If coins are truly categorized by CAC as A, B and C quality for the grade, label them as such in the holders.
There’s no need to make it more complicated, confusing and/or less transparent than that by using a plus, a minus, a lower numerical grade, a sticker, a different colored label, adjectives or anything else.
@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.
Are you 💩ing me ? First you get on my case because I haven’t been here long enough then because I’ve been here to long. Take your time think up something good.
@JimTyler said:
Pretty clear the next gimmick. Stickers on CAC holders.
Why shouldn't it? Are they saying they will grade there coins more accurately thant the other big players and are therefor exempt from second opinions? Maybe PCGS and NCG will add sticker programs. I am actually not sure why they haven't done so yet.
The problem they are running into is finding enough grading talent.
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
@lilolme said:
This is JA response to the question - from the CAC forums.
Q: What will your new grading service mean for the continuation of current CAC operations?
A: Initially, I envisioned that once the CAC grading service started grading and encapsulating coins that the stickering service would be discontinued. But after speaking to many collectors and dealers about this they urged me to continue stickering because there were many collectors who were collecting only CAC coins. We don’t want to pull out the rug from under those people, but we plan to do it at a higher fee structure. So instead of receiving, say, 12,000 coins per month, we might be getting 500.
Question by Maurice Rosen, editor of The Rosen Numismatic Advisory
Are they saying they will grade there coins more accurately thant the other big players
Yes.
and are therefor exempt from second opinions?
No.
Maybe PCGS and NCG will add sticker programs. I am actually not sure why they haven't done so yet.
Any person or organization is free to offer a sticker approval service for CACG slabs, or any other slabs for that matter. That doesn't mean that anyone else is going to give a crap, or pay a premium for it.
@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?
This argument of technical vs market grading has been an everlasting situation. I don’t think there is really any right or wrong way. Collect whatever system you believe in or like better. The bottom line is buy for value in either scenario. I have no issue with paying 64 money for a coin that otherwise would cost triple or more as a 66.
As an aside I think most 58+ coins will still have very slight wear on the fields or devices as opposed to net graded coins that strictly have only the slightest bit of high point friction
On that date... will the stickers fall off the coins?
Will a CAC graded 65 = a PCGS/NGC 66 or 65 with a sticker or possibly a 64 with a gold?
Will I need to send the CAC graded coins to PCGS for confirmation of the grade? Then to NGC for a confirmation of PCGS TPG confirmation? Then back to CAC to see if they agree?
Will I have more decisions on whether to cross a NGC coin to PCGS or CAC and vice versa? Worried about shipping costs.
Will a TPG slab influence CAC's decision on a final grade? If so, positively or negatively?
Should I break all of my coins out of slabs and start again?
@Walkerlover said:
As an aside I think most 58+ coins will still have very slight wear on the fields or devices as opposed to net graded coins that strictly have only the slightest bit of high point friction
The proposition of an AU59 grade has been brought up before to be a more appropriate grade for the coins that do have the just slightest amount of high point friction and almost no wear in the fields. It was shot down, but imo CAC is going to reserve the 58+ grade for those coins, the AU63-64s.
@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.
Are you 💩ing me ? First you get on my case because I haven’t been here long enough then because I’ve been here to long. Take your time think up something good.
frankly I wouldn't mess with anyone that has or had agent and 007 in their name.
@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.
Are you 💩ing me ? First you get on my case because I haven’t been here long enough then because I’ve been here to long. Take your time think up something good.
frankly I wouldn't mess with anyone that has or had agent and 007 in their name.
IN my humble opinion.. I wouldn't mess around with someone who has a bouncing ICON.
On that date... will the stickers fall off the coins?
Will a CAC graded 65 = a PCGS/NGC 66 or 65 with a sticker or possibly a 64 with a gold?
Will I need to send the CAC graded coins to PCGS for confirmation of the grade? Then to NGC for a confirmation of PCGS TPG confirmation? Then back to CAC to see if they agree?
Will I have more decisions on whether to cross a NGC coin to PCGS or CAC and vice versa? Worried about shipping costs.
Will a TPG slab influence CAC's decision on a final grade? If so, positively or negatively?
Should I break all of my coins out of slabs and start again?
I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread yet, but JA said his initial reasoning for starting as a grading service was to expedite that whole process. Obviously he market favors CAC, and its inconvenient to have to send your coins all around the country in order to bring top dollar. Hence CAC grading is born, a "one stop shop" if you choose to go that route. None of us "need" to do anything, and CAC has never forced you to send your coins in. No one is stopping you from cracking all of your coins out and doing whatever it is you want to do with them.
This is maybe the latest example of the US coin market becoming overly complicated. I wonder how many attorneys JA has on the payroll to get all this going. Sorry if I’m coming off with a bad attitude, but it’s just my opinion.
@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?
This argument of technical vs market grading has been an everlasting situation. I don’t think there is really any right or wrong way. Collect whatever system you believe in or like better. The bottom line is buy for value in either scenario. I have no issue with paying 64 money for a coin that otherwise would cost triple or more as a 66.
How do you feel about paying 64 money for a coin that's actually not mint state?
On that date... will the stickers fall off the coins?
Will a CAC graded 65 = a PCGS/NGC 66 or 65 with a sticker or possibly a 64 with a gold?
Will I need to send the CAC graded coins to PCGS for confirmation of the grade? Then to NGC for a confirmation of PCGS TPG confirmation? Then back to CAC to see if they agree?
Will I have more decisions on whether to cross a NGC coin to PCGS or CAC and vice versa? Worried about shipping costs.
Will a TPG slab influence CAC's decision on a final grade? If so, positively or negatively?
Should I break all of my coins out of slabs and start again?
I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread yet, but JA said his initial reasoning for starting as a grading service was to expedite that whole process. Obviously he market favors CAC, and its inconvenient to have to send your coins all around the country in order to bring top dollar. Hence CAC grading is born, a "one stop shop" if you choose to go that route. None of us "need" to do anything, and CAC has never forced you to send your coins in. No one is stopping you from cracking all of your coins out and doing whatever it is you want to do with them.
In case you haven't noticed on every Vault Box or CAC thread, there are many people who aren't content to simply not play. They need to make sure that no one can play. Maybe it's so they don't feel left out.
@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?
This argument of technical vs market grading has been an everlasting situation. I don’t think there is really any right or wrong way. Collect whatever system you believe in or like better. The bottom line is buy for value in either scenario. I have no issue with paying 64 money for a coin that otherwise would cost triple or more as a 66.
How do you feel about paying 64 money for a coin that's actually not mint state?
I own such a PCGS 64 coin and since it has blast luster with slight attractive toning, and clean 66 surfaces and above average eye appeal I am okay with that. It actually has a better look than virtually every CAC 64 I have ever seen.
I would prefer a CAC 64 but it needs to be equal or better than my net graded 64 and I haven’t found one yet. I imagine if it was in a CACG 58+ holder it possibly could bring the same price as my PCGS 64.
@Vasanti said:
If I was PCGS, I would “sticker” CACG holders with a PCGS number to show approval and allow them into the PCGS registry.
And that's why you're not in charge of PCGS...
There’s nothing lost if they charge the same price that they charge for a crossover. In fact, it would increase their profit because they wouldn’t be incurring the holdering cost.
@Vasanti said:
If I was PCGS, I would “sticker” CACG holders with a PCGS number to show approval and allow them into the PCGS registry.
And that's why you're not in charge of PCGS...
There’s nothing lost if they charge the same price that they charge for a crossover. In fact, it would increase their profit because they wouldn’t be incurring the holdering cost.
But why would someone pay the same to sticker as crossover? Answer: they like the CACG holder.
It's branding 101.
It's like Coach selling a $3000 label to put on your Walmart bag. They still get $3000 but they've normalized the bag.
Maybe PCGS and NCG will add sticker programs. I am actually not sure why they haven't done so yet.
Any person or organization is free to offer a sticker approval service for CACG slabs, or any other slabs for that matter. That doesn't mean that anyone else is going to give a crap, or pay a premium for it.
But they will, you know, because coin collectors are compulsive and not always rational and give in to fear.
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
@Vasanti said:
If I was PCGS, I would “sticker” CACG holders with a PCGS number to show approval and allow them into the PCGS registry.
And that's why you're not in charge of PCGS...
There’s nothing lost if they charge the same price that they charge for a crossover. In fact, it would increase their profit because they wouldn’t be incurring the holdering cost.
But why would someone pay the same to sticker as crossover? Answer: they like the CACG holder.
It's branding 101.
It's like Coach selling a $3000 label to put on your Walmart bag. They still get $3000 but they've normalized the bag.
Why do you think they haven't stickered NGC?
That analogy is a little thin. Buying a designer handbag is not the same as paying for an opinion of the condition of a collectible.
@Vasanti said:
If I was PCGS, I would “sticker” CACG holders with a PCGS number to show approval and allow them into the PCGS registry.
And that's why you're not in charge of PCGS...
There’s nothing lost if they charge the same price that they charge for a crossover. In fact, it would increase their profit because they wouldn’t be incurring the holdering cost.
But why would someone pay the same to sticker as crossover? Answer: they like the CACG holder.
It's branding 101.
It's like Coach selling a $3000 label to put on your Walmart bag. They still get $3000 but they've normalized the bag.
Why do you think they haven't stickered NGC?
I think your analogy doesn’t work. CACG is the higher end product when compared to PCGS and I think that is how the market will perceive them. The market perceives NGC as a lower-end product when compared to PCGS. The right analogy would be Coach (a mass-market, middle-end brand) agreeing to have Dior (a high-end brand) bags in its stores.
@Vasanti said:
If I was PCGS, I would “sticker” CACG holders with a PCGS number to show approval and allow them into the PCGS registry.
And that's why you're not in charge of PCGS...
There’s nothing lost if they charge the same price that they charge for a crossover. In fact, it would increase their profit because they wouldn’t be incurring the holdering cost.
But why would someone pay the same to sticker as crossover? Answer: they like the CACG holder.
It's branding 101.
It's like Coach selling a $3000 label to put on your Walmart bag. They still get $3000 but they've normalized the bag.
Why do you think they haven't stickered NGC?
I think your analogy doesn’t work. CACG is the higher end product when compared to PCGS and I think that is how the market will perceive them. The market perceives NGC as a lower-end product when compared to PCGS. The right analogy would be Coach (a mass-market, middle-end brand) agreeing to have Dior (a high-end brand) bags in its stores.
That is not how PCGS perceives themselves. Nor should they.
Why do you think PCGS (or NGC) will negotiate to slab trophy coins? They want their label on the premium coins. They certainly don't want to be in the business of approving of the competition's work product.
You want it because it makes it easier for you to play the registry game. There's no reason why PCGS should want it...unless people are abandoning their registries and their slabs.
@Vasanti said:
If I was PCGS, I would “sticker” CACG holders with a PCGS number to show approval and allow them into the PCGS registry.
And that's why you're not in charge of PCGS...
There’s nothing lost if they charge the same price that they charge for a crossover. In fact, it would increase their profit because they wouldn’t be incurring the holdering cost.
But why would someone pay the same to sticker as crossover? Answer: they like the CACG holder.
It's branding 101.
It's like Coach selling a $3000 label to put on your Walmart bag. They still get $3000 but they've normalized the bag.
Why do you think they haven't stickered NGC?
I think your analogy doesn’t work. CACG is the higher end product when compared to PCGS and I think that is how the market will perceive them. The market perceives NGC as a lower-end product when compared to PCGS. The right analogy would be Coach (a mass-market, middle-end brand) agreeing to have Dior (a high-end brand) bags in its stores.
That is not how PCGS perceives themselves. Nor should they.
But that is what the market perception is. @Vasanti ’s correction to your analogy is spot on, however I agree with you that there’s no reason PCGS would want that.
@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.
Yeah and you are well aware that this is not what CAC does in the real world but is the marketing. In the real world CAC takes advantage of the bell curve that ANY grading process, or any process at all, has by notating the better examples for any grade and rewarding them with stickers. Now that they will be in the hot seat and be doing the actual grading, you are going to see different results. There is a limit of how many competent and qualified graders there are. At NYINC I overheard that there was over 20K coins backlogged on ANCIENTS ALONE at a major grading company. At the end of the day, there is a process and ALL PROCESSES obey universal laws of production that are defined by statistics.
It is the misinformed who are fooled by the marketing and fail to understand the basics of quality control and process verification. It is a science, not an art.
CAC can only get better grading results when they grade from scratch by having better trained graders and to work slower, thereby creating a verifiable process that produces statistically verifiable results. ...and there is a real world limit of how far they can improve this process (aside from the aditional difficulties which involve differences in opinion on what is being graded). When they are stickering someone else's work, however, they can ALWAY split the bell curve.
I depend on my expert dealers to help me understand the quality coins I buy, and I trust my own eye and knowledge broadly for lesser coins. I trust input from my dealer. If I don't trust a dealer, I generally stay away from his/her coins, even if they have something I want. And I pay my dealer a premium for this service when I buy coins from them. CAC really means nothing to me other than that it give the coin more market value if I chose to sell. It is a reality that can't be ignored. But despite the position CAC has put itself into, grading the bell curve, you still end up quibbling with CAC results all the time. There is no last word on the quality of a grade or infallible grading system.
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
@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.
Yeah and you are well aware that this is not what CAC does in the real world but is the marketing. In the real world CAC takes advantage of the bell curve that ANY grading process, or any process at all, has by notating the better examples for any grade and rewarding them with stickers. Now that they will be in the hot seat and be doing the actual grading, you are going to see different results. There is a limit of how many competent and qualified graders there are. At NYINC I overheard that there was over 20K coins backlogged on ANCIENTS ALONE at a major grading company. At the end of the day, there is a process and ALL PROCESSES obey universal laws of production that are defined by statistics.
It is the misinformed who are fooled by the marketing and fail to understand the basics of quality control and process verification. It is a science, not an art.
CAC can only get better grading results when they grade from scratch by having better trained graders and to work slower, thereby creating a verifiable process that produces statistically verifiable results. ...and there is a real world limit of how far they can improve this process (aside from the aditional difficulties which involve differences in opinion on what is being graded). When they are stickering someone else's work, however, they can ALWAY split the bell curve.
I depend on my expert dealers to help me understand the quality coins I buy, and I trust my own eye and knowledge broadly for lesser coins. I trust input from my dealer. If I don't trust a dealer, I generally stay away from his/her coins, even if they have something I want. And I pay my dealer a premium for this service when I buy coins from them. CAC really means nothing to me other than that it give the coin more market value if I chose to sell. It is a reality that can't be ignored. But despite the position CAC has put itself into, grading the bell curve, you still end up quibbling with CAC results all the time. There is no last word on the quality of a grade or infallible grading system.
You make some fair points and I agree with several of them, but I'm of the opinion that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. CAC is not going to have anywhere close to the volume of coins to grade that PCGS or NGC does. A you know, CAC has been closed for new membership since the end of '21. The reason for that was to preserve the integrity of their standards, and to be able to service the existing members with a level of consistency. If they wanted to they could have opened up the flood gates, hired a few more inexperienced graders, and accepted as many submissions as possible no matter how it affected the final product, but they didn't.
@DeplorableDan said:
If they wanted to they could have opened up the flood gates, hired a few more inexperienced graders, and accepted as many submissions as possible no matter how it affected the final product, but they didn't.
That, and they only review a fraction of the coins that the TPGs grade.
@JimTyler said:
Are you 💩ing me ? First you get on my case because I haven’t been here long enough then because I’ve been here to long. >Take your time think up something good.
I just find your fear of new innovations and new people on the forum comical what is it about a new (ish) poster and CAC that scares you? That you're in a twist over time on the forum, well you're the one that made it an issue to start with. It is not only ridiculous but foolish to judge someone you do not know because of the length of time on a chat board; as I said comical.
There is a coin for sale on eBay right now that has such an amazing look, one that the graders thirty years ago, must have paused for, electing to give it a bump in grade, beyond where surface preservation would allow. I love everything about it, even the grade. A badge of honor. I don’t like criticizing it as being over-graded. However, downgrading a C coin down to a next lower grade+ makes little sense to me. It muddies the water and degrades the value we assign to the symbol. Almost every + coin I see looks PQ but perhaps those days are numbered. My eBay example is a home run. No sticker. If it ends up in my collection, I will share.
@jackpine20 said:
There is a coin for sale on eBay right now that has such an amazing look, one that the graders thirty years ago, must have paused for, electing to give it a bump in grade, beyond where surface preservation would allow. I love everything about it, even the grade. A badge of honor. I don’t like criticizing it as being over-graded. However, downgrading a C coin down to a next lower grade+ makes little sense to me. It muddies the water and degrades the value we assign to the symbol. Almost every + coin I see looks PQ but perhaps those days are numbered. My eBay example is a home run. No sticker. If it ends up in my collection, I will share.
Since every + coin you've ever seen couldn't make it to the next higher grade, it is worse than the C coin at the next highest grade... by definition. 64+ does not mean better than 65, not even if it's just barely a 65.
@JimTyler said:
How about CAC only keeps coins that passed in their data base NOT coins that failed. Then when coins are sent in 10 times each time there is a true and fair subsequent evaluation. Why do they need to keep track of failed coins anyway.
Good point. Does PCGS keep a list of NGC coins that fail to cross so that when the next owner sends it in they don't have to look at it and just keep the submission fee?
@JimTyler said:
How about CAC only keeps coins that passed in their data base NOT coins that failed. Then when coins are sent in 10 times each time there is a true and fair subsequent evaluation. Why do they need to keep track of failed coins anyway.
Good point. Does PCGS keep a list of NGC coins that fail to cross so that when the next owner sends it in they don't have to look at it and just keep the submission fee?
No PCGS doesn't or at least didn't have a list of failed NGC crossovers as recently as September 2021 which is when I last graded there.
OK, need to send in a few I've been sitting on. Assuming we can submit any CAC-eligible coin for the $35 tier, not just ones worth over $10k, which is how Tier 2 is defined?
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.
This quote sums it up for me. TPG's provide a useful service, to a point, but the added cost of all of these dizzying innovations means that my hobby dollar does not go as far as it used to. How much more cream can be skimmed off the top, I wonder...
@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 a long time, very knowledgeable collector and and like me, must be getting up in years. How liquid is your new collection in terms of being able to accurately value it or is that not a consideration?
@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 a long time, very knowledgeable collector and and like me, must be getting up in years. How liquid is your new collection in terms of being able to accurately value it or is that not a consideration?
It's not a consideration; I am having fun. The few times I have sold some of the pieces I acquired because I got a better one, I either lost a little money, under $100, or actually made a little money.
I recently completed my goal of acquiring every British king and queen from Alfred the Great to Elizabeth II. I'll get a Charles III when things settle down a little. There is intense demand for many of the early kings now. It's much harder find them than when I started.
As for the Roman coins, there is a huge interest in the 12 Caesars, the first 12 Roman emperors, starting with Julius Caesar who was actually a dictator, not an emperor. The dealers tell me they can't keep the coins in stock, and that appears to be true from what I see in their inventories.
As for that collection, I'm up to the emperors who served past Constantine the Great. The emperors into the 400s are really tough, and I wouldn't get many of them. Sometimes it's best to buy the gold solidus for some of them. Nice examples of the more common ones retail for around $1,000.
I'm getting a bit tired of the collectors who mostly concerned with how much they have pay for a coin and how much they can get for it. There is a lot more to the hobby than than that.
I have some CAC approved coins. I don't reject them. I have to be comfortable with the price.
I bought this 1795 half dollar because I loved the look of the piece. It was in an NGC MS-62 holder. Now it's in a PCGS AU-58 holder. CAC still rejected it, probably because there is too much toning for them in the fields. The eye appeal of this piece is wonderful, but it's hard to photograph it well.
Although I'm not an Overton collector, I know that it is the finest know example, by a wide margin (the #2 coin is EF, Cleaned), of a rare die variety, O-120, with perhaps 20 pieces known. It was expensive, but I'm not worried about the auction if I chose to sell it. This was a rare purchase of a U.S. coin for me. I still buy a few.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
I'm telling ya...now is the time for the sticker to end all stickers... regardless of whose service or any other stickers, only one tells you that yours is a Super Quality Uber Awesome Coin! It's not too late to get in on the ground floor!
@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.
That sounds quite similar to their (already existent) crossover service.😉
Not even close. Take an NGC coin and try to enter it into a PCGS registry - not going to happen. The idea is a good one, PCGS agreeing on the grade, stickering it and then you could add it into a registry set. IMO nGC is the best since they will allow PCGS coins. I probably just got banned - sorry.
Sorry, but while that might be good for you, that would not be a sound business decision for PCGS. Under the current system, PCGS forces you to get their slabs for their registry - hence the crossover. Why would they want to encourage you to use other grading services? It protects their brand to insist on crossovers rather than offer a cheaper sticker alternative.
The problem is that with a 3rd respectable contender (PCGS, NGC, and CAC - Sorry ANACS, ICG), the PCGS registry almost has to change to allow competitor slabs. It was probably OK when it was just PCGS or NGC and then you could get the sticker, but with CAC being an attractive and viable alternative, I think fewer and fewer collectors will aspire (and limit themselves) to a PCGS-only registry set. And if you're not competing with other top collections, what's the point?
@BStrauss3 said:
They will have to keep demand down to capacity -
Only in this industry does a statement like that get uttered. I will never understand why numismatic companies refuse to scale their businesses to meet demand. Can you imagine Ford, Walmart, Apple etc trying to keep demand down?
@BStrauss3 said:
They will have to keep demand down to capacity -
Only in this industry does a statement like that get uttered. I will never understand why numismatic companies refuse to scale their businesses to meet demand. Can you imagine Ford, Walmart, Apple etc trying to keep demand down?
I would even suggest that because CAC still is not allowing new memberships that they are no where near ready to start offering their grading service.
@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.
That sounds quite similar to their (already existent) crossover service.😉
Not even close. Take an NGC coin and try to enter it into a PCGS registry - not going to happen. The idea is a good one, PCGS agreeing on the grade, stickering it and then you could add it into a registry set. IMO nGC is the best since they will allow PCGS coins. I probably just got banned - sorry.
Sorry, but while that might be good for you, that would not be a sound business decision for PCGS. Under the current system, PCGS forces you to get their slabs for their registry - hence the crossover. Why would they want to encourage you to use other grading services? It protects their brand to insist on crossovers rather than offer a cheaper sticker alternative.
The problem is that with a 3rd respectable contender (PCGS, NGC, and CAC - Sorry ANACS, ICG), the PCGS registry almost has to change to allow competitor slabs. It was probably OK when it was just PCGS or NGC and then you could get the sticker, but with CAC being an attractive and viable alternative, I think fewer and fewer collectors will aspire (and limit themselves) to a PCGS-only registry set. And if you're not competing with other top collections, what's the point?
For PCGS, the point is to make money. They have a choice between seeing an exodus of high-end collectors to CACG and the CACG registry, or they can come up with a plan to allow CACG in their registry. If they are smart, they will do it in a way that allows them to make money, which is some way of certifying PCGS concurrence without reholdering something slabbed by CACG.
@BStrauss3 said:
They will have to keep demand down to capacity -
Only in this industry does a statement like that get uttered. I will never understand why numismatic companies refuse to scale their businesses to meet demand. Can you imagine Ford, Walmart, Apple etc trying to keep demand down?
I doubt that such statements get uttered only in this industry. That aside, as far as I know, the statement didn't come from CACG. But if it had, that would indicate that they're more concerned about doing things right than with doing more business. And that doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@BStrauss3 said:
They will have to keep demand down to capacity -
Only in this industry does a statement like that get uttered. I will never understand why numismatic companies refuse to scale their businesses to meet demand. Can you imagine Ford, Walmart, Apple etc trying to keep demand down?
I would even suggest that because CAC still is not allowing new memberships that they are no where near ready to start offering their grading service.
Even if they were ready to open for business today, I think it would be far more prudent to wait until things were well underway and running smoothly, before opening up new memberships.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The problem is that with a 3rd respectable contender (PCGS, NGC, and CAC - Sorry ANACS, ICG), the PCGS registry almost has to change to allow competitor slabs. It was probably OK when it was just PCGS or NGC and then you could get the sticker, but with CAC being an attractive and viable alternative, I think fewer and fewer collectors will aspire (and limit themselves) to a PCGS-only registry set. And if you're not competing with other top collections, what's the point?
I agree with this comment. I think a first step for PCGS is to allow CAC slabs into the PCGS CAC stickered sets. PCGS should also expand the number of these PCGS CAC sets from the current offering. This way you have PCGS sets and PCGS CAC (sticker or slab) sets. This would be a middle ground to deal with this competitive issue for PCGS.
@telephoto1 said:
I'm telling ya...now is the time for the sticker to end all stickers... regardless of whose service or any other stickers, only one tells you that yours is a Super Quality Uber Awesome Coin! It's not too late to get in on the ground floor!
I really think you shoud change it to "Super Quality Uber Awesome Wonderful Kickazz Coin". The acronym "SQUAWKC" would then be quite descriptive of the probable reaction of forumites who will remain unnamed.
All I know is that maybe 90% of my slabbed coin collection have either gold or green beans. I fully expect that those coins will demand very strong money in the years to come. Similarly, I believe that CAC graded raw coins will demand a greater premium than NGC and PCGS coins in the years to come.
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
they're more concerned about doing things right than with doing more business. And that doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
The entire purpose of a business is to make money. It is fair, we all have to eat and stay warm. I kinda get the altruistic angle but really when it is all said and done - you did it to make money. I farm and own a high tech company but I know I am not good at certain other jobs - hence why I pay others to do those.
Comments
In that thread, Mr. Feld said:
If coins are truly categorized by CAC as A, B and C quality for the grade, label them as such in the holders.
There’s no need to make it more complicated, confusing and/or less transparent than that by using a plus, a minus, a lower numerical grade, a sticker, a different colored label, adjectives or anything else.
Hard to argue with that.
Are you 💩ing me ? First you get on my case because I haven’t been here long enough then because I’ve been here to long. Take your time think up something good.
Why shouldn't it? Are they saying they will grade there coins more accurately thant the other big players and are therefor exempt from second opinions? Maybe PCGS and NCG will add sticker programs. I am actually not sure why they haven't done so yet.
The problem they are running into is finding enough grading talent.
Thank John!:)
Yes.
No.
Any person or organization is free to offer a sticker approval service for CACG slabs, or any other slabs for that matter. That doesn't mean that anyone else is going to give a crap, or pay a premium for it.
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
This argument of technical vs market grading has been an everlasting situation. I don’t think there is really any right or wrong way. Collect whatever system you believe in or like better. The bottom line is buy for value in either scenario. I have no issue with paying 64 money for a coin that otherwise would cost triple or more as a 66.
As an aside I think most 58+ coins will still have very slight wear on the fields or devices as opposed to net graded coins that strictly have only the slightest bit of high point friction
CAC stickers ...numbered days?
Does anyone know how many days?
On that date... will the stickers fall off the coins?
Will a CAC graded 65 = a PCGS/NGC 66 or 65 with a sticker or possibly a 64 with a gold?
Will I need to send the CAC graded coins to PCGS for confirmation of the grade? Then to NGC for a confirmation of PCGS TPG confirmation? Then back to CAC to see if they agree?
Will I have more decisions on whether to cross a NGC coin to PCGS or CAC and vice versa? Worried about shipping costs.
Will a TPG slab influence CAC's decision on a final grade? If so, positively or negatively?
Should I break all of my coins out of slabs and start again?
The proposition of an AU59 grade has been brought up before to be a more appropriate grade for the coins that do have the just slightest amount of high point friction and almost no wear in the fields. It was shot down, but imo CAC is going to reserve the 58+ grade for those coins, the AU63-64s.
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
frankly I wouldn't mess with anyone that has or had agent and 007 in their name.
IN my humble opinion.. I wouldn't mess around with someone who has a bouncing ICON.
I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread yet, but JA said his initial reasoning for starting as a grading service was to expedite that whole process. Obviously he market favors CAC, and its inconvenient to have to send your coins all around the country in order to bring top dollar. Hence CAC grading is born, a "one stop shop" if you choose to go that route. None of us "need" to do anything, and CAC has never forced you to send your coins in. No one is stopping you from cracking all of your coins out and doing whatever it is you want to do with them.
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
This is maybe the latest example of the US coin market becoming overly complicated. I wonder how many attorneys JA has on the payroll to get all this going. Sorry if I’m coming off with a bad attitude, but it’s just my opinion.
How do you feel about paying 64 money for a coin that's actually not mint state?
In case you haven't noticed on every Vault Box or CAC thread, there are many people who aren't content to simply not play. They need to make sure that no one can play. Maybe it's so they don't feel left out.
I own such a PCGS 64 coin and since it has blast luster with slight attractive toning, and clean 66 surfaces and above average eye appeal I am okay with that. It actually has a better look than virtually every CAC 64 I have ever seen.
I would prefer a CAC 64 but it needs to be equal or better than my net graded 64 and I haven’t found one yet. I imagine if it was in a CACG 58+ holder it possibly could bring the same price as my PCGS 64.
If I was PCGS, I would “sticker” CACG holders with a PCGS number to show approval and allow them into the PCGS registry.
And that's why you're not in charge of PCGS...
There’s nothing lost if they charge the same price that they charge for a crossover. In fact, it would increase their profit because they wouldn’t be incurring the holdering cost.
But why would someone pay the same to sticker as crossover? Answer: they like the CACG holder.
It's branding 101.
It's like Coach selling a $3000 label to put on your Walmart bag. They still get $3000 but they've normalized the bag.
Why do you think they haven't stickered NGC?
But they will, you know, because coin collectors are compulsive and not always rational and give in to fear.
For my Gold Type Set, I have only purchased AU58 CAC coins. I sleep well at night.
End Systemic Elitism - It Takes All Of Us
That analogy is a little thin. Buying a designer handbag is not the same as paying for an opinion of the condition of a collectible.
I think your analogy doesn’t work. CACG is the higher end product when compared to PCGS and I think that is how the market will perceive them. The market perceives NGC as a lower-end product when compared to PCGS. The right analogy would be Coach (a mass-market, middle-end brand) agreeing to have Dior (a high-end brand) bags in its stores.
That is not how PCGS perceives themselves. Nor should they.
Why do you think PCGS (or NGC) will negotiate to slab trophy coins? They want their label on the premium coins. They certainly don't want to be in the business of approving of the competition's work product.
You want it because it makes it easier for you to play the registry game. There's no reason why PCGS should want it...unless people are abandoning their registries and their slabs.
But that is what the market perception is. @Vasanti ’s correction to your analogy is spot on, however I agree with you that there’s no reason PCGS would want that.
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
Yeah and you are well aware that this is not what CAC does in the real world but is the marketing. In the real world CAC takes advantage of the bell curve that ANY grading process, or any process at all, has by notating the better examples for any grade and rewarding them with stickers. Now that they will be in the hot seat and be doing the actual grading, you are going to see different results. There is a limit of how many competent and qualified graders there are. At NYINC I overheard that there was over 20K coins backlogged on ANCIENTS ALONE at a major grading company. At the end of the day, there is a process and ALL PROCESSES obey universal laws of production that are defined by statistics.
It is the misinformed who are fooled by the marketing and fail to understand the basics of quality control and process verification. It is a science, not an art.
CAC can only get better grading results when they grade from scratch by having better trained graders and to work slower, thereby creating a verifiable process that produces statistically verifiable results. ...and there is a real world limit of how far they can improve this process (aside from the aditional difficulties which involve differences in opinion on what is being graded). When they are stickering someone else's work, however, they can ALWAY split the bell curve.
I depend on my expert dealers to help me understand the quality coins I buy, and I trust my own eye and knowledge broadly for lesser coins. I trust input from my dealer. If I don't trust a dealer, I generally stay away from his/her coins, even if they have something I want. And I pay my dealer a premium for this service when I buy coins from them. CAC really means nothing to me other than that it give the coin more market value if I chose to sell. It is a reality that can't be ignored. But despite the position CAC has put itself into, grading the bell curve, you still end up quibbling with CAC results all the time. There is no last word on the quality of a grade or infallible grading system.
You make some fair points and I agree with several of them, but I'm of the opinion that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. CAC is not going to have anywhere close to the volume of coins to grade that PCGS or NGC does. A you know, CAC has been closed for new membership since the end of '21. The reason for that was to preserve the integrity of their standards, and to be able to service the existing members with a level of consistency. If they wanted to they could have opened up the flood gates, hired a few more inexperienced graders, and accepted as many submissions as possible no matter how it affected the final product, but they didn't.
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
That, and they only review a fraction of the coins that the TPGs grade.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Perhaps as the movie line goes; He is a legend in his own mind.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
There is a coin for sale on eBay right now that has such an amazing look, one that the graders thirty years ago, must have paused for, electing to give it a bump in grade, beyond where surface preservation would allow. I love everything about it, even the grade. A badge of honor. I don’t like criticizing it as being over-graded. However, downgrading a C coin down to a next lower grade+ makes little sense to me. It muddies the water and degrades the value we assign to the symbol. Almost every + coin I see looks PQ but perhaps those days are numbered. My eBay example is a home run. No sticker. If it ends up in my collection, I will share.
Matt Snebold
Since every + coin you've ever seen couldn't make it to the next higher grade, it is worse than the C coin at the next highest grade... by definition. 64+ does not mean better than 65, not even if it's just barely a 65.
No PCGS doesn't or at least didn't have a list of failed NGC crossovers as recently as September 2021 which is when I last graded there.
OK, need to send in a few I've been sitting on. Assuming we can submit any CAC-eligible coin for the $35 tier, not just ones worth over $10k, which is how Tier 2 is defined?
This quote sums it up for me. TPG's provide a useful service, to a point, but the added cost of all of these dizzying innovations means that my hobby dollar does not go as far as it used to. How much more cream can be skimmed off the top, I wonder...
Edited for punctuation.
Dude you need to read up, they just don't fall off they fly off. Just be careful. A sticker traveling a 27K MPH will make for a bad day.
You are a long time, very knowledgeable collector and and like me, must be getting up in years. How liquid is your new collection in terms of being able to accurately value it or is that not a consideration?
It's not a consideration; I am having fun. The few times I have sold some of the pieces I acquired because I got a better one, I either lost a little money, under $100, or actually made a little money.
I recently completed my goal of acquiring every British king and queen from Alfred the Great to Elizabeth II. I'll get a Charles III when things settle down a little. There is intense demand for many of the early kings now. It's much harder find them than when I started.
As for the Roman coins, there is a huge interest in the 12 Caesars, the first 12 Roman emperors, starting with Julius Caesar who was actually a dictator, not an emperor. The dealers tell me they can't keep the coins in stock, and that appears to be true from what I see in their inventories.
As for that collection, I'm up to the emperors who served past Constantine the Great. The emperors into the 400s are really tough, and I wouldn't get many of them. Sometimes it's best to buy the gold solidus for some of them. Nice examples of the more common ones retail for around $1,000.
I'm getting a bit tired of the collectors who mostly concerned with how much they have pay for a coin and how much they can get for it. There is a lot more to the hobby than than that.
I have some CAC approved coins. I don't reject them. I have to be comfortable with the price.
I bought this 1795 half dollar because I loved the look of the piece. It was in an NGC MS-62 holder. Now it's in a PCGS AU-58 holder. CAC still rejected it, probably because there is too much toning for them in the fields. The eye appeal of this piece is wonderful, but it's hard to photograph it well.
Although I'm not an Overton collector, I know that it is the finest know example, by a wide margin (the #2 coin is EF, Cleaned), of a rare die variety, O-120, with perhaps 20 pieces known. It was expensive, but I'm not worried about the auction if I chose to sell it. This was a rare purchase of a U.S. coin for me. I still buy a few.
I'm telling ya...now is the time for the sticker to end all stickers... regardless of whose service or any other stickers, only one tells you that yours is a Super Quality Uber Awesome Coin! It's not too late to get in on the ground floor!
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
The problem is that with a 3rd respectable contender (PCGS, NGC, and CAC - Sorry ANACS, ICG), the PCGS registry almost has to change to allow competitor slabs. It was probably OK when it was just PCGS or NGC and then you could get the sticker, but with CAC being an attractive and viable alternative, I think fewer and fewer collectors will aspire (and limit themselves) to a PCGS-only registry set. And if you're not competing with other top collections, what's the point?
Only in this industry does a statement like that get uttered. I will never understand why numismatic companies refuse to scale their businesses to meet demand. Can you imagine Ford, Walmart, Apple etc trying to keep demand down?
Check out my iPhone app SlabReader!
I would even suggest that because CAC still is not allowing new memberships that they are no where near ready to start offering their grading service.
For PCGS, the point is to make money. They have a choice between seeing an exodus of high-end collectors to CACG and the CACG registry, or they can come up with a plan to allow CACG in their registry. If they are smart, they will do it in a way that allows them to make money, which is some way of certifying PCGS concurrence without reholdering something slabbed by CACG.
I doubt that such statements get uttered only in this industry. That aside, as far as I know, the statement didn't come from CACG. But if it had, that would indicate that they're more concerned about doing things right than with doing more business. And that doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Even if they were ready to open for business today, I think it would be far more prudent to wait until things were well underway and running smoothly, before opening up new memberships.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I agree with this comment. I think a first step for PCGS is to allow CAC slabs into the PCGS CAC stickered sets. PCGS should also expand the number of these PCGS CAC sets from the current offering. This way you have PCGS sets and PCGS CAC (sticker or slab) sets. This would be a middle ground to deal with this competitive issue for PCGS.
I really think you shoud change it to "Super Quality Uber Awesome Wonderful Kickazz Coin". The acronym "SQUAWKC" would then be quite descriptive of the probable reaction of forumites who will remain unnamed.
Coinlearner, Ahrensdad, Nolawyer, RG, coinlieutenant, Yorkshireman, lordmarcovan, Soldi, masscrew, JimTyler, Relaxn, jclovescoins
Now listen boy, I'm tryin' to teach you sumthin' . . . . that ain't an optical illusion, it only looks like an optical illusion.
My mind reader refuses to charge me....
All I know is that maybe 90% of my slabbed coin collection have either gold or green beans. I fully expect that those coins will demand very strong money in the years to come. Similarly, I believe that CAC graded raw coins will demand a greater premium than NGC and PCGS coins in the years to come.
The entire purpose of a business is to make money. It is fair, we all have to eat and stay warm. I kinda get the altruistic angle but really when it is all said and done - you did it to make money. I farm and own a high tech company but I know I am not good at certain other jobs - hence why I pay others to do those.