the inception of CAC. People seem to keep forgetting about gradeflation in this discussion, and as @jmlanzaf posted out, I often read comments lamenting about how the standards have gotten loose over time. JA is "moving the line", but he's moving it back to where he thinks it belongs.
The standards haven't changed. Again, does anyone have any evidence that PCGS photograde has been updated since it was established? What may ebb and flow is grader's interpretation and implementation of those standards.
@Barberian said:
Whatever CAC does, I hope they stop stickering really crappy, pitted, and corroded "C-" coins like this one. It might hurt their reputation if collectors find environmentally damaged coins with CAC stickers on them. Original toning is nice, heavy corrosion and pitting is not nice.
Seriously? Your entry into this thread is one example you've found where perhaps something slipped through the cracks? Should I go and find 100 PCGS coins that shouldn't even been holdered in the first place, and post them here?
GRADERS ARE HUMANS, TOO. Mistakes get made. CAC doesn't need to be perfect, they just need to make sure their mistakes are far less frequent than the other guys.
Even so did this one slip through the cracks? Technically are the flaws acceptable for the grade? When I look at a decision by CAC, pos or neg, I try to look at it through their eyes and what they are seeing. Sure this coin might be perceived as 'crappy' to some but CAC had a reason to bean so maybe not a mistake. Coin looks great for the grade if you ask me, but I am no JA for sure.
@DeplorableDan said:
Each of those talking points was used in a different context, but they are both correct. When trying to put it in perspective, by comparing to PCGS or NGC standards or using the "ABC" theory, you could say they're "moving the line". However, the grading service is going to closely mirror the sticker service, which has been rather consistent over the past 15 years. In addition to that, JA was considered to be an authority on grading decades before the inception of CAC. People seem to keep forgetting about gradeflation in this discussion, and as @jmlanzaf posted out, I often read comments lamenting about how the standards have gotten loose over time. JA is "moving the line", but he's moving it back to where he thinks it belongs.
The standards haven't changed. Again, does anyone have any evidence that PCGS photograde has been updated since it was established? What may ebb and flow is grader's interpretation and implementation of those standards.
"The standards haven't changed"? 🤨
Think back before "photograde", to a time when JA was involved with PCGS or NGC. Rattlers, Doilys, NGC fatties, and gold stickers. A gaggle of dealers that have made a living playing the crackout game and upgrading the same coins over and over for the past 30 years. Some of today's MS67s we're the MS65's of yesteryear. After you take all of these things into consideration, tell me again that your position is that the "standards haven't changed".
The 1843 Half Dollar was purchased raw, sent in to PCGS, then to CAC. I guess both firms made a mistake. No worries though. It will be sent back to CAC for sticker removal, cracked out and placed in my LOC album. I sure do not want anyone to see this horrific coin anymore. 20 rim nicks away from Poor may be more in line.
@coinhack said: One of the recurring claims is that PCGS MS65 coins that CAC sees as lower end or C coins will be downgraded to MS64+. Now, on the surface, that may seem to make sense because who wants ugly low end coins anyway. But in reality, coins that have not stickered are not necessarily coins that you might guess would be low end. Many collectors, including quite a few on the board have sent in coins that they bought for their own collections thinking that they were especially nice coins for the grade only to have them come back without a sticker.
This is not an assumption, this came directly from the horses mouth. JA stated that manyproblem free C coins would downgrade to the next lowest grade with a +. It was also stated that some will downgrade to the next lowest grade with no +, or even lower than that. Many other coins will not straight grade at all, whether it be due to damage, cleaning, or other types of surface manipulation.
That sounds like a mere statement that CACG has its own standards and not a statement that all C quality for the grade coins will automatically downgrade as the way it was presented in this thread. There is a BIG difference there.
So, does it really matter? Most of the posters who have claimed that non stickered coins will downgrade say that financially it will not matter because now that the coin is correctly graded in its new CACG holder they will be happy and it will still be worth the same (in dollars, that is). There are many quotes similar to this: " I don’t think the majority of collectors are worrying about the slight differences between a 65C and a 64A, and I doubt that they’ll care if the 65C ends up in a 64+ holder."
It really depends on the coin. What I said was that I don't think theres going to be a line of people ready to accept a downgrade, unless the downgraded coin in the CACG + holder will be of similar value to its former holder. Some collectors are more idealistic, and that small minority may accept downgrades simply because they prefer CAC standards.
Unless the market shows an early preference for CACG (possible but far from guaranteed), there is little incentive to submit for stricter standards from a financial perspective for the submitter, meaning CACG will be severely limiting its own revenue/volume. I’m fine with that except it is just as likely if not more likely CACG will similarly loosen, kill the value of CAC,
and then CAC won’t accomplish its goal and it may cause confusion as collectors and the market sort out the value between CAC the sticker company and CACG which will likely be forced financially to toe the line and acquiesce to grade inflation at least somewhat if it wants to compete financially.
Really? Why didn't PCGS acquiesce to SEGS grading standards?
Did SEGS ever have a large following, particularly of higher value coins? SEGS is pretty much irrelevant to the market. The overwhelming majority of the higher end market (or even low four figure coins and up) end up in PCGS and NGC holders. Both companies have a firm base and reputation. Both companies have reasonably broad acceptance in the market place. Few are going to trade that for CACG unless there is a financial incentive to doing so. And unless there is a financial incentive for submissions, CACG volume and revenue will be limited. CAC will either hold firm (resulting in fewer submissions and revenue) or make itself attractive to submitters. Few are going to have their coins downgraded if that means the coins are worth less.
So, you're (now) saying that you don't have to acquiesce to looser standards to survive as long as the market accepts you and values you. Glad I convinced you.
SEGS never had market widespread acceptance or currency. Your comparison is not apt. You might as well have thrown NNC or NTC in there.
The point is that it isn't a race to the highest grade. If the market values CACG higher, people will submit, no matter what number is on the holder.
You PCGS fanboys think CAC users drank the koolaid, but you might look in the mirror. All the while, NGC is the largest player.
@Barberian said:
Whatever CAC does, I hope they stop stickering really crappy, pitted, and corroded "C-" coins like this one. It might hurt their reputation if collectors find environmentally damaged coins with CAC stickers on them. Original toning is nice, heavy corrosion and pitting is not nice.
Seriously? Your entry into this thread is one example you've found where perhaps something slipped through the cracks? Should I go and find 100 PCGS coins that shouldn't even been holdered in the first place, and post them here?
GRADERS ARE HUMANS, TOO. Mistakes get made. CAC doesn't need to be perfect, they just need to make sure their mistakes are far less frequent than the other guys.
Yes. Seriously! Sure, you can find a hundred poor coins in PCGS holders as there are many of them.
I generally like CAC coins for their quality and own about a dozen of them already stickered. However, this was a particularly bad oversight by CAC, IMO. This was a "How the hell did this ever straight-grade, let alone sticker?!" sort of mistake. Do you want more? I've got more, though not as egregious as this 1843 half. Some CAC coins you have to see in hand to appreciate just how much the coin has been messed with. Their only saving grace is that they're CAC stickered. CAC seems to be very forgiving of PVC, corrosion and even pitting. CAC should be held accountable, too.
Maybe I can start my own grading approval service for problematic CAC coins, featuring the Turd emoji.
Here's another worthy of a Turd emoji. Do you see the light brown 'stains' on the reverse near the eagle's neck and right wing? Those are the only surfaces that are NOT corroded on this coin. It's one of the worst purchases I've made lately (I should be flogged), but at least it has that CAC sticker going for it, right? And it came in an "Intercept Shield" cardboard package to protect it from corrosion. LOL!
If that's supposed to be a problem coin, you need better pictures.
@DeplorableDan said:
Some of today's MS67s we're the MS65's of yesteryear. After you take all of these things into consideration, tell me again that your position is that the "standards haven't changed".
You don't need standards to change in order for that to happen. Grades are opinions, submit a coin enough times and you'll eventually get a result that's an outlier. If it's on the high side, that coin will never get cracked out again and just about everyone who sees it will attribute the grade to changing standards.
@DeplorableDan said:
Each of those talking points was used in a different context, but they are both correct. When trying to put it in perspective, by comparing to PCGS or NGC standards or using the "ABC" theory, you could say they're "moving the line". However, the grading service is going to closely mirror the sticker service, which has been rather consistent over the past 15 years. In addition to that, JA was considered to be an authority on grading decades before the inception of CAC. People seem to keep forgetting about gradeflation in this discussion, and as @jmlanzaf posted out, I often read comments lamenting about how the standards have gotten loose over time. JA is "moving the line", but he's moving it back to where he thinks it belongs.
The standards haven't changed. Again, does anyone have any evidence that PCGS photograde has been updated since it was established? What may ebb and flow is grader's interpretation and implementation of those standards.
Do you have any evidence that they haven't changed? There is little doubt that there has been some grade inflation since the early days. It is sometimes overstated, but the standard or "interpretation" are definitely looser. And what you have to ignore is that JA founded or cofounded NGC and PCGS and his eye has been the gold standard for 30 years. And now there's CAC. The fact is, people trust JA more than the hedgies running the other places.
@DeplorableDan said:
Some of today's MS67s we're the MS65's of yesteryear. After you take all of these things into consideration, tell me again that your position is that the "standards haven't changed".
You don't need standards to change in order for that to happen. Grades are opinions, submit a coin enough times and you'll eventually get a result that's an outlier. If it's on the high side, that coin will never get cracked out again and just about everyone who sees it will attribute the grade to changing standards.
Yes I agree, but can you agree that the "standards" or the "interpretation of the standards" may have been adjusted a bit since the 80's? Even if it was as little as, say, 1/3 of a grade? 🥸
JA can’t handle a large volume by himself. JA also is approaching retirement age. To think this time is going to be different requires a lot of magical thinking.
I am 53 - I am approaching retirement age - he is pushing life age. Biden is pushing life age. If retirement age is a dirt nap yes correct. I was thinking a warm sand beach that I can smell.
@DeplorableDan said:
Some of today's MS67s we're the MS65's of yesteryear. After you take all of these things into consideration, tell me again that your position is that the "standards haven't changed".
You don't need standards to change in order for that to happen. Grades are opinions, submit a coin enough times and you'll eventually get a result that's an outlier. If it's on the high side, that coin will never get cracked out again and just about everyone who sees it will attribute the grade to changing standards.
Yes I agree, but can you agree that the "standards" or the "interpretation of the standards" may have been adjusted a bit since the 80's? Even if it was as little as, say, 1/3 of a grade? 🥸
The standards should be documented somewhere. To suggest the standards have changed suggests that the documented standards have been updated. Before photograde I 'm not sure if the standards were available to the public and we won't know definitively if they were ever changed, but it seems unlikely. Possible, but unlikely, as the standards are the foundation on which the whole service and reputation of the company is based. That doesn't mean that the anecdotal observations of grade inflation aren't accurate either though. Perhaps a valid explanation could be changes in technology and setup/process. Does anyone know if they still grade coins as shown in this old video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihLDv2Vc02k
JA can’t handle a large volume by himself. JA also is approaching retirement age. To think this time is going to be different requires a lot of magical thinking.
I am 53 - I am approaching retirement age - he is pushing life age. Biden is pushing life age. If retirement age is a dirt nap yes correct. I was thinking a warm sand beach that I can smell.
I won't lie, one of my concerns about CACG would be what were to happen when JA is no longer involved. Im very doubtful that CACG will flop, but he is the backbone of the operation and without him, I don't know exactly how it would play out. I don't know if there's a line of succession in place for that scenario, but whomever is at the helm will have the power to sink the ship, as well as steer the ship into safe waters. As I mentioned in a previous comment, heaven help us if CAC is ever acquired by a large, mercenary entity.
@spacehayduke said:
Even so did this one slip through the cracks? Technically are the flaws acceptable for the grade? When I look at a decision by CAC, pos or neg, I try to look at it through their eyes and what they are seeing. Sure this coin might be perceived as 'crappy' to some but CAC had a reason to bean so maybe not a mistake. Coin looks great for the grade if you ask me, but I am no JA for sure.
Perhaps I don't realize that lots of collectors and graders like corroded coins. Their dark toning suggests they're original and "problem free." I sure did until I became aware of PVC flips, surface corrosion, and pitting on dark coins.
@DeplorableDan said:
Some of today's MS67s we're the MS65's of yesteryear. After you take all of these things into consideration, tell me again that your position is that the "standards haven't changed".
You don't need standards to change in order for that to happen. Grades are opinions, submit a coin enough times and you'll eventually get a result that's an outlier. If it's on the high side, that coin will never get cracked out again and just about everyone who sees it will attribute the grade to changing standards.
Yes I agree, but can you agree that the "standards" or the "interpretation of the standards" may have been adjusted a bit since the 80's?
Sure, that's possible but one would need access to internal PCGS documentation describing such an adjustment to confirm that. Are you aware of anything that PCGS has made public regarding a change in grading standards? I certainly haven't read everything published by PCGS so I could have missed it.
@DeplorableDan said:
Some of today's MS67s we're the MS65's of yesteryear. After you take all of these things into consideration, tell me again that your position is that the "standards haven't changed".
You don't need standards to change in order for that to happen. Grades are opinions, submit a coin enough times and you'll eventually get a result that's an outlier. If it's on the high side, that coin will never get cracked out again and just about everyone who sees it will attribute the grade to changing standards.
Yes I agree, but can you agree that the "standards" or the "interpretation of the standards" may have been adjusted a bit since the 80's? Even if it was as little as, say, 1/3 of a grade? 🥸
The standards should be documented somewhere. To suggest the standards have changed suggests that the documented standards have been updated. Before photograde I 'm not sure if the standards were available to the public and we won't know definitively if they were ever changed, but it seems unlikely. Possible, but unlikely, as the standards are the foundation on which the whole service and reputation of the company is based. That doesn't mean that the anecdotal observations of grade inflation aren't accurate either though. Perhaps a valid explanation could be changes in technology and setup. Does anyone know if they still grade coins as shown in this old video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihLDv2Vc02k
They ARE documented, in the ANA official grading standards that were published in 1977. Here's the standards for an MS 65.
"MS-65 - Shows an attractive high quality of luster and strike for the date and mint. May have a few small scattered contact marks, or two larger marks may be present. One or two small patches of hairlines may show. Noticeable light scuff marks may be seen on the high points of the design. Overall quality is above average and eye appeal is very pleasing. If copper, the coin has some attractive luster with original or darkened color, as designated.
Contact Marks: Light and scattered without major distracting marks in prime focal areas.
Hairlines: May have a few scattered.
Luster: Above average. Fully original.
Eye Appeal: Very pleasing."
None of that is in black and white, and it's all subjective, to a degree. My interpretation of "a few small scattered contact marks" might be different than yours. How many is a few?
As I’ve mentioned a couple of times, CACG will be spending MILLIONS of dollars creating grading sets for each coin type. This is one important measure to keep grading standards from shifting at CACG, either over time, if JA were to retire, or if they were to be bought out.
Separately, they’ll be bringing these grading sets to major coin shows for educational purposes. You can’t beat that!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@DeplorableDan said:
Some of today's MS67s we're the MS65's of yesteryear. After you take all of these things into consideration, tell me again that your position is that the "standards haven't changed".
You don't need standards to change in order for that to happen. Grades are opinions, submit a coin enough times and you'll eventually get a result that's an outlier. If it's on the high side, that coin will never get cracked out again and just about everyone who sees it will attribute the grade to changing standards.
Yes I agree, but can you agree that the "standards" or the "interpretation of the standards" may have been adjusted a bit since the 80's?
Sure, that's possible but one would need access to internal PCGS documentation describing such an adjustment to confirm that. Are you aware of anything that PCGS has made public regarding a change in grading standards? I certainly haven't read everything published by PCGS so I could have missed it.
Come on Mason, we don’t need to debate the validity of gradeflation. I’ve been around for just a couple years, and my comments are based off the widely held belief that grading was a bit tighter back in the day, as evidenced by hundreds of comments I’ve seen on this forum. Must we pick nits?
@DeplorableDan said:
Some of today's MS67s we're the MS65's of yesteryear. After you take all of these things into consideration, tell me again that your position is that the "standards haven't changed".
You don't need standards to change in order for that to happen. Grades are opinions, submit a coin enough times and you'll eventually get a result that's an outlier. If it's on the high side, that coin will never get cracked out again and just about everyone who sees it will attribute the grade to changing standards.
Yes I agree, but can you agree that the "standards" or the "interpretation of the standards" may have been adjusted a bit since the 80's?
Sure, that's possible but one would need access to internal PCGS documentation describing such an adjustment to confirm that. Are you aware of anything that PCGS has made public regarding a change in grading standards? I certainly haven't read everything published by PCGS so I could have missed it.
Come on Mason, we don’t need to debate the validity of gradeflation. I’ve been around for just a couple years, and my comments are based off the widely held belief that grading was a bit tighter back in the day, as evidenced by hundreds of comments I’ve seen on this forum. Must we pick nits?
As I said above, I don't think anyone has stated that gradeflation doesn't exist, but it's an important distinction if the standards have changed, which would be evidenced by documentation somewhere (even if the public are not privy to it), or there has been a change in interpretation and implementation of those standards, as well as process. The video I posted showed the grading stations and talked about graders using a hand held loupe. I don't know if that's still the case but if I were to envision a modern grading station, it would have a large monitor hooked up to some kind of camera/microscope for viewing coins, and different lighting system. These are easily factors that could contribute to change in grading without changing the standards.
People believe all kinds of things. I have a brochure published by Heritage in the 1980s, in which the "Big 3" grading companies are ANACS, NCI and PCGS. NGC did not exist at the time. It describes how coins that are perceived to be a higher grade than they are slabbed at tend to be cracked out and resubmitted until the higher grade is achieved, which is the point I was making: Grading is subjective and over a number of trials, variations can be expected even without a change in standards.
I don't think too much gradeflation had already occurred yet in 1985. What about you?
The video I posted showed the grading stations and talked about graders using a hand held loupe. I don't know if that's still the case but if I were to envision a modern grading station, it would have a large monitor hooked up to some kind of camera/microscope for viewing coins, and different lighting system. These are easily factors that could contribute to change in grading without changing the standards.
If you can't grade a coin in 2-3 seconds you are not good. A loupe is when you are on the edge or doing something like a FB or FS call. You should be able to get 98% of the grade in the first 1/2 second once you see the reverse. You need the correct lighting however.
The nice thing professional graders have is that we (submitters) weeded out the bad ahead of time. Back in the day I use to purchase ballistic bags straight from the mint. You had to grade coins in milliseconds. It takes so long long to go through $5K of lincolns.
@DeplorableDan said:
Some of today's MS67s we're the MS65's of yesteryear. After you take all of these things into consideration, tell me again that your position is that the "standards haven't changed".
You don't need standards to change in order for that to happen. Grades are opinions, submit a coin enough times and you'll eventually get a result that's an outlier. If it's on the high side, that coin will never get cracked out again and just about everyone who sees it will attribute the grade to changing standards.
Yes I agree, but can you agree that the "standards" or the "interpretation of the standards" may have been adjusted a bit since the 80's?
Sure, that's possible but one would need access to internal PCGS documentation describing such an adjustment to confirm that. Are you aware of anything that PCGS has made public regarding a change in grading standards? I certainly haven't read everything published by PCGS so I could have missed it.
Come on Mason, we don’t need to debate the validity of gradeflation. I’ve been around for just a couple years, and my comments are based off the widely held belief that grading was a bit tighter back in the day, as evidenced by hundreds of comments I’ve seen on this forum. Must we pick nits?
As I said above, I don't think anyone has stated that gradeflation doesn't exist, but it's an important distinction if the standards have changed, which would be evidenced by documentation somewhere (even if the public are not privy to it), or there has been a change in interpretation and implementation of those standards, as well as process. The video I posted showed the grading stations and talked about graders using a hand held loupe. I don't know if that's still the case but if I were to envision a modern grading station, it would have a large monitor hooked up to some kind of camera/microscope for viewing coins, and different lighting system. These are easily factors that could contribute to change in grading without changing the standards.
The published standards for grading do not need to change in order for gradeflation, or over-grading to take place. However, the application of said standards does.
JA can’t handle a large volume by himself. JA also is approaching retirement age. To think this time is going to be different requires a lot of magical thinking.
I am 53 - I am approaching retirement age - he is pushing life age. Biden is pushing life age. If retirement age is a dirt nap yes correct. I was thinking a warm sand beach that I can smell.
I won't lie, one of my concerns about CACG would be what were to happen when JA is no longer involved. Im very doubtful that CACG will flop, but he is the backbone of the operation and without him, I don't know exactly how it would play out. I don't know if there's a line of succession in place for that scenario, but whomever is at the helm will have the power to sink the ship, as well as steer the ship into safe waters. As I mentioned in a previous comment, heaven help us if CAC is ever acquired by a large, mercenary entity.
One of the great things about great coins is they tend to outlive their owners, trends, standards, services, etc. Maybe not so much the owner part.
I suspect that in time CACG high end coins will end up in the crackout game. Not a matter of if, just when.
Similar to the situation at Dominion Grading Service, they saw their coins enter the crackout merry-go-round.
Collectors of high end coins eventually sell their coins.
The 1843 Half Dollar was purchased raw, sent in to PCGS, then to CAC. I guess both firms made a mistake. No worries though. It will be sent back to CAC for sticker removal, cracked out and placed in my LOC album. I sure do not want anyone to see this horrific coin anymore. 20 rim nicks away from Poor may be more in line.
I'm sorry that I apparently made your(?) 1843 an example of environmental damage. I have similar coins (above) with environmental damage that I recently submitted that straight graded (to my surprise). Now I wonder if they'll sticker with CAC!! Will this Lafayette dollar with environmental damage discussed in another thread be worthy of a CAC sticker? Many people here didn't think it would even straight-grade.
I very much like the coins you've shown above. I like darker coins with a circ cameo look. But here's my issue - Frankly, several of the coins you've shown here have some environmental damage and pitting as well. Perhaps they get a pass because of their scarcity/value and/or age. That's what I was told by a dealer with respect to the 1887, i.e., that it was "very nice" for a low grade 1887, even though it's been cleaned, has hairlines, has granular, corroded surfaces, an obverse scratch, and either a pit or punch on the reverse.
I love that 1874-CC WB3 for its circ cameo look, but it also shows corrosion. If I were the head of CAC, upon inspection, I may not sticker that coin due to its corrosion. JA may like its originality, discount the corrosion, and sticker it, so you're OK.
I have wanted to write or talk to JA about this trade-off between dark toning and corrosion on coins, and where does one draw the line? When does one accept some porosity to accommodate the minting process, age, and rarity of a coin? On one hand, while dark toning is often indicative of originality, but it's by definition, corrosion, and can hide problems on dark coins.
If that's supposed to be a problem coin, you need better pictures.
These are only NGC certification pictures. Yes, I need high-quality, high-res. pictures to show off this CAC coin's "low quality." Then you'll see the porous surfaces as if it had sat in a soft, juicy flip for a few years.
@DeplorableDan said:
Some of today's MS67s we're the MS65's of yesteryear. After you take all of these things into consideration, tell me again that your position is that the "standards haven't changed".
You don't need standards to change in order for that to happen. Grades are opinions, submit a coin enough times and you'll eventually get a result that's an outlier. If it's on the high side, that coin will never get cracked out again and just about everyone who sees it will attribute the grade to changing standards.
Yes I agree, but can you agree that the "standards" or the "interpretation of the standards" may have been adjusted a bit since the 80's? Even if it was as little as, say, 1/3 of a grade? 🥸
Yes. Grading standards have fluctuated for Seated Liberty halves and Barber halves over the past 15 years or so at the grade ranges I collect. I even have some anecdotal proof of this from a tortuous purchase I made about 5 years ago. I purchased an EF45 CAC 1849 half off of eBay, but the slab was crushed in shipping. Miraculously, the coin was untouched (the Immaculate Compression). It was resubmitted to PCGS and CAC and came back EF40 CAC. During the year delay to get the coin back to me, PCGS had also notably tightened their standards for seated Liberty halves. PCGS's standards for midgrade SLHs had slipped down to NGC standards for a while. In my and PCGS's opinion, this 1849 is now properly graded as PCGS EF40.
@winesteven said:
As I’ve mentioned a couple of times, CACG will be spending MILLIONS of dollars creating grading sets for each coin type. This is one important measure to keep grading standards from shifting at CACG, either over time, if JA were to retire, or if they were to be bought out.
Separately, they’ll be bringing these grading sets to major coin shows for educational purposes. You can’t beat that!
Steve
Don’t PCGS and NGC have grading sets too? I think they do. We at least have PCGS Photograde.
Comments
Because JA is still at CAC...
What happens after he leaves is speculation on top of current speculation. You could also simply speculate that PCGS will become the least respected TPGS grading service in 20 years or ceaseto exist entirely... because no one has a crystal ball.
Did SEGS ever have a large following, particularly of higher value coins? SEGS is pretty much irrelevant to the market. The overwhelming majority of the higher end market (or even low four figure coins and up) end up in PCGS and NGC holders. Both companies have a firm base and reputation. Both companies have reasonably broad acceptance in the market place. Few are going to trade that for CACG unless there is a financial incentive to doing so. And unless there is a financial incentive for submissions, CACG volume and revenue will be limited. CAC will either hold firm (resulting in fewer submissions and revenue) or make itself attractive to submitters. Few are going to have their coins downgraded if that means the coins are worth less.
So, you're (now) saying that you don't have to acquiesce to looser standards to survive as long as the market accepts you and values you. Glad I convinced you.
JA can’t handle a large volume by himself. CAC couldn’t even handle sticker volume (hence the suspension of the economy tier at least twice recently) and now we’re talking about a full fledged grading service? JA also is approaching retirement age. To think this time is going to be different requires a lot of magical thinking. I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it. Again, I’d love to see a third major service compete with the big two and hold firm, but I think the odds of that are small.
SEGS never had market widespread acceptance or currency. Your comparison is not apt. You might as well have thrown NNC or NTC in there.
I'm an Unpaid Volunteer, lol.
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 there isn't. Remember, not all coins that fail to sticker are "C" coins. Basically JA is saying that the coins that just miss the mark for 64 (by his standards), get downgraded to the next lowest grade (63+). The coins that are worse, will be graded lower or not at all.
Can we entertain the notion that a "C coin" is just a clever euphemism in place so that JA didn't have to tell his customers that their rejected submissions are either over graded (by his standards), or details coins? lol
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Whatever CAC does, I hope they stop stickering really crappy, pitted, and corroded "C-" coins like this one. It might hurt their reputation if collectors find environmentally damaged coins with CAC stickers on them. Original toning is nice, heavy corrosion and pitting is not nice.
You forgot the two-four month turnaround where dealer A has nothing to sell.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
Seriously? Your entry into this thread is one example you've found where perhaps something slipped through the cracks? Should I go and find 100 PCGS coins that shouldn't even been holdered in the first place, and post them here?
GRADERS ARE HUMANS, TOO. Mistakes get made. CAC doesn't need to be perfect, they just need to make sure their mistakes are far less frequent than the other guys.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Singular team. That's the bottleneck, but required for consistency. Everybody sees every coin and agrees or it goes to the judge of appeals (JA).
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
I'm not sure if you're talking about CAC stickering, or the upcoming CAC grading. Regarding the CAC grading, based on what they said on the CAC forum, they will be starting out with the three graders working together on each coin. Only after time, when they believe they're all on the same page, will they then divide up.
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
One point not previously raised regarding grading consistency is that CACG will build physical grading sets for each series. This will reinforce grading consistency by allowing graders to use these for reference.
JA said that these sets will periodically displayed at coin shows.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
I think you are being a little harsh. It's a VG10 coin. I don't collect early coins so I wouldn't know how to judge them. However, if you feel it's unacceptable based on the picture, that's where you make the decision not to buy it based on your belief that the coin is unattractive..
I turn down gold commemoratives that have CACs on them because I see "bubbling" in their fields. Look at the 3:00 area.
I'm more concerned that CAC catch things that I can't catch.
Yes. Seriously! Sure, you can find a hundred poor coins in PCGS holders as there are many of them.
I generally like CAC coins for their quality and own about a dozen of them already stickered. However, this was a particularly bad oversight by CAC, IMO. This was a "How the hell did this ever straight-grade, let alone sticker?!" sort of mistake. Do you want more? I've got more, though not as egregious as this 1843 half. Some CAC coins you have to see in hand to appreciate just how much the coin has been messed with. Their only saving grace is that they're CAC stickered. CAC seems to be very forgiving of PVC, corrosion and even pitting. CAC should be held accountable, too.
Maybe I can start my own grading approval service for problematic CAC coins, featuring the Turd emoji.
Here's another worthy of a Turd emoji. Do you see the light brown 'stains' on the reverse near the eagle's neck and right wing? Those are the only surfaces that are NOT corroded on this coin. It's one of the worst purchases I've made lately (I should be flogged), but at least it has that CAC sticker going for it, right? And it came in an "Intercept Shield" cardboard package to protect it from corrosion. LOL!
Ok, but my comment stands. They don't have to be perfect, they just have to be better. If you were to line up 10 CAC seated coins next to 10 seated CAC rejects, which group do you think are better coins? Just because JA would buy the coin sight unseen, doesn't mean you have to.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Apologies for my confusion. I haven't read everything on the CAC website and haven't yet encountered anything there that explains that CAC and CACG are two separate businesses.
One of the FAQs for CACG on the CAC website says that previously CAC-stickered coins will have a physical CAC sticker on the insert inside the holder. As a general rule, one wouldn't expect that one company would be putting stickers on the coins that another company is grading, so I hope you can see where some of that confusion is coming from.
@winesteven correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that may have been amended. I believe the ONLY indicator of a previously sticker coin that crossed will be an "L" (legacy) in the serial number. From what Ive read, I thought ALL of the slabs will have an image of a sticker printed on the insert, not a physical sticker.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Yes, this may come across as harsh, but who holds CAC and JA accountable?
I don't own the VG10 CAC 1843 but I have similar PCGS (no CAC) coins with comparable corrosion and pitting on them that, IMO should be graded as "environmentally damaged." I purchased the second coin, though (a VG10 1887) because of its price and scarcity in low grades...and it's CAC stickered to assure quality and good resale value. In fact, the coin sucks and I'm the only one to blame because I knew it sucked regardless of the TPG approval and stickers it had. I should have no problem selling it, though. It has a CAC sticker!
Dumb Barberian!!!!
This must be really exciting times for those guys! Just think how that conversation must’ve played out years ago when that sticker was first born and how exciting that must’ve been.
So you’re saying we just stick this green sticker to the outside of the slab and that’s gonna get people excited.
Yes but it’s not just any sticker it’s going to be made from The stickiest sticker sauce that man has ever seen. Yea you can’t even pull it off.
And not just any coin gets them only the best ones approved by Jabba!
When do I get to meet this Jabba guy and what happens to the coins that don’t get a green sticker?
Does it matter?
Your points are all well received, but, IMO, they have to be better than just "better" on average. These are bad oversights, IMO. Yes, buyer beware.
It's too bad there aren't more low-grade 1887s to choose from. The last one I had my eye on was an AU58 CAC that 'Everyman' and their uncle bid on, and it sold for MS65 money. LOL!
Yes, that is my understanding. When coins cross that had a CAC sticker, whether from PCGS or NGC, the CACG cert number will end with the letter “L”, for Legacy.
Somewhere on the holder on the inside, either on the front or back, will be the CAC green oval image.
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
The standards haven't changed. Again, does anyone have any evidence that PCGS photograde has been updated since it was established? What may ebb and flow is grader's interpretation and implementation of those standards.
Even so did this one slip through the cracks? Technically are the flaws acceptable for the grade? When I look at a decision by CAC, pos or neg, I try to look at it through their eyes and what they are seeing. Sure this coin might be perceived as 'crappy' to some but CAC had a reason to bean so maybe not a mistake. Coin looks great for the grade if you ask me, but I am no JA for sure.
"The standards haven't changed"? 🤨
Think back before "photograde", to a time when JA was involved with PCGS or NGC. Rattlers, Doilys, NGC fatties, and gold stickers. A gaggle of dealers that have made a living playing the crackout game and upgrading the same coins over and over for the past 30 years. Some of today's MS67s we're the MS65's of yesteryear. After you take all of these things into consideration, tell me again that your position is that the "standards haven't changed".
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
@Barberian
How about a CAC analysis on these:
The 1843 Half Dollar was purchased raw, sent in to PCGS, then to CAC. I guess both firms made a mistake. No worries though. It will be sent back to CAC for sticker removal, cracked out and placed in my LOC album. I sure do not want anyone to see this horrific coin anymore. 20 rim nicks away from Poor may be more in line.
End Systemic Elitism - It Takes All Of Us
The point is that it isn't a race to the highest grade. If the market values CACG higher, people will submit, no matter what number is on the holder.
You PCGS fanboys think CAC users drank the koolaid, but you might look in the mirror. All the while, NGC is the largest player.
If that's supposed to be a problem coin, you need better pictures.
You don't need standards to change in order for that to happen. Grades are opinions, submit a coin enough times and you'll eventually get a result that's an outlier. If it's on the high side, that coin will never get cracked out again and just about everyone who sees it will attribute the grade to changing standards.
@edwardjulio Likes dirty old girls too. Glad I am not alone.
Do you have any evidence that they haven't changed? There is little doubt that there has been some grade inflation since the early days. It is sometimes overstated, but the standard or "interpretation" are definitely looser. And what you have to ignore is that JA founded or cofounded NGC and PCGS and his eye has been the gold standard for 30 years. And now there's CAC. The fact is, people trust JA more than the hedgies running the other places.
Yes I agree, but can you agree that the "standards" or the "interpretation of the standards" may have been adjusted a bit since the 80's? Even if it was as little as, say, 1/3 of a grade? 🥸
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I am 53 - I am approaching retirement age - he is pushing life age. Biden is pushing life age. If retirement age is a dirt nap yes correct. I was thinking a warm sand beach that I can smell.
The standards should be documented somewhere. To suggest the standards have changed suggests that the documented standards have been updated. Before photograde I 'm not sure if the standards were available to the public and we won't know definitively if they were ever changed, but it seems unlikely. Possible, but unlikely, as the standards are the foundation on which the whole service and reputation of the company is based. That doesn't mean that the anecdotal observations of grade inflation aren't accurate either though. Perhaps a valid explanation could be changes in technology and setup/process. Does anyone know if they still grade coins as shown in this old video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihLDv2Vc02k
I won't lie, one of my concerns about CACG would be what were to happen when JA is no longer involved. Im very doubtful that CACG will flop, but he is the backbone of the operation and without him, I don't know exactly how it would play out. I don't know if there's a line of succession in place for that scenario, but whomever is at the helm will have the power to sink the ship, as well as steer the ship into safe waters. As I mentioned in a previous comment, heaven help us if CAC is ever acquired by a large, mercenary entity.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Perhaps I don't realize that lots of collectors and graders like corroded coins. Their dark toning suggests they're original and "problem free." I sure did until I became aware of PVC flips, surface corrosion, and pitting on dark coins.
Sure, that's possible but one would need access to internal PCGS documentation describing such an adjustment to confirm that. Are you aware of anything that PCGS has made public regarding a change in grading standards? I certainly haven't read everything published by PCGS so I could have missed it.
They ARE documented, in the ANA official grading standards that were published in 1977. Here's the standards for an MS 65.
"MS-65 - Shows an attractive high quality of luster and strike for the date and mint. May have a few small scattered contact marks, or two larger marks may be present. One or two small patches of hairlines may show. Noticeable light scuff marks may be seen on the high points of the design. Overall quality is above average and eye appeal is very pleasing. If copper, the coin has some attractive luster with original or darkened color, as designated.
Contact Marks: Light and scattered without major distracting marks in prime focal areas.
Hairlines: May have a few scattered.
Luster: Above average. Fully original.
Eye Appeal: Very pleasing."
None of that is in black and white, and it's all subjective, to a degree. My interpretation of "a few small scattered contact marks" might be different than yours. How many is a few?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
As I’ve mentioned a couple of times, CACG will be spending MILLIONS of dollars creating grading sets for each coin type. This is one important measure to keep grading standards from shifting at CACG, either over time, if JA were to retire, or if they were to be bought out.
Separately, they’ll be bringing these grading sets to major coin shows for educational purposes. You can’t beat that!
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
Come on Mason, we don’t need to debate the validity of gradeflation. I’ve been around for just a couple years, and my comments are based off the widely held belief that grading was a bit tighter back in the day, as evidenced by hundreds of comments I’ve seen on this forum. Must we pick nits?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
As I said above, I don't think anyone has stated that gradeflation doesn't exist, but it's an important distinction if the standards have changed, which would be evidenced by documentation somewhere (even if the public are not privy to it), or there has been a change in interpretation and implementation of those standards, as well as process. The video I posted showed the grading stations and talked about graders using a hand held loupe. I don't know if that's still the case but if I were to envision a modern grading station, it would have a large monitor hooked up to some kind of camera/microscope for viewing coins, and different lighting system. These are easily factors that could contribute to change in grading without changing the standards.
People believe all kinds of things. I have a brochure published by Heritage in the 1980s, in which the "Big 3" grading companies are ANACS, NCI and PCGS. NGC did not exist at the time. It describes how coins that are perceived to be a higher grade than they are slabbed at tend to be cracked out and resubmitted until the higher grade is achieved, which is the point I was making: Grading is subjective and over a number of trials, variations can be expected even without a change in standards.
I don't think too much gradeflation had already occurred yet in 1985. What about you?
Apologies in advance if this is an unwelcome nit.
If you can't grade a coin in 2-3 seconds you are not good. A loupe is when you are on the edge or doing something like a FB or FS call. You should be able to get 98% of the grade in the first 1/2 second once you see the reverse. You need the correct lighting however.
The nice thing professional graders have is that we (submitters) weeded out the bad ahead of time. Back in the day I use to purchase ballistic bags straight from the mint. You had to grade coins in milliseconds. It takes so long long to go through $5K of lincolns.
The published standards for grading do not need to change in order for gradeflation, or over-grading to take place. However, the application of said standards does.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
One of the great things about great coins is they tend to outlive their owners, trends, standards, services, etc. Maybe not so much the owner part.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
I suspect that in time CACG high end coins will end up in the crackout game. Not a matter of if, just when.
Similar to the situation at Dominion Grading Service, they saw their coins enter the crackout merry-go-round.
Collectors of high end coins eventually sell their coins.
I'm sorry that I apparently made your(?) 1843 an example of environmental damage. I have similar coins (above) with environmental damage that I recently submitted that straight graded (to my surprise). Now I wonder if they'll sticker with CAC!! Will this Lafayette dollar with environmental damage discussed in another thread be worthy of a CAC sticker? Many people here didn't think it would even straight-grade.
I very much like the coins you've shown above. I like darker coins with a circ cameo look. But here's my issue - Frankly, several of the coins you've shown here have some environmental damage and pitting as well. Perhaps they get a pass because of their scarcity/value and/or age. That's what I was told by a dealer with respect to the 1887, i.e., that it was "very nice" for a low grade 1887, even though it's been cleaned, has hairlines, has granular, corroded surfaces, an obverse scratch, and either a pit or punch on the reverse.
I love that 1874-CC WB3 for its circ cameo look, but it also shows corrosion. If I were the head of CAC, upon inspection, I may not sticker that coin due to its corrosion. JA may like its originality, discount the corrosion, and sticker it, so you're OK.
I have wanted to write or talk to JA about this trade-off between dark toning and corrosion on coins, and where does one draw the line? When does one accept some porosity to accommodate the minting process, age, and rarity of a coin? On one hand, while dark toning is often indicative of originality, but it's by definition, corrosion, and can hide problems on dark coins.
These are only NGC certification pictures. Yes, I need high-quality, high-res. pictures to show off this CAC coin's "low quality." Then you'll see the porous surfaces as if it had sat in a soft, juicy flip for a few years.
Yes. Grading standards have fluctuated for Seated Liberty halves and Barber halves over the past 15 years or so at the grade ranges I collect. I even have some anecdotal proof of this from a tortuous purchase I made about 5 years ago. I purchased an EF45 CAC 1849 half off of eBay, but the slab was crushed in shipping. Miraculously, the coin was untouched (the Immaculate Compression). It was resubmitted to PCGS and CAC and came back EF40 CAC. During the year delay to get the coin back to me, PCGS had also notably tightened their standards for seated Liberty halves. PCGS's standards for midgrade SLHs had slipped down to NGC standards for a while. In my and PCGS's opinion, this 1849 is now properly graded as PCGS EF40.
Don’t PCGS and NGC have grading sets too? I think they do. We at least have PCGS Photograde.