@jayPem said:
🤯
What would happen if collectors wised up and lost interest in this circus?
What would happen if collectors wised up and realized that they’re leaving money on the table when they (or their heirs) sell coins that probably merit CAC stickers but they chose not to spend the few dollars needed to find out?
Steve
Steve,
Your point here is somewhat moot. No matter how badly I wanted to send a coin to CAC, I, or for that matter, many collectors, couldn't. CAC's policy of not accepting new members shuts that down.
For me, it doesn't matter much. I find that I disagree with CAC most of the time on what a strong coin for the grade should look like in the series I specialize in. I suppose that is because I put a stronger weight on items that the TPGS don't adjust grading for.
Edit: I do, however, agree that if someone has a membership they may indeed be leaving money on the table by not sending them to CAC. Like it or not, it appears CAC does bring a premium for most series.
@DeplorableDan said:
I can certainly understand how dealers weren't happy when CAC first started.
Not just dealers. Plenty of collectors were pissed when CAC started identifying (in their opinion) the better coins since it increased competition (and prices) for these coins. People often don't respond positively to losing out on cherrypicking opportunities.
And, as you can see, many still are angry. It comes out in every CAC thread. It borders on the pathological. I really don't get it.
I'm not interested in VAMs. The existence of VAMs inflates the price of some coins I might otherwise want. I don't go on to every VAM thread and yell about how VAMs are ruining the hobby.
Perhaps you should try it, then - you might like it.😀
I'm resting for the VaultBox 2 release.
I really can't think of a comp. Every innovation had haters when it was born. But CAC hatred is the only one that has persisted this long.
@Pedzola said:
I would like TPGs to operate in a way that is in the best interest of collectors.
No "upgrade only" submissions would keep gradeflation under control by allowing them to correct past errors, and maintain current standards across all submissions.
This assumes that grading errors in one direction only will be corrected. Is that a good thing?
The following may be "duh" but it seems there is a lot of continued ignorance surrounding CAC:
CAC was established to correct grade inflation that has occured over time by establishing a consistent grading standard to ensure there is a distinction noted for coins that are of better quality within a designated grade level. Collectors can now better realize value for their accurately graded and/or premium coins for the grade. The market has endorsed the distinction and price guides have noted the value add.
It was also established to help fight the scammers who doctor coins that find their way into straight graded holders (particularly gold coins).
Many collectors think it unnecessary for such validation, but many do, especially for high value coins. I fail to see how such a service is bad for collectors who wish to pay a small premium to receive CAC's opinion.
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@jayPem said:
🤯
What would happen if collectors wised up and lost interest in this circus?
What would happen if collectors wised up and realized that they’re leaving money on the table when they (or their heirs) sell coins that probably merit CAC stickers but they chose not to spend the few dollars needed to find out?
Steve
Don't get me wrong, I love CAC...
As long as I keep finding nice raw material out in the wild, I'll keep putting it in the right plastic/sticker...
I think we all know how ridiculous our obsession with packaging can get in this hobby... You've got to write yourself a reality check occasionally 😅
@BillJones said:
People here know that I am not a CAC fan. I will thank them for one thing. They discouraged me from collecting U.S. coins which got me into British and Roman Imperial numismatics. Thank you CAC. I’ve had a fun ride, and look forward to continuing it.
You are not alone. South America has my interest, especially want a gold 8 escudo or the like.
I have a CAC gold quarter eagle that I’d like to do a video of me peeling off the green bean. That sacralege would be too much some to handle.
The following may be "duh" but it seems there is a lot of continued ignorance surrounding CAC:
CAC was established to correct grade inflation that has occured over time by establishing a consistent grading standard to ensure there is a distinction noted for coins that are of better quality within a designated grade level. Collectors can now better realize value for their accurately graded and/or premium coins for the grade. The market has endorsed the distinction and price guides have noted the value add.
It was also established to help fight the scammers who doctor coins that find their way into straight graded holders (particularly gold coins).
Many collectors think it unnecessary for such validation, but many do, especially for high value coins. I fail to see how such a service is bad for collectors who wish to pay a small premium to receive CAC's opinion.
My reply (which I’d tried to edit and in doing so, my post disappeared):
It’s not bad for those collectors. However, as I wrote (in part) to someone in a PM very recently:
Some detractors want to believe that they know enough about coins without any help. Of course, they conveniently ignore the fact that they’re already getting help when they buy graded coins.
Some of them don’t like it that they often or usually have to pay more for nicer coins when they’re identified and stickered by CAC.
Some of them are nervous that their non-stickered coins might not be as wonderful as they’d thought.
Some of them don’t like being told by super CAC cheerleaders that their non-CAC coins are second class.
Now please excuse me, while I go get and put on my flame-retardant suit.😬
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Pedzola said:
As a collector I think a lot of issues could be resolved if TPGs took away the ability to specify minimum grades. In other words - every coin that comes through gets a fresh look, including the possibility of a downgrade. Gradeflation exists because you can try a coin 100 times and if 1 time it gets a bump the bump is permanent, with no downside risk (other than the fee). If every crossover or reconsideration had the potential to downgrade your coin then there would be a lot less activity. I would like to see the new CACG operate in this way, including for all currently cac'd coins submitted for the new holders.
It ain’t gonna happen!!!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@Pedzola said:
I would like TPGs to operate in a way that is in the best interest of collectors.
No "upgrade only" submissions would keep gradeflation under control by allowing them to correct past errors, and maintain current standards across all submissions. Over time this would lessen the need for stickers and drive consistency across the industry.
So having the potential for a downgrade is in the best interest of collectors? I understand your point about the example of 1 in a hundred getting an upgrade, but as you imply, the reality is the extreme cost is “the Policeman” in that example. Consistency is the main weapon against gradeflation, and although human with occasional errors, CAC has been very consistent. Separately, it seems that PCGS has tightened the screws over the past several months or so.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@jayPem said:
🤯
What would happen if collectors wised up and lost interest in this circus?
What would happen if collectors wised up and realized that they’re leaving money on the table when they (or their heirs) sell coins that probably merit CAC stickers but they chose not to spend the few dollars needed to find out?
Steve
Steve,
Your point here is somewhat moot. No matter how badly I wanted to send a coin to CAC, I, or for that matter, many collectors, couldn't. CAC's policy of not accepting new members shuts that down.
For me, it doesn't matter much. I find that I disagree with CAC most of the time on what a strong coin for the grade should look like in the series I specialize in. I suppose that is because I put a stronger weight on items that the TPGS don't adjust grading for.
Edit: I do, however, agree that if someone has a membership they may indeed be leaving money on the table by not sending them to CAC. Like it or not, it appears CAC does bring a premium for most series.
Actually, it’s not a moot point, despite the shutdown of Collector memberships. One could have, and still can, submit coins for stickers via a trusted Dealer or trusted person/friend who is a Collector member at their local coin club.
I understand though your point about having the weighting differences in specific areas!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@DeplorableDan said:
I can certainly understand how dealers weren't happy when CAC first started.
Not just dealers. Plenty of collectors were pissed when CAC started identifying (in their opinion) the better coins since it increased competition (and prices) for these coins. People often don't respond positively to losing out on cherrypicking opportunities.
And, as you can see, many still are angry. It comes out in every CAC thread. It borders on the pathological. I really don't get it.
I'm not interested in VAMs. The existence of VAMs inflates the price of some coins I might otherwise want. I don't go on to every VAM thread and yell about how VAMs are ruining the hobby.
Perhaps you should try it, then - you might like it.😀
I'm resting for the VaultBox 2 release.
I really can't think of a comp. Every innovation had haters when it was born. But CAC hated is the only one that has persisted this long.
However, I believe the CAC Hater’s Club has been losing members the last few years, since it appears that demand for coins with CAC stickers has increased! My unofficial sense is that the pricing differential between coins with stickers and those without seems to be increasing too.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@BillJones said:
People here know that I am not a CAC fan. I will thank them for one thing. They discouraged me from collecting U.S. coins which got me into British and Roman Imperial numismatics. Thank you CAC. I’ve had a fun ride, and look forward to continuing it.
You are not alone. South America has my interest, especially want a gold 8 escudo or the like.
I have a CAC gold quarter eagle that I’d like to do a video of me peeling off the green bean. That sacralege would be too much some to handle.
Actually, hardly any of us would care. Be my guest…..
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@DeplorableDan said:
I can certainly understand how dealers weren't happy when CAC first started.
Not just dealers. Plenty of collectors were pissed when CAC started identifying (in their opinion) the better coins since it increased competition (and prices) for these coins. People often don't respond positively to losing out on cherrypicking opportunities.
And, as you can see, many still are angry. It comes out in every CAC thread. It borders on the pathological. I really don't get it.
I'm not interested in VAMs. The existence of VAMs inflates the price of some coins I might otherwise want. I don't go on to every VAM thread and yell about how VAMs are ruining the hobby.
Perhaps you should try it, then - you might like it.😀
I'm resting for the VaultBox 2 release.
I really can't think of a comp. Every innovation had haters when it was born. But CAC hated is the only one that has persisted this long.
However, I believe the CAC Hater’s Club has been losing members the last few years, since it appears that demand for coins with CAC stickers has increased! My unofficial sense is that the pricing differential between coins with stickers and those without seems to be increasing too.
Steve
I don't think it's losing members. I do think the CAC premiums have increased (which fuels many CAC haters.) But you don't need the haters to wane for that to happen. You just need the lovers to swoon more deeply.
My reply (which I’d tried to edit and in doing so, my post disappeared):
It’s not bad for those collectors. However, as I wrote (in part) to someone in a PM very recently:
Some detractors want to believe that they know enough about coins without any help. Of course, they conveniently ignore the fact that they’re already getting help when they buy graded coins.
Some of them don’t like it that they often or usually have to pay more for nicer coins when they’re identified and stickered by CAC.
Some of them are nervous that their non-stickered coins might not be as wonderful as they’d thought.
Some of them don’t like being told by super CAC cheerleaders that their non-CAC coins are second class.
Now please excuse me, while I go get and put on my flame-retardant suit.😬
+1 (one of your lines above was made bold by me).
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
"Some of them are nervous that their non-stickered coins might not be as wonderful as they’d thought."
Also possible- Some of them are nervous that they might not be able to convince others that their non-stickered coins are as wonderful as they’d thought.
@Eric_Babula said:
Don't forget MACge stickering PCGS, NGC and CACG holders!
Can I, PLEASE
@cameonut2011 said:
Someone please explain this to me. How is CAC going to pretend that problem free C coins don’t exist or is it going to undergrade them? If the former as I suspect, how is CACG any different from PCGS or NGC, both of which JA also had a hand in forming? If it is just another grading service then why wouldn’t a sticker designating the “A” and “B” coins still be relevant unless that was all a marketing gimmick from the beginning? I’m so confused.
Interesting question, and one I have not seen addressed. They might simply refuse to slab coins that don't meet their standards, instead of net grading which services have tried over time.
@Pedzola said:
I would like TPGs to operate in a way that is in the best interest of collectors.
That's about the funniest thing I've seen today.
-----Burton ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
The following may be "duh" but it seems there is a lot of continued ignorance surrounding CAC:
CAC was established to correct grade inflation that has occured over time by establishing a consistent grading standard to ensure there is a distinction noted for coins that are of better quality within a designated grade level. Collectors can now better realize value for their accurately graded and/or premium coins for the grade. The market has endorsed the distinction and price guides have noted the value add.
It was also established to help fight the scammers who doctor coins that find their way into straight graded holders (particularly gold coins).
Many collectors think it unnecessary for such validation, but many do, especially for high value coins. I fail to see how such a service is bad for collectors who wish to pay a small premium to receive CAC's opinion.
My reply (which I’d tried to edit and in doing so, my post disappeared):
It’s not bad for those collectors. However, as I wrote (in part) to someone in a PM very recently:
Some detractors want to believe that they know enough about coins without any help. Of course, they conveniently ignore the fact that they’re already getting help when they buy graded coins.
Some of them don’t like it that they often or usually have to pay more for nicer coins when they’re identified and stickered by CAC.
Some of them are nervous that their non-stickered coins might not be as wonderful as they’d thought.
Some of them don’t like being told by super CAC cheerleaders that their non-CAC coins are second class.
Now please excuse me, while I go get and put on my flame-retardant suit.😬
@cameonut2011 said:
Someone please explain this to me. How is CAC going to pretend that problem free C coins don’t exist or is it going to undergrade them? If the former as I suspect, how is CACG any different from PCGS or NGC, both of which JA also had a hand in forming? If it is just another grading service then why wouldn’t a sticker designating the “A” and “B” coins still be relevant unless that was all a marketing gimmick from the beginning? I’m so confused.
Interesting question, and one I have not seen addressed. They might simply refuse to slab coins that don't meet their standards, instead of net grading which services have tried over time.
Why would a problem-free coin need to be net graded?
I believe JA has indicated they’ll cross defect-free “C” coins at one grade lower, but with a plus. For example, most defect-free 65 “C” coins would likely get graded in a new CACG holder as 64+, but SOME would get graded lower.
I believe CACG will be offering to remove PVC when they believe it's possible. Unfortunately, it appears over dipped and artificially toned coins will end up as the dirty little secret "D" (for Details) coins.
I'm not interested in VAMs. The existence of VAMs inflates the price of some coins I might otherwise want. I don't go on to every VAM thread and yell about how VAMs are ruining the hobby.
Perhaps you should try it, then - you might like it.😀
@JimTyler said:
Pretty clear the next gimmick. Stickers on CAC holders.
I can see PCGS offering a similar stickering service some day for coins in NGC or CACG slabs. Those coins that meet the strict PCGS standards would earn the PCGS sticker and those coins would then be allowed to be included in the PCGS registry sets. NGC could follow suit and offer a similar stickering service for PCGS and CAC slabs. It would be a popular service and would be an easy money maker.
Don't forget MACge stickering PCGS, NGC and CACG holders!
Eagle eye for Indians. I don't like having t pay so much but at the end of the day that is my call. If I did not think it was worth it I would not pay for it, I think it is worth it and I pay. My customers do not like paying me, however it is worth it to them. I just broke my hand yesterday (dog bite effing crunched it). My buddy is an Orthopedic surgeon - so I pay so I can use my hand again.
I think some purist collectors believe only CAC coins are worthwhile, but that net graded TPG coins are worthless like the plague. I own mostly CAC coins but I own a few very attractive net graded coins that have slight high point friction/or hairlines but have great eye appeal.
Why should these AU 63/64 coins be lowered to AU 58+ just to satisfy the purists of the coin universe. I think a person can collect what ever suits their taste without being told only technical grading is the right way we need to go in the future.
@Walkerlover said:
I think some purist collectors believe only CAC coins are worthwhile, but that net graded TPG coins are worthless like the plague. I own mostly CAC coins but I own a few very attractive net graded coins that have slight high point friction/or hairlines but have great eye appeal.
Why should these AU 63/64 coins be lowered to AU 58+ just to satisfy the purists of the coin universe. I think a person can collect what ever suits their taste without being told only technical grading is the right way we need to go in the future.
Who said anything about net graded coins being worthless? The coins in MS holders that CAC downgrades to a 58+ will probably be the most attractive circulated coins on the market. You're free to collect them as you see fit, and you'll probably spend way less than you would buying the same coin in a MS63 holder. The word "uncirculated", as defined by Merriam-Webster, means "issued for use as money but showing no evidence of circulation". Wouldn't you consider that it might benefit the hobby if the grading standards were not loosely defined, and inexperienced collectors don't get burned buying a 58 in a 63 holder? My opinion is that we should keep the grading consistent across the board (even if it's a key date ), and let the market determine what the price should be.
@Walkerlover said:
I think some purist collectors believe only CAC coins are worthwhile, but that net graded TPG coins are worthless like the plague. I own mostly CAC coins but I own a few very attractive net graded coins that have slight high point friction/or hairlines but have great eye appeal.
Why should these AU 63/64 coins be lowered to AU 58+ just to satisfy the purists of the coin universe. I think a person can collect what ever suits their taste without being told only technical grading is the right way we need to go in the future.
You can love that coin as a 58. Why do you need it to be a 63 to love it. You want it to market value not just be pretty.
Why should the market bend to your greed? Isn't that the real problem? The TPGs don't tell the market how to behave. They respond to what the market wants. The success of CAC actually speaks to a desire to get back to stricter grading.
We see the opposite posts here so the time. "How can that be a 66?" "How can that be a straight grade?" "I'd only buy that 65 as a 63?" Etc.
@cameonut2011 said:
Someone please explain this to me. How is CAC going to pretend that problem free C coins don’t exist or is it going to undergrade them? If the former as I suspect, how is CACG any different from PCGS or NGC, both of which JA also had a hand in forming? If it is just another grading service then why wouldn’t a sticker designating the “A” and “B” coins still be relevant unless that was all a marketing gimmick from the beginning? I’m so confused.
Right or wrong, I believe JA has indicated they’ll cross defect-free “C” coins at one grade lower, but with a plus. For example, most defect-free 65 “C” coins would likely get graded in a new CACG holder as 64+, but SOME would get graded lower. Submission forms for crossing would allow submitters to specify the lowest grade they would accept, including saying only to cross at a higher grade, or to cross at any grade.
Steve
This is just going to make it worse because we’ll be mixing 65C coins with high end 64 coins with a greater frequency than occurs through normal subjectivity in grading. This will result to large swings within the grade and price guides will be hopelessly confused as coins are either drug down by the “regular 64+” or regular 64+ coins may receive artificial increases from 65 coins that were downgraded. True enough, some of this occurs anyway, but the new service will only increase the frequency and magnify the results.
I had high hopes that CACG would be a new full fledge grading service that would consistently hold the line to fight grade inflation. Instead, it appears it will be just as inconsistent as the other services and perhaps even more so by design. What’s more, CAC has historically been vague about designations and sticker meanings and it looks that the lack of detail will carry over to the new venture. Collectors shouldn’t need to call or visit the CAC forums to know what the grade or label means. The standards should be concise, explicit, unambiguous (to the maximum extent possible), and published for all to see. I am very disappointed.
@Walkerlover said:
I think some purist collectors believe only CAC coins are worthwhile, but that net graded TPG coins are worthless like the plague. I own mostly CAC coins but I own a few very attractive net graded coins that have slight high point friction/or hairlines but have great eye appeal.
Why should these AU 63/64 coins be lowered to AU 58+ just to satisfy the purists of the coin universe. I think a person can collect what ever suits their taste without being told only technical grading is the right way we need to go in the future.
Who said anything about net graded coins being worthless? The coins in MS holders that CAC downgrades to a 58+ will probably be the most attractive circulated coins on the market. You're free to collect them as you see fit, and you'll probably spend way less than you would buying the same coin in a MS63 holder. The word "uncirculated", as defined by Merriam-Webster, means "issued for use as money but showing no evidence of circulation". Wouldn't you consider that it might benefit the hobby if the grading standards were not loosely defined, and inexperienced collectors don't get burned buying a 58 in a 63 holder? My opinion is that we should keep the grading consistent across the board (even if it's a key date ), and let the market determine what the price should be.
The type of Net Graded coins I am talking about are MS 63 and 64 coins that would have graded MS 65 and MS 66 respectively if not for so slight high point rub or minute hairlines. It would be a travesty to downgrade them to AU 58+. These are the exceptional AU 63 and 64 coins so to speak
This is just going to make it worse because we’ll be mixing 65C coins with high end 64 coins with a greater frequency than occurs through normal subjectivity in grading. This will result to large swings within the grade and price guides will be hopelessly confused as coins are either drug down by the “regular 64+” or regular 64+ coins may receive artificial increases from 65 coins that were downgraded. True enough, some of this occurs anyway, but the new service will only increase the frequency and magnify the results.
Referring to "C" coins was part of CAC's original, diplomatic mission statement. As clarified by winesteven in this subject string
@winesteven said:
I believe JA has indicated they’ll cross defect-free “C” coins at one grade lower, but with a plus. For example, most defect-free 65 “C” coins would likely get graded in a new CACG holder as 64+, but SOME would get graded lower.
This is just going to make it worse because we’ll be mixing 65C coins with high end 64 coins with a greater frequency than occurs through normal subjectivity in grading. This will result to large swings within the grade and price guides will be hopelessly confused as coins are either drug down by the “regular 64+” or regular 64+ coins may receive artificial increases from 65 coins that were downgraded. True enough, some of this occurs anyway, but the new service will only increase the frequency and magnify the results.
Referring to "C" coins was part of CAC's original, diplomatic mission statement. As clarified by winesteven in this subject string
@winesteven said:
I believe JA has indicated they’ll cross defect-free “C” coins at one grade lower, but with a plus. For example, most defect-free 65 “C” coins would likely get graded in a new CACG holder as 64+, but SOME would get graded lower.
At CACG there will be no "C" coins.
You’re playing a game of semantics. There will always be 65 C coins even if you shove them in 64+ holders. If we do that are we also calling 64+ coins 64+? This is only going to complicate things. Throw 65 C coins in a 65C labeled holder.
You’re playing a game of semantics. There will always be 65 C coins even if you shove them in 64+ holders. If we do that are we also calling 64+ coins 64+? This is only going to complicate things. Throw 65 C coins in a 65C labeled holder.
Having three levels of grades in each tier (four with details coins) instead of two is always a consideration. If you feel strongly about this, write a letter to CACG. advocating your point of view.
I’m looking forward to cac beginning as a grading service and sunsetting their “beans”. Just less hoops to jump through for both collectors and dealers.
@MasonG said:
Why would a problem-free coin need to be net graded?
Because, while the coin grades say MS65, it's a C coin. @winesteven found the answer which I had missed...
@winesteven said:
I believe JA has indicated they’ll cross defect-free “C” coins at one grade lower, but with a plus. For example, most defect-free 65 “C” coins would likely get graded in a new CACG holder as 64+, but SOME would get graded lower.
If this isn't net grading, then what is?
-----Burton ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
It’s a moot issue for me. I have no CAC material nor much interested in investing in it (unless walkup seller my table at show, buy it right). If I were him I would shut down the sticker thing (business consistency, management, and cost control) either once the TPG online or after some fixed period like 60 days. Then submitters would go thru a CAC dealer for submission or something like individual submission like PCGS, NGC. There would no longer be a free ride on submissions that did not cross, get straight graded, etc. Any crossovers would be reviewed based on their current condition:
As far as stickered material crossing to the TPG material the submitted item would be reviewed (I would think) and if having gone bad in the holder (reaction to atmosphere) downgraded, body bagged accordingly. TPG grading is a point in time. It seems a lot of them in here are ignorant of that. Investors expect the submitted item be reviewed based on its condition at point in time of current review not some rubber stamping of what it got years ago. Reaction to the atmosphere, heat, humidity is a reality not a joke. Carefully look at the coin offered and evaluate it on its own merits. Current problems may not have been present at time of grading.
@cameonut2011 said:
Someone please explain this to me. How is CAC going to pretend that problem free C coins don’t exist or is it going to undergrade them? If the former as I suspect, how is CACG any different from PCGS or NGC, both of which JA also had a hand in forming? If it is just another grading service then why wouldn’t a sticker designating the “A” and “B” coins still be relevant unless that was all a marketing gimmick from the beginning? I’m so confused.
Right or wrong, I believe JA has indicated they’ll cross defect-free “C” coins at one grade lower, but with a plus. For example, most defect-free 65 “C” coins would likely get graded in a new CACG holder as 64+, but SOME would get graded lower. Submission forms for crossing would allow submitters to specify the lowest grade they would accept, including saying only to cross at a higher grade, or to cross at any grade.
Steve
This is just going to make it worse because we’ll be mixing 65C coins with high end 64 coins with a greater frequency than occurs through normal subjectivity in grading. This will result to large swings within the grade and price guides will be hopelessly confused as coins are either drug down by the “regular 64+” or regular 64+ coins may receive artificial increases from 65 coins that were downgraded. True enough, some of this occurs anyway, but the new service will only increase the frequency and magnify the results.
I had high hopes that CACG would be a new full fledge grading service that would consistently hold the line to fight grade inflation. Instead, it appears it will be just as inconsistent as the other services and perhaps even more so by design. What’s more, CAC has historically been vague about designations and sticker meanings and it looks that the lack of detail will carry over to the new venture. Collectors shouldn’t need to call or visit the CAC forums to know what the grade or label means. The standards should be concise, explicit, unambiguous (to the maximum extent possible), and published for all to see. I am very disappointed.
Those are not 2 types of coins as long as long as they are not slabbing problem coin. A 65 C is a 64+. Just because a TPGS with looser standards called the 64+ a 65 didn't create a different coin altogether.
@MasonG said:
Why would a problem-free coin need to be net graded?
Because, while the coin grades say MS65, it's a C coin. @winesteven found the answer which I had missed...
@winesteven said:
I believe JA has indicated they’ll cross defect-free “C” coins at one grade lower, but with a plus. For example, most defect-free 65 “C” coins would likely get graded in a new CACG holder as 64+, but SOME would get graded lower.
If this isn't net grading, then what is?
That's not "net grading". Net grading is when you have a coin that is otherwise a 66 but had a problem (cabinet friction, old cleaning, light scratch etc). Such a coin should be a 58 or a details grade or maybe a 61 or 62. But they "net graded" or "market graded" it as a 64.
Whether a DEFECT FREE 65C is in a 64+ or 65 holder is a question of the TPGS standards and where they put the line.
A 65C that is "net graded" ends up in a body bag or a 58 holder but much lower than 64+.
@cameonut2011 said:
Someone please explain this to me. How is CAC going to pretend that problem free C coins don’t exist or is it going to undergrade them? If the former as I suspect, how is CACG any different from PCGS or NGC, both of which JA also had a hand in forming? If it is just another grading service then why wouldn’t a sticker designating the “A” and “B” coins still be relevant unless that was all a marketing gimmick from the beginning? I’m so confused.
Right or wrong, I believe JA has indicated they’ll cross defect-free “C” coins at one grade lower, but with a plus. For example, most defect-free 65 “C” coins would likely get graded in a new CACG holder as 64+, but SOME would get graded lower. Submission forms for crossing would allow submitters to specify the lowest grade they would accept, including saying only to cross at a higher grade, or to cross at any grade.
Steve
This is just going to make it worse because we’ll be mixing 65C coins with high end 64 coins with a greater frequency than occurs through normal subjectivity in grading. This will result to large swings within the grade and price guides will be hopelessly confused as coins are either drug down by the “regular 64+” or regular 64+ coins may receive artificial increases from 65 coins that were downgraded. True enough, some of this occurs anyway, but the new service will only increase the frequency and magnify the results.
I had high hopes that CACG would be a new full fledge grading service that would consistently hold the line to fight grade inflation. Instead, it appears it will be just as inconsistent as the other services and perhaps even more so by design. What’s more, CAC has historically been vague about designations and sticker meanings and it looks that the lack of detail will carry over to the new venture. Collectors shouldn’t need to call or visit the CAC forums to know what the grade or label means. The standards should be concise, explicit, unambiguous (to the maximum extent possible), and published for all to see. I am very disappointed.
Those are not 2 types of coins as long as long as they are not slabbing problem coin. A 65 C is a 64+. Just because a TPGS with looser standards called the 64+ a 65 didn't create a different coin altogether.
Then what is a 64+? What does the current iteration of the plus designation mean and why is CAC adopting it? Are the current 64+ going into straight 64 holders with CACG and the plus being saved for the C level coins from the grade above?
I also don’t see the plus designation as the sequelae of grade inflation. The purpose of the plus designation with the big 2 is to compete with CAC to identify high end for the grade coins (although it is purportedly even more exacting and would seemingly be limited to grade “A” material).
@Walkerlover said:
I think some purist collectors believe only CAC coins are worthwhile, but that net graded TPG coins are worthless like the plague. I own mostly CAC coins but I own a few very attractive net graded coins that have slight high point friction/or hairlines but have great eye appeal.
Why should these AU 63/64 coins be lowered to AU 58+ just to satisfy the purists of the coin universe. I think a person can collect what ever suits their taste without being told only technical grading is the right way we need to go in the future.
Who said anything about net graded coins being worthless? The coins in MS holders that CAC downgrades to a 58+ will probably be the most attractive circulated coins on the market. You're free to collect them as you see fit, and you'll probably spend way less than you would buying the same coin in a MS63 holder. The word "uncirculated", as defined by Merriam-Webster, means "issued for use as money but showing no evidence of circulation". Wouldn't you consider that it might benefit the hobby if the grading standards were not loosely defined, and inexperienced collectors don't get burned buying a 58 in a 63 holder? My opinion is that we should keep the grading consistent across the board (even if it's a key date ), and let the market determine what the price should be.
The type of Net Graded coins I am talking about are MS 63 and 64 coins that would have graded MS 65 and MS 66 respectively if not for so slight high point rub or minute hairlines. It would be a travesty to downgrade them to AU 58+. These are the exceptional AU 63 and 64 coins so to speak
But if the pretty coin is actually a 58, why should it be in a 64 holder? There are a lot of AU58 coins that are better looking than 63 coins now. Do you want to bump them up?
@cameonut2011 said:
Someone please explain this to me. How is CAC going to pretend that problem free C coins don’t exist or is it going to undergrade them? If the former as I suspect, how is CACG any different from PCGS or NGC, both of which JA also had a hand in forming? If it is just another grading service then why wouldn’t a sticker designating the “A” and “B” coins still be relevant unless that was all a marketing gimmick from the beginning? I’m so confused.
Right or wrong, I believe JA has indicated they’ll cross defect-free “C” coins at one grade lower, but with a plus. For example, most defect-free 65 “C” coins would likely get graded in a new CACG holder as 64+, but SOME would get graded lower. Submission forms for crossing would allow submitters to specify the lowest grade they would accept, including saying only to cross at a higher grade, or to cross at any grade.
Steve
This is just going to make it worse because we’ll be mixing 65C coins with high end 64 coins with a greater frequency than occurs through normal subjectivity in grading. This will result to large swings within the grade and price guides will be hopelessly confused as coins are either drug down by the “regular 64+” or regular 64+ coins may receive artificial increases from 65 coins that were downgraded. True enough, some of this occurs anyway, but the new service will only increase the frequency and magnify the results.
I had high hopes that CACG would be a new full fledge grading service that would consistently hold the line to fight grade inflation. Instead, it appears it will be just as inconsistent as the other services and perhaps even more so by design. What’s more, CAC has historically been vague about designations and sticker meanings and it looks that the lack of detail will carry over to the new venture. Collectors shouldn’t need to call or visit the CAC forums to know what the grade or label means. The standards should be concise, explicit, unambiguous (to the maximum extent possible), and published for all to see. I am very disappointed.
Those are not 2 types of coins as long as long as they are not slabbing problem coin. A 65 C is a 64+. Just because a TPGS with looser standards called the 64+ a 65 didn't create a different coin altogether.
Then what is the current iteration of the plus designation? The purpose of the plus designation is to compete with CAC to identify high end for the grade coins (although it is purportedly even more exacting and would seemingly be limited to grade “A” material).
The + is creating a 100 point grading scale. It's a continuum. It's really a question of where you draw the lines and what you designate them. But a 64 A is either equivalent to or slightly worse than a 65 C. It's not, as you suggest, in a separate category. Personally, I doubt many people can easily distinguish a 65-, 65, and 65+. But 64, 64+, 65-, 65, etc are gradations of one continuous scale. Denoting a 65- (65C) to 64+ is just about where you draw the line. They essentially only have 2 gradations now, it's just a question of where you put the line. PCGS puts 64 and 64- in the 64 bucket and then 64+. Is doing the same thing but moving the line so 64+ and 65- are in the same bucket and 65 is in the other bucket.
I'm fewer words, CACG is talking about tightening up grading standards by about 1/3 of a grade.
@Walkerlover said:
I think some purist collectors believe only CAC coins are worthwhile, but that net graded TPG coins are worthless like the plague. I own mostly CAC coins but I own a few very attractive net graded coins that have slight high point friction/or hairlines but have great eye appeal.
Why should these AU 63/64 coins be lowered to AU 58+ just to satisfy the purists of the coin universe. I think a person can collect what ever suits their taste without being told only technical grading is the right way we need to go in the future.
Who said anything about net graded coins being worthless? The coins in MS holders that CAC downgrades to a 58+ will probably be the most attractive circulated coins on the market. You're free to collect them as you see fit, and you'll probably spend way less than you would buying the same coin in a MS63 holder. The word "uncirculated", as defined by Merriam-Webster, means "issued for use as money but showing no evidence of circulation". Wouldn't you consider that it might benefit the hobby if the grading standards were not loosely defined, and inexperienced collectors don't get burned buying a 58 in a 63 holder? My opinion is that we should keep the grading consistent across the board (even if it's a key date ), and let the market determine what the price should be.
The type of Net Graded coins I am talking about are MS 63 and 64 coins that would have graded MS 65 and MS 66 respectively if not for so slight high point rub or minute hairlines. It would be a travesty to downgrade them to AU 58+. These are the exceptional AU 63 and 64 coins so to speak
But if the pretty coin is actually a 58, why should it be in a 64 holder? There are a lot of AU58 coins that are better looking than 63 coins now. Do you want to bump them up?
Agreed. If there’s any “travesty” involved, I think it’s the grading of a coin with slight wear/rub as a 63 or higher rather than grading it 58+.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Walkerlover said:
I think some purist collectors believe only CAC coins are worthwhile, but that net graded TPG coins are worthless like the plague. I own mostly CAC coins but I own a few very attractive net graded coins that have slight high point friction/or hairlines but have great eye appeal.
Why should these AU 63/64 coins be lowered to AU 58+ just to satisfy the purists of the coin universe. I think a person can collect what ever suits their taste without being told only technical grading is the right way we need to go in the future.
Who said anything about net graded coins being worthless? The coins in MS holders that CAC downgrades to a 58+ will probably be the most attractive circulated coins on the market. You're free to collect them as you see fit, and you'll probably spend way less than you would buying the same coin in a MS63 holder. The word "uncirculated", as defined by Merriam-Webster, means "issued for use as money but showing no evidence of circulation". Wouldn't you consider that it might benefit the hobby if the grading standards were not loosely defined, and inexperienced collectors don't get burned buying a 58 in a 63 holder? My opinion is that we should keep the grading consistent across the board (even if it's a key date ), and let the market determine what the price should be.
The type of Net Graded coins I am talking about are MS 63 and 64 coins that would have graded MS 65 and MS 66 respectively if not for so slight high point rub or minute hairlines. It would be a travesty to downgrade them to AU 58+. These are the exceptional AU 63 and 64 coins so to speak
But if the pretty coin is actually a 58, why should it be in a 64 holder? There are a lot of AU58 coins that are better looking than 63 coins now. Do you want to bump them up?
If you want to be super technical and philosophical, the Sheldon scale and its progeny are all flawed. A coin with almost imperceptible rub is treated worse than one where it looks like Miss Liberty was involved in a knife fight. Why doesn’t CAC or the services do something truly revolutionary like a reformed grading scale in addition to the traditional scale?
@Walkerlover said:
I think some purist collectors believe only CAC coins are worthwhile, but that net graded TPG coins are worthless like the plague. I own mostly CAC coins but I own a few very attractive net graded coins that have slight high point friction/or hairlines but have great eye appeal.
Why should these AU 63/64 coins be lowered to AU 58+ just to satisfy the purists of the coin universe. I think a person can collect what ever suits their taste without being told only technical grading is the right way we need to go in the future.
Who said anything about net graded coins being worthless? The coins in MS holders that CAC downgrades to a 58+ will probably be the most attractive circulated coins on the market. You're free to collect them as you see fit, and you'll probably spend way less than you would buying the same coin in a MS63 holder. The word "uncirculated", as defined by Merriam-Webster, means "issued for use as money but showing no evidence of circulation". Wouldn't you consider that it might benefit the hobby if the grading standards were not loosely defined, and inexperienced collectors don't get burned buying a 58 in a 63 holder? My opinion is that we should keep the grading consistent across the board (even if it's a key date ), and let the market determine what the price should be.
The type of Net Graded coins I am talking about are MS 63 and 64 coins that would have graded MS 65 and MS 66 respectively if not for so slight high point rub or minute hairlines. It would be a travesty to downgrade them to AU 58+. These are the exceptional AU 63 and 64 coins so to speak
But if the pretty coin is actually a 58, why should it be in a 64 holder? There are a lot of AU58 coins that are better looking than 63 coins now. Do you want to bump them up?
Agreed. If there’s any “travesty” involved, I think it’s the grading of a coin with slight wear/rub as a 63 or higher rather than grading it 58+.
Agreed.
Of course the problem with tightening of standards is that downgrades potentially cost money. That's why there's always been a slight market desire for gradually loosening standards. If CACG is going to have any trouble tightening standards, it's going to be this.
For CACG to be successful, it will be necessary for the market to value a CAC 64 at the same value or higher than a P or N 64+. Even then, people who want a "gem collection" of 65 or better are going to want 65 coins. And the easiest way for the market to make that happen is to call coins 65 that were formerly 64+ or even 64 coins. That's probably a major factor in some of the loosening over the last 25 years.
People always talk about "the coin not the holder", but the fact is that a lot of market participants will take an unattractive 65 over an attractive 64 if they want a Gem Set. The 64 just doesn't fit.
@Walkerlover said:
I think some purist collectors believe only CAC coins are worthwhile, but that net graded TPG coins are worthless like the plague. I own mostly CAC coins but I own a few very attractive net graded coins that have slight high point friction/or hairlines but have great eye appeal.
Why should these AU 63/64 coins be lowered to AU 58+ just to satisfy the purists of the coin universe. I think a person can collect what ever suits their taste without being told only technical grading is the right way we need to go in the future.
Who said anything about net graded coins being worthless? The coins in MS holders that CAC downgrades to a 58+ will probably be the most attractive circulated coins on the market. You're free to collect them as you see fit, and you'll probably spend way less than you would buying the same coin in a MS63 holder. The word "uncirculated", as defined by Merriam-Webster, means "issued for use as money but showing no evidence of circulation". Wouldn't you consider that it might benefit the hobby if the grading standards were not loosely defined, and inexperienced collectors don't get burned buying a 58 in a 63 holder? My opinion is that we should keep the grading consistent across the board (even if it's a key date ), and let the market determine what the price should be.
The type of Net Graded coins I am talking about are MS 63 and 64 coins that would have graded MS 65 and MS 66 respectively if not for so slight high point rub or minute hairlines. It would be a travesty to downgrade them to AU 58+. These are the exceptional AU 63 and 64 coins so to speak
But if the pretty coin is actually a 58, why should it be in a 64 holder? There are a lot of AU58 coins that are better looking than 63 coins now. Do you want to bump them up?
If you want to be super technical and philosophical, the Sheldon scale and its progeny are all flawed. A coin with almost imperceptible rub is treated worse than one where it looks like Miss Liberty was involved in a knife fight. Why doesn’t CAC or the services do something truly revolutionary like a reformed grading scale in addition to the traditional scale?
That is a different argument, of course, but I agree. NGC does something similar now with their ancients. The coins get a simplified overall grade XF, AU, MS with no further delineation and then they get 2 5 point graded for "strike" and "surface". Something similar could be done with modern coins.
Of course, the problem is getting acceptance for a new scale. You saw how unpopular NGCX was around here and all they did is translate the 70 scale onto a 10 scale. Creating something brand new is a real uphill battle.
It solves the net grading piece by separating out all the pieces of the grade.
@cameonut2011 said:
Someone please explain this to me. How is CAC going to pretend that problem free C coins don’t exist or is it going to undergrade them? If the former as I suspect, how is CACG any different from PCGS or NGC, both of which JA also had a hand in forming? If it is just another grading service then why wouldn’t a sticker designating the “A” and “B” coins still be relevant unless that was all a marketing gimmick from the beginning? I’m so confused.
Right or wrong, I believe JA has indicated they’ll cross defect-free “C” coins at one grade lower, but with a plus. For example, most defect-free 65 “C” coins would likely get graded in a new CACG holder as 64+, but SOME would get graded lower. Submission forms for crossing would allow submitters to specify the lowest grade they would accept, including saying only to cross at a higher grade, or to cross at any grade.
Steve
This is just going to make it worse because we’ll be mixing 65C coins with high end 64 coins with a greater frequency than occurs through normal subjectivity in grading. This will result to large swings within the grade and price guides will be hopelessly confused as coins are either drug down by the “regular 64+” or regular 64+ coins may receive artificial increases from 65 coins that were downgraded. True enough, some of this occurs anyway, but the new service will only increase the frequency and magnify the results.
I had high hopes that CACG would be a new full fledge grading service that would consistently hold the line to fight grade inflation. Instead, it appears it will be just as inconsistent as the other services and perhaps even more so by design. What’s more, CAC has historically been vague about designations and sticker meanings and it looks that the lack of detail will carry over to the new venture. Collectors shouldn’t need to call or visit the CAC forums to know what the grade or label means. The standards should be concise, explicit, unambiguous (to the maximum extent possible), and published for all to see. I am very disappointed.
Those are not 2 types of coins as long as long as they are not slabbing problem coin. A 65 C is a 64+. Just because a TPGS with looser standards called the 64+ a 65 didn't create a different coin altogether.
Then what is a 64+? What does the current iteration of the plus designation mean and why is CAC adopting it? Are the current 64+ going into straight 64 holders with CACG and the plus being saved for the C level coins from the grade above?
CACG says defect-free coins they deem to be 64+ will be graded as such. Most defect-free 65 coins submitted to cross that are not 65 “B” or “A” coins (in the opinion of CACG) will be graded 64+. Some though, will be graded lower.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@JimTyler said:
You have not been around here very long
A somewhat ironic comment as you only joined in 2018.
Actually I’ve been here longer than you. Joined first part of 2001. Name agentjim007 (look that up) When I joined back then I used a luckymail email address. I took a couple years off around 2015 medical issues then forgot my password. Couldn’t retrieve it back to a non existent email so I started over. Thanks for looking that up Sherlock to me you’re also a new guy.
Thanks for the laugh Jim, that you actually value yourself because of how long you've been on a chat board, just comical. Please tell me you wear a red nose and long floppy shoes.
Now that CAC will be slabbing coins, they will have many people playing the crack out game just like people do with PCGS and NGC. Then we’ll get a better idea of how consistent their grading really is.
With the stickers, people would have to crack a coin out of a holder, get it graded/holdered again, and then submit it again to CAC. That takes much more money, time, and effort.
As for the + thing. Why wouldn’t they just put an A, B, or C after the grade on the holder. If they are saying they can be consistent assigning an A, B, or C to a grade, why not show it and stake their reputation on that?
I’m not anti-CAC. I’m just confused why their model seems to mirror what PCGS and NGC are already doing. Put the A, B, or C on the grade, and show that through repeated crackout & resubmit that you grade consistently. Otherwise, why not stick with the stickers instead? That has been a wildly successful, very low overhead, business model!
@JoeLewis said:
Now that CAC will be slabbing coins, they will have many people playing the crack out game just like people do with PCGS and NGC. Then we’ll get a better idea of how consistent their grading really is.
With the stickers, people would have to crack a coin out of a holder, get it graded/holdered again, and then submit it again to CAC. That takes much more money, time, and effort.
As for the + thing. Why wouldn’t they just put an A, B, or C after the grade on the holder. If they are saying they can be consistent assigning an A, B, or C to a grade, why not show it and stake their reputation on that?
I’m not anti-CAC. I’m just confused why their model seems to mirror what PCGS and NGC are already doing. Put the A, B, or C on the grade, and show that through repeated crackout & resubmit that you grade consistently. Otherwise, why not stick with the stickers instead? That has been a wildly successful, very low overhead, business model!
Just my humble opinion, but I think the grading service is JA's retirement plan of sorts. Phase out CAC beans over the next 10 years or so by raising prices, and basically act as a figurehead and honorary finalizer for CACG. It's the best way to cash out the equity he's built up over the past ~15 years building CAC into what it is today.
The best way to pull that off is to follow the tried and true model.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
@JoeLewis said:
Now that CAC will be slabbing coins, they will have many people playing the crack out game just like people do with PCGS and NGC. Then we’ll get a better idea of how consistent their grading really is.
With the stickers, people would have to crack a coin out of a holder, get it graded/holdered again, and then submit it again to CAC. That takes much more money, time, and effort.
As for the + thing. Why wouldn’t they just put an A, B, or C after the grade on the holder. If they are saying they can be consistent assigning an A, B, or C to a grade, why not show it and stake their reputation on that?
I’m not anti-CAC. I’m just confused why their model seems to mirror what PCGS and NGC are already doing. Put the A, B, or C on the grade, and show that through repeated crackout & resubmit that you grade consistently. Otherwise, why not stick with the stickers instead? That has been a wildly successful, very low overhead, business model!
It was brought up on the CAC forum, and quite a few of us actually were on board with that. Then the announcement was made that the C coins were going to be getting downgraded with a +. I don't necessarily disagree with you, I would have been ok with the A/B/C proposal, but we'll just have to see how it plays out now. Here is the "C" coin discussion from the CAC forum, where many collectors weighed in the subject before it was set in stone.
Comments
Steve,
Your point here is somewhat moot. No matter how badly I wanted to send a coin to CAC, I, or for that matter, many collectors, couldn't. CAC's policy of not accepting new members shuts that down.
For me, it doesn't matter much. I find that I disagree with CAC most of the time on what a strong coin for the grade should look like in the series I specialize in. I suppose that is because I put a stronger weight on items that the TPGS don't adjust grading for.
Edit: I do, however, agree that if someone has a membership they may indeed be leaving money on the table by not sending them to CAC. Like it or not, it appears CAC does bring a premium for most series.
Coin Photographer.
I'm resting for the VaultBox 2 release.
I really can't think of a comp. Every innovation had haters when it was born. But CAC hatred is the only one that has persisted this long.
This assumes that grading errors in one direction only will be corrected. Is that a good thing?
Please be sure to post your thoughts once it happens.
The following may be "duh" but it seems there is a lot of continued ignorance surrounding CAC:
CAC was established to correct grade inflation that has occured over time by establishing a consistent grading standard to ensure there is a distinction noted for coins that are of better quality within a designated grade level. Collectors can now better realize value for their accurately graded and/or premium coins for the grade. The market has endorsed the distinction and price guides have noted the value add.
It was also established to help fight the scammers who doctor coins that find their way into straight graded holders (particularly gold coins).
Many collectors think it unnecessary for such validation, but many do, especially for high value coins. I fail to see how such a service is bad for collectors who wish to pay a small premium to receive CAC's opinion.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Don't get me wrong, I love CAC...
As long as I keep finding nice raw material out in the wild, I'll keep putting it in the right plastic/sticker...
I think we all know how ridiculous our obsession with packaging can get in this hobby... You've got to write yourself a reality check occasionally 😅
You are not alone. South America has my interest, especially want a gold 8 escudo or the like.
I have a CAC gold quarter eagle that I’d like to do a video of me peeling off the green bean. That sacralege would be too much some to handle.
@Catbert said:
The following may be "duh" but it seems there is a lot of continued ignorance surrounding CAC:
CAC was established to correct grade inflation that has occured over time by establishing a consistent grading standard to ensure there is a distinction noted for coins that are of better quality within a designated grade level. Collectors can now better realize value for their accurately graded and/or premium coins for the grade. The market has endorsed the distinction and price guides have noted the value add.
It was also established to help fight the scammers who doctor coins that find their way into straight graded holders (particularly gold coins).
Many collectors think it unnecessary for such validation, but many do, especially for high value coins. I fail to see how such a service is bad for collectors who wish to pay a small premium to receive CAC's opinion.
My reply (which I’d tried to edit and in doing so, my post disappeared):
It’s not bad for those collectors. However, as I wrote (in part) to someone in a PM very recently:
Some detractors want to believe that they know enough about coins without any help. Of course, they conveniently ignore the fact that they’re already getting help when they buy graded coins.
Some of them don’t like it that they often or usually have to pay more for nicer coins when they’re identified and stickered by CAC.
Some of them are nervous that their non-stickered coins might not be as wonderful as they’d thought.
Some of them don’t like being told by super CAC cheerleaders that their non-CAC coins are second class.
Now please excuse me, while I go get and put on my flame-retardant suit.😬
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It ain’t gonna happen!!!
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
So having the potential for a downgrade is in the best interest of collectors? I understand your point about the example of 1 in a hundred getting an upgrade, but as you imply, the reality is the extreme cost is “the Policeman” in that example. Consistency is the main weapon against gradeflation, and although human with occasional errors, CAC has been very consistent. Separately, it seems that PCGS has tightened the screws over the past several months or so.
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
Actually, it’s not a moot point, despite the shutdown of Collector memberships. One could have, and still can, submit coins for stickers via a trusted Dealer or trusted person/friend who is a Collector member at their local coin club.
I understand though your point about having the weighting differences in specific areas!
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 shall start my own thread and shill to my heart's content.
However, I believe the CAC Hater’s Club has been losing members the last few years, since it appears that demand for coins with CAC stickers has increased! My unofficial sense is that the pricing differential between coins with stickers and those without seems to be increasing too.
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
Actually, hardly any of us would care. Be my guest…..
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 don't think it's losing members. I do think the CAC premiums have increased (which fuels many CAC haters.) But you don't need the haters to wane for that to happen. You just need the lovers to swoon more deeply.
+1 (one of your lines above was made bold by me).
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
"Some of them are nervous that their non-stickered coins might not be as wonderful as they’d thought."
Also possible- Some of them are nervous that they might not be able to convince others that their non-stickered coins are as wonderful as they’d thought.
Can I, PLEASE
Interesting question, and one I have not seen addressed. They might simply refuse to slab coins that don't meet their standards, instead of net grading which services have tried over time.
That's about the funniest thing I've seen today.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
.
.
.
Wow, what a great post. This is a keeper @MFeld
Successful BST with BustDMs , Pnies20, lkeigwin, pursuitofliberty, Bullsitter, felinfoel, SPalladino (CBH's - 37 Die Marriage's)
$5 Type Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/type-sets/half-eagle-type-set-circulation-strikes-1795-1929/album/344192
CBH Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/everyman-collections/everyman-half-dollars/everyman-capped-bust-half-dollars-1807-1839/album/345572
Why would a problem-free coin need to be net graded?
Referring to "C" coins was part of CAC's original, diplomatic mission statement. As you later pointed out in this subject string
I believe JA has indicated they’ll cross defect-free “C” coins at one grade lower, but with a plus. For example, most defect-free 65 “C” coins would likely get graded in a new CACG holder as 64+, but SOME would get graded lower.
I believe CACG will be offering to remove PVC when they believe it's possible. Unfortunately, it appears over dipped and artificially toned coins will end up as the dirty little secret "D" (for Details) coins.
Spoken like a true salesman. : )
Eagle eye for Indians. I don't like having t pay so much but at the end of the day that is my call. If I did not think it was worth it I would not pay for it, I think it is worth it and I pay. My customers do not like paying me, however it is worth it to them. I just broke my hand yesterday (dog bite effing crunched it). My buddy is an Orthopedic surgeon - so I pay so I can use my hand again.
It seems the old cac stickered coins will be worth more over time.
I think some purist collectors believe only CAC coins are worthwhile, but that net graded TPG coins are worthless like the plague. I own mostly CAC coins but I own a few very attractive net graded coins that have slight high point friction/or hairlines but have great eye appeal.
Why should these AU 63/64 coins be lowered to AU 58+ just to satisfy the purists of the coin universe. I think a person can collect what ever suits their taste without being told only technical grading is the right way we need to go in the future.
But will the CACG use the newer, more hip and all the rage 1 to 10 grade scale?
Who said anything about net graded coins being worthless? The coins in MS holders that CAC downgrades to a 58+ will probably be the most attractive circulated coins on the market. You're free to collect them as you see fit, and you'll probably spend way less than you would buying the same coin in a MS63 holder. The word "uncirculated", as defined by Merriam-Webster, means "issued for use as money but showing no evidence of circulation". Wouldn't you consider that it might benefit the hobby if the grading standards were not loosely defined, and inexperienced collectors don't get burned buying a 58 in a 63 holder? My opinion is that we should keep the grading consistent across the board (even if it's a key date
), and let the market determine what the price should be.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
You can love that coin as a 58. Why do you need it to be a 63 to love it. You want it to market value not just be pretty.
Why should the market bend to your greed? Isn't that the real problem? The TPGs don't tell the market how to behave. They respond to what the market wants. The success of CAC actually speaks to a desire to get back to stricter grading.
We see the opposite posts here so the time. "How can that be a 66?" "How can that be a straight grade?" "I'd only buy that 65 as a 63?" Etc.
This is just going to make it worse because we’ll be mixing 65C coins with high end 64 coins with a greater frequency than occurs through normal subjectivity in grading. This will result to large swings within the grade and price guides will be hopelessly confused as coins are either drug down by the “regular 64+” or regular 64+ coins may receive artificial increases from 65 coins that were downgraded. True enough, some of this occurs anyway, but the new service will only increase the frequency and magnify the results.
I had high hopes that CACG would be a new full fledge grading service that would consistently hold the line to fight grade inflation. Instead, it appears it will be just as inconsistent as the other services and perhaps even more so by design. What’s more, CAC has historically been vague about designations and sticker meanings and it looks that the lack of detail will carry over to the new venture. Collectors shouldn’t need to call or visit the CAC forums to know what the grade or label means. The standards should be concise, explicit, unambiguous (to the maximum extent possible), and published for all to see. I am very disappointed.
The type of Net Graded coins I am talking about are MS 63 and 64 coins that would have graded MS 65 and MS 66 respectively if not for so slight high point rub or minute hairlines. It would be a travesty to downgrade them to AU 58+. These are the exceptional AU 63 and 64 coins so to speak
Referring to "C" coins was part of CAC's original, diplomatic mission statement. As clarified by winesteven in this subject string
I believe JA has indicated they’ll cross defect-free “C” coins at one grade lower, but with a plus. For example, most defect-free 65 “C” coins would likely get graded in a new CACG holder as 64+, but SOME would get graded lower.
At CACG there will be no "C" coins.
You’re playing a game of semantics. There will always be 65 C coins even if you shove them in 64+ holders. If we do that are we also calling 64+ coins 64+? This is only going to complicate things. Throw 65 C coins in a 65C labeled holder.
Having three levels of grades in each tier (four with details coins) instead of two is always a consideration. If you feel strongly about this, write a letter to CACG. advocating your point of view.
I’m looking forward to cac beginning as a grading service and sunsetting their “beans”. Just less hoops to jump through for both collectors and dealers.
Because, while the coin grades say MS65, it's a C coin. @winesteven found the answer which I had missed...
If this isn't net grading, then what is?
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
It’s a moot issue for me. I have no CAC material nor much interested in investing in it (unless walkup seller my table at show, buy it right). If I were him I would shut down the sticker thing (business consistency, management, and cost control) either once the TPG online or after some fixed period like 60 days. Then submitters would go thru a CAC dealer for submission or something like individual submission like PCGS, NGC. There would no longer be a free ride on submissions that did not cross, get straight graded, etc. Any crossovers would be reviewed based on their current condition:
As far as stickered material crossing to the TPG material the submitted item would be reviewed (I would think) and if having gone bad in the holder (reaction to atmosphere) downgraded, body bagged accordingly. TPG grading is a point in time. It seems a lot of them in here are ignorant of that. Investors expect the submitted item be reviewed based on its condition at point in time of current review not some rubber stamping of what it got years ago. Reaction to the atmosphere, heat, humidity is a reality not a joke. Carefully look at the coin offered and evaluate it on its own merits. Current problems may not have been present at time of grading.
Those are not 2 types of coins as long as long as they are not slabbing problem coin. A 65 C is a 64+. Just because a TPGS with looser standards called the 64+ a 65 didn't create a different coin altogether.
That's not "net grading". Net grading is when you have a coin that is otherwise a 66 but had a problem (cabinet friction, old cleaning, light scratch etc). Such a coin should be a 58 or a details grade or maybe a 61 or 62. But they "net graded" or "market graded" it as a 64.
Whether a DEFECT FREE 65C is in a 64+ or 65 holder is a question of the TPGS standards and where they put the line.
A 65C that is "net graded" ends up in a body bag or a 58 holder but much lower than 64+.
Then what is a 64+? What does the current iteration of the plus designation mean and why is CAC adopting it? Are the current 64+ going into straight 64 holders with CACG and the plus being saved for the C level coins from the grade above?
I also don’t see the plus designation as the sequelae of grade inflation. The purpose of the plus designation with the big 2 is to compete with CAC to identify high end for the grade coins (although it is purportedly even more exacting and would seemingly be limited to grade “A” material).
But if the pretty coin is actually a 58, why should it be in a 64 holder? There are a lot of AU58 coins that are better looking than 63 coins now. Do you want to bump them up?
The + is creating a 100 point grading scale. It's a continuum. It's really a question of where you draw the lines and what you designate them. But a 64 A is either equivalent to or slightly worse than a 65 C. It's not, as you suggest, in a separate category. Personally, I doubt many people can easily distinguish a 65-, 65, and 65+. But 64, 64+, 65-, 65, etc are gradations of one continuous scale. Denoting a 65- (65C) to 64+ is just about where you draw the line. They essentially only have 2 gradations now, it's just a question of where you put the line. PCGS puts 64 and 64- in the 64 bucket and then 64+. Is doing the same thing but moving the line so 64+ and 65- are in the same bucket and 65 is in the other bucket.
I'm fewer words, CACG is talking about tightening up grading standards by about 1/3 of a grade.
Agreed. If there’s any “travesty” involved, I think it’s the grading of a coin with slight wear/rub as a 63 or higher rather than grading it 58+.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If you want to be super technical and philosophical, the Sheldon scale and its progeny are all flawed. A coin with almost imperceptible rub is treated worse than one where it looks like Miss Liberty was involved in a knife fight. Why doesn’t CAC or the services do something truly revolutionary like a reformed grading scale in addition to the traditional scale?
Agreed.
Of course the problem with tightening of standards is that downgrades potentially cost money. That's why there's always been a slight market desire for gradually loosening standards. If CACG is going to have any trouble tightening standards, it's going to be this.
For CACG to be successful, it will be necessary for the market to value a CAC 64 at the same value or higher than a P or N 64+. Even then, people who want a "gem collection" of 65 or better are going to want 65 coins. And the easiest way for the market to make that happen is to call coins 65 that were formerly 64+ or even 64 coins. That's probably a major factor in some of the loosening over the last 25 years.
People always talk about "the coin not the holder", but the fact is that a lot of market participants will take an unattractive 65 over an attractive 64 if they want a Gem Set. The 64 just doesn't fit.
That is a different argument, of course, but I agree. NGC does something similar now with their ancients. The coins get a simplified overall grade XF, AU, MS with no further delineation and then they get 2 5 point graded for "strike" and "surface". Something similar could be done with modern coins.
Of course, the problem is getting acceptance for a new scale. You saw how unpopular NGCX was around here and all they did is translate the 70 scale onto a 10 scale. Creating something brand new is a real uphill battle.
It solves the net grading piece by separating out all the pieces of the grade.
CACG says defect-free coins they deem to be 64+ will be graded as such. Most defect-free 65 coins submitted to cross that are not 65 “B” or “A” coins (in the opinion of CACG) will be graded 64+. Some though, will be graded lower.
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
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Now that CAC will be slabbing coins, they will have many people playing the crack out game just like people do with PCGS and NGC. Then we’ll get a better idea of how consistent their grading really is.
With the stickers, people would have to crack a coin out of a holder, get it graded/holdered again, and then submit it again to CAC. That takes much more money, time, and effort.
As for the + thing. Why wouldn’t they just put an A, B, or C after the grade on the holder. If they are saying they can be consistent assigning an A, B, or C to a grade, why not show it and stake their reputation on that?
I’m not anti-CAC. I’m just confused why their model seems to mirror what PCGS and NGC are already doing. Put the A, B, or C on the grade, and show that through repeated crackout & resubmit that you grade consistently. Otherwise, why not stick with the stickers instead? That has been a wildly successful, very low overhead, business model!
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
Just my humble opinion, but I think the grading service is JA's retirement plan of sorts. Phase out CAC beans over the next 10 years or so by raising prices, and basically act as a figurehead and honorary finalizer for CACG. It's the best way to cash out the equity he's built up over the past ~15 years building CAC into what it is today.
The best way to pull that off is to follow the tried and true model.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
It was brought up on the CAC forum, and quite a few of us actually were on board with that. Then the announcement was made that the C coins were going to be getting downgraded with a +. I don't necessarily disagree with you, I would have been ok with the A/B/C proposal, but we'll just have to see how it plays out now. Here is the "C" coin discussion from the CAC forum, where many collectors weighed in the subject before it was set in stone.
https://www.caccoin.com/forums/discussion/531/c-coin-discussion/p2
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook