My initial terminology may have been confusing. Hopefully this can clarify the four basic reasons coins do not pass at CAC. : )
Over dipping (lack of luster) / cleaned long ago
Artificial toning
PVC
Over graded / a "C" coined will be knocked down to a lower grade "+" at CACG
Over dipping may be more logical when referring to Walking Liberty half dollars and Barbers. Cleaned long ago may be more logical when referring to Bust half dollars.
At CACG grading there will be no "C" coins. They will be either knocked down to a lower grade "+" or be DETAILS. Yes, one could submit a "C" coin to CACG and ask that it not be graded if the grade would be less than a "B."
@DisneyFan said:
At CACG grading there will be no "C" coins. They will be either knocked down to a lower grade "+" or be DETAILS. Yes, one could submit a "C" coin to CACG and ask that it not be graded if the grade would be less than a "B."
I'm not saying you're wrong but I am saying that is silly if true. For any grade number, for example MS63, there is a spectrum which if decimally expressed would be 63.00 to 63.99. I don't want to have an argument about where A and B and C lines are, but for discussion one could say 63.00 to 63.24 is a C coin, 63.25-63.75 is a B coin, and 63.76 to 63.99 is an A coin. And I don't want to argue about the ability or practicality of assigning a grade with that level of resolution, this is just for discussion. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a coin that would grade MS63.15. Conceptually, a collector would rather have an MS63.15 coin than an 62.85 coin. Why would CAC grade the 62.85 coin and not the 63.15 coin? The concept of the sticker makes sense - you simply identify those coins which are in a certain spectrum (A and B ranges). CAC should grade all non-details coins, but they will probably need to also add A, B, or C to the number. It's absolutely ridiculous to assume that coins that are too good for the prior grade number but "not good enough" (i.e., C) for the next grade can't/won't be graded by CAC.
Not sure agree with that. A C Coin in my view is a coin in the bottom 33 pct of coins in the grade range. Furthermore I don’t believe all graders are so in sync that a coin would consistently be an A or B. Everybody knows grading can be subjective. The other nite some of us in coin club met for coffee the question was what pct of the CAC CPG offer for the coins from the new grading svc from your table at show. The median number was around 67pct. My number slightly higher bc would want be competitive above net after auc juice.
@Cougar1978 said:
Not sure agree with that. A C Coin in my view is a coin in the bottom 33 pct of coins in the grade range. Furthermore I don’t believe all graders are so in sync that a coin would consistently be an A or B. Everybody knows grading can be subjective.
Yeah, but that's not a reason for a company whose purpose is to grade coins not to assign a grade to a coin. If I'm paying for a grading opinion, I want the grade regardless of whether it is A, B, or C.
OK, I was late to the party here. Another CAC thread! Haven't had one here for a few weeks (?). Just spent 30 minutes reading through all 5 pages, and you know what? I did not learn anything that wasn't already in the previous CAC threads............
Can't wait for the next Vault Box thread.
I can't wait for the first CAC Vault Box thread... and a full moon.
I never said they would not assign a grade to a coin. Get your facts straight.
I don’t think your grasping my point. If one has 9 coins of an issue and lays them out rating 1-9 the bottom 3 as far as that audit sample wb in theory C coins lol.
@Cougar1978 said:
Not sure agree with that. A C Coin in my view is a coin in the bottom 33 pct of coins in the grade range. Furthermore I don’t believe all graders are so in sync that a coin would consistently be an A or B. Everybody knows grading can be subjective. The other nite some of us in coin club met for coffee the question was what pct of the CAC CPG offer for the coins from the new grading svc from your table at show. The median number was around 67pct. My number slightly higher bc would want be competitive above net after auc juice.
Wow Cougar, I was almost about to agree with one of your comments, and then you had to go and edit in the "67% of CPG" comment 🥲. Thats not even greysheet bid for CAC in most cases.
@DisneyFan said:
At CACG grading there will be no "C" coins. They will be either knocked down to a lower grade "+" or be DETAILS. Yes, one could submit a "C" coin to CACG and ask that it not be graded if the grade would be less than a "B."
I'm not saying you're wrong but I am saying that is silly if true. For any grade number, for example MS63, there is a spectrum which if decimally expressed would be 63.00 to 63.99. I don't want to have an argument about where A and B and C lines are, but for discussion one could say 63.00 to 63.24 is a C coin, 63.25-63.75 is a B coin, and 63.76 to 63.99 is an A coin. And I don't want to argue about the ability or practicality of assigning a grade with that level of resolution, this is just for discussion. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a coin that would grade MS63.15. Conceptually, a collector would rather have an MS63.15 coin than an 62.85 coin. Why would CAC grade the 62.85 coin and not the 63.15 coin? The concept of the sticker makes sense - you simply identify those coins which are in a certain spectrum (A and B ranges). CAC should grade all non-details coins, but they will probably need to also add A, B, or C to the number. It's absolutely ridiculous to assume that coins that are too good for the prior grade number but "not good enough" (i.e., C) for the next grade can't/won't be graded by CAC.
Based on what CACG has said on their forum, @DisneyFan ’s main point is how they plan on grading coins. That is, CACG is saying a coin straight graded in their holder is not only defect-free in their opinion, but is also “solid for the grade” on the label. Hence, most defect-free “C” coins will be graded as a “+” coin at the next lower grade number (and some may grade even lower).
You ( @ProofCollection ) obviously disagree with that methodology, and you’re not alone. But it’s their ball, so they make the rules. I suspect “the market” will go along with that tougher grading methodology, as there is merit to it. But it’s a free market, and not everyone has to play.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@Cougar1978 said:
I never said they would not assign a grade to a coin. Get your facts straight.
I don’t think your grasping my point. If one has 9 coins of an issue and lays them out rating 1-9 the bottom 3 as far as that audit sample wb in theory C coins lol.
You said that a coin that was not an A or B coin may be returned as DETAILS which is not a grade:
They will be either knocked down to a lower grade "+" or be DETAILS.
@Cougar1978 said:
I never said they would not assign a grade to a coin. Get your facts straight.
I don’t think your grasping my point. If one has 9 coins of an issue and lays them out rating 1-9 the bottom 3 as far as that audit sample wb in theory C coins lol.
You said that a coin that was not an A or B coin may be returned as DETAILS which is not a grade:
They will be either knocked down to a lower grade "+" or be DETAILS.
@Catbert said:
JA has said he'll keep stickering for 10 years after CACG launch. I doubt it'll be that long a time, but "time will tell." If it remains at the current $35 lvel vs the previous $16 for collectors, it's still worthwhile for those who don't want to reslab their PCGS or NGC coins at CACG.
Continuing to sticker for a while is sensible. It is possible that the new grading service might go over like a lead balloon.
@Cougar1978 said:
Not sure agree with that. A C Coin in my view is a coin in the bottom 33 pct of coins in the grade range. Furthermore I don’t believe all graders are so in sync that a coin would consistently be an A or B. Everybody knows grading can be subjective.
Yeah, but that's not a reason for a company whose purpose is to grade coins not to assign a grade to a coin. If I'm paying for a grading opinion, I want the grade regardless of whether it is A, B, or C.
You'll get your answer regardless, the line is just being moved 1/3 of a grade. If your 65 is deemed to be a "C" it will come back 64+, and my estimate that a CAC 64+ is going to trade closer to the price of a Non-CAC 65 of the other tpgs. It might be worse than a "C" and even come back as a straight 64, or it might not straight grade at all. Coins that they believe are problem free will receive a straight grade. Do you take issue with PCGS if they refuse to assign a numerical grade and your coin comes back in a "Details" slab?
I know many CAC threads have had legs, but this one is on its 6th page! Fortunately we’ve all been behaving ourselves, so even though many things are subjective, at least many of us have been able to learn some details on what’s coming down the pike with a new TPG regarding their grading policies and two new Registries. Whether we support it or not, will buy or crossover, or not, having an informed understanding of it is good!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@Cougar1978 said:
I never said they would not assign a grade to a coin. Get your facts straight.
I don’t think your grasping my point. If one has 9 coins of an issue and lays them out rating 1-9 the bottom 3 as far as that audit sample wb in theory C coins lol.
You said that a coin that was not an A or B coin may be returned as DETAILS which is not a grade:
They will be either knocked down to a lower grade "+" or be DETAILS.
@winesteven said:
Based on what CACG has said on their forum, @DisneyFan ’s main point is how they plan on grading coins. That is, CACG is saying a coin straight graded in their holder is not only defect-free in their opinion, but is also “solid for the grade” on the label. Hence, most defect-free “C” coins will be graded as a “+” coin at the next lower grade number (and some may grade even lower).
In that case (most defect-free “C” coins will be graded as a “+” coin at the next lower grade number), the "B" coins will be at the bottom end of the grade. There's a cutoff between grades somewhere. And the coins that just make it are low end (not solid) for that grade. There's no way around that.
If the grading process is refining coins into "A", "B" and "C" levels, it seems like it would be much simpler and less confusing to just put that on the label: MS65A, MS65B and MS65C.
@winesteven said:
Based on what CACG has said on their forum, @DisneyFan ’s main point is how they plan on grading coins. That is, CACG is saying a coin straight graded in their holder is not only defect-free in their opinion, but is also “solid for the grade” on the label. Hence, most defect-free “C” coins will be graded as a “+” coin at the next lower grade number (and some may grade even lower).
In that case (most defect-free “C” coins will be graded as a “+” coin at the next lower grade number), the "B" coins will be at the bottom end of the grade. There's a cutoff between grades somewhere. And the coins that just make it are low end (not solid) for that grade. There's no way around that.
If the grading process is refining coins into "A", "B" and "C" levels, it seems like it would be much simpler and less confusing to just put that on the label: MS65A, MS65B and MS65C.
I agree with the latter half of your comment, as many of us did, but that's not what they've chosen to do. The alternatives would have been to label A-B-C, or slab A and B coins with the image of a sticker printed on the obverse, but the C coins wouldn't get the printed "sticker". Instead, CAC is chosen this route as to not have any "Low end" for the grade coins in the pop reports at all. Though it sounds like a foreign concept, I could get used to it eventually.
Regarding the point made by @MasonG - In the new CACG holders, a whole grade number only, like MS65, would be all ”B” coins. Even though some are nicer than others, their grading philosophy is that all of those “B” coins are solid for that grade. “A” coins would have a “+” as part of their grade. In this example, MS65+ would indicate all “A” coins.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@DeplorableDan said:
I agree with the latter half of your comment, as many of us did, but that's not what they've chosen to do. The alternatives would have been to label A-B-C, or slab A and B coins with the image of a sticker printed on the obverse, but the C coins wouldn't get the printed "sticker". Instead, CAC is chosen this route as to not have any "Low end" for the grade coins in the pop reports at all. Though it sounds like a foreign concept, I could get used to it eventually.
It's not possible to not have any low end for the grade coins. The current cutoff is between "C" of MS65 and "A" of MS64. If you take the MS65C coins and move them to MS64+, the cutoff changes to between MS65B and MS64+, making MS65B the low end of the MS65 grade.
edited to add... The coins are what they are. No matter how you configure the grade levels, there will be a coin at the very bottom which, if it had just a little bit less luster or a few more bagmarks, would be a grade lower.
@DeplorableDan said:
I agree with the latter half of your comment, as many of us did, but that's not what they've chosen to do. The alternatives would have been to label A-B-C, or slab A and B coins with the image of a sticker printed on the obverse, but the C coins wouldn't get the printed "sticker". Instead, CAC is chosen this route as to not have any "Low end" for the grade coins in the pop reports at all. Though it sounds like a foreign concept, I could get used to it eventually.
It's not possible to not have any low end for the grade coins. The current cutoff is between "C" of MS65 and "A" of MS64. If you take the MS65C coins and move them to MS64+, the cutoff changes to between MS65B and MS64+, making MS65B the low end of the MS65 grade.
edited to add... The coins are what they are. No matter how you configure the grade levels, there will be a coin at the very bottom which, if it had just a little bit less luster or a few more bagmarks, would be a grade lower.
I agree with you, I don't really have a rebuttal for that because you are not wrong. I imagine they just want their "low end" coins that "just made the grade" to look better than the competitors.
@Vasanti said:
I would much prefer it if they didn’t holder “C” coins at all. That way, you know you are getting a solid coin for the grade no matter what.
But you are getting a solid coin for the grade, no matter what. If you buy a CAC 65, it's a solid 65. A not-so-solid 65 that gets downgraded is a solid 64 or 64+.
@DeplorableDan said:
I agree with you, I don't really have a rebuttal for that because you are not wrong. I imagine they just want their "low end" coins that "just made the grade" to look better than the competitors.
That's cool. There is no reason they can't create their own grading system, separate from what other TPGs use. It's just my opinion, but I think the idea that there'll be no "low end" coins in any system is silly.
@Vasanti said:
I would much prefer it if they didn’t holder “C” coins at all. That way, you know you are getting a solid coin for the grade no matter what.
As described above, they will not holder any “C” coins in CAGC holders in the same grade from the former TPG, so your wish of getting a solid coin for the grade in a CACG holder no matter what, is indeed what will happen!
Those defect-free “C” coins will mostly be “+” coins in the next lower grade, and according to CACG, those coins will now be solid for that new lower grade. Whether you agree or not, as an example, in the opinion of CACG, a former TPG defect free 65 “C” coin is solid as a 64+ in a CACG holder.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
Those defect-free “C” coins will mostly be “+” coins in the next lower grade, and according to CACG, those coins will now be solid for that new lower grade. Whether you agree or not, as an example, in the opinion of CACG, a former TPG defect free 65 “C” coin is solid as a 64+ in a CACG holder.
Wouldn't a 65C that's now a 64+ be high end for that grade? They should be better than 64A coins, right?
@winesteven said:
Those defect-free “C” coins will mostly be “+” coins in the next lower grade, and according to CACG, those coins will now be solid for that new lower grade. Whether you agree or not, as an example, in the opinion of CACG, a former TPG defect free 65 “C” coin is solid as a 64+ in a CACG holder.
Wouldn't a 65C that's now a 64+ be high end for that grade? They should be better than 64A coins, right?
No, because 64 “A” coins will grade as 64+ in CACG holders. CACG is saying 65C coins and 64A coins each = 64+ coins.
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@Vasanti said:
I would much prefer it if they didn’t holder “C” coins at all. That way, you know you are getting a solid coin for the grade no matter what.
Why? Grading is a continuous spectrum. Why would you omit certain parts of the spectrum in a way which really is arbitrary? The important part, IMO, is that you don't pay A money for a C coin. But why not buy a 65C if you can get it for the price of a 64A? Why is the 65C "garbage" just because of where it falls on the spectrum?
The coin is the coin. What matters is that coins don't get misrepresented or under/over-valued.
@winesteven said:
Those defect-free “C” coins will mostly be “+” coins in the next lower grade, and according to CACG, those coins will now be solid for that new lower grade. Whether you agree or not, as an example, in the opinion of CACG, a former TPG defect free 65 “C” coin is solid as a 64+ in a CACG holder.
The theory is great but the problem with this is that it's dishonest. A low end 65 is better than 64+, and should be graded as such.
@winesteven said:
No, because 64 “A” coins will grade as 64+ in CACG holders. CACG is saying 65C coins and 64A coins each = 64+ coins.
The problem with that approach is that it distorts certain sections of the grading spectrum, which is not objectively fair or honest. This approach takes a spectrum and removes sections of it and forces coins lower than they should be.
@winesteven said:
Those defect-free “C” coins will mostly be “+” coins in the next lower grade, and according to CACG, those coins will now be solid for that new lower grade. Whether you agree or not, as an example, in the opinion of CACG, a former TPG defect free 65 “C” coin is solid as a 64+ in a CACG holder.
The theory is great but the problem with this is that it's dishonest. A low end 65 is better than 64+, and should be graded as such.
That’s subjective. Not everyone would agree with your point. Time will tell how this plays out.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
Those defect-free “C” coins will mostly be “+” coins in the next lower grade, and according to CACG, those coins will now be solid for that new lower grade. Whether you agree or not, as an example, in the opinion of CACG, a former TPG defect free 65 “C” coin is solid as a 64+ in a CACG holder.
The theory is great but the problem with this is that it's dishonest. A low end 65 is better than 64+, and should be graded as such.
That’s subjective. Not everyone would agree with your point. Time will tell how this plays out.
Steve
It's not subjective. The Sheldon coin grading scale is a spectrum wherein a 65 is always better than a 64.
@Vasanti said:
I would much prefer it if they didn’t holder “C” coins at all. That way, you know you are getting a solid coin for the grade no matter what.
Why? Grading is a continuous spectrum. Why would you omit certain parts of the spectrum in a way which really is arbitrary? The important part, IMO, is that you don't pay A money for a C coin. But why not buy a 65C if you can get it for the price of a 64A? Why is the 65C "garbage" just because of where it falls on the spectrum?
The coin is the coin. What matters is that coins don't get misrepresented or under/over-valued.
You very well might be able to buy a 65C coin for the price of a 64A. Because if CACG does as planned, a former CAC 65C will be in a CACG 64+ holder.😉 And it won’t be thought of as “garbage”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@winesteven said:
No, because 64 “A” coins will grade as 64+ in CACG holders. CACG is saying 65C coins and 64A coins each = 64+ coins.
Then why weren't the 65C coins graded as 64A to start? Taking 65C coins and grouping them with 64A coins as though they're all equal in grade means you're combining some coins (65C) of higher grade with some (64A) of lower grade and saying there's no difference even though you have already made a distinction (65C vs. 64A). How is that an improvement?
@winesteven said:
No, because 64 “A” coins will grade as 64+ in CACG holders. CACG is saying 65C coins and 64A coins each = 64+ coins.
Then why weren't the 65C coins graded as 64A to start? Taking 65C coins and grouping them with 64A coins as though they're all equal in grade means you're combining some coins (65C) of higher grade with some (64A) of lower grade and saying there's no difference even though you have already made a distinction (65C vs. 64A). How is that an improvement?
In answer to your question, because CAC didn’t award grades, so had no opportunity to grade a 65C coin as a 64A (or any other grade) to start. If they thought the coin was of C quality, their only option was to decline to sticker it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@winesteven said:
No, because 64 “A” coins will grade as 64+ in CACG holders. CACG is saying 65C coins and 64A coins each = 64+ coins.
Then why weren't the 65C coins graded as 64A to start? Taking 65C coins and grouping them with 64A coins as though they're all equal in grade means you're combining some coins (65C) of higher grade with some (64A) of lower grade and saying there's no difference even though you have already made a distinction (65C vs. 64A). How is that an improvement?
Exactly. I can't support such foolishness.
Edited to add: This creates another problem because it creates a hidden ++ grade so collectors can now seek out the 65Cs that were put in CAC 64+ holders. And then I can start a sticker company to put stickers to indicate which ones those are.
@winesteven said:
No, because 64 “A” coins will grade as 64+ in CACG holders. CACG is saying 65C coins and 64A coins each = 64+ coins.
Then why weren't the 65C coins graded as 64A to start? Taking 65C coins and grouping them with 64A coins as though they're all equal in grade means you're combining some coins (65C) of higher grade with some (64A) of lower grade and saying there's no difference even though you have already made a distinction (65C vs. 64A). How is that an improvement?
Exactly. I can't support such foolishness.
Edited to add: This creates another problem because it creates a hidden ++ grade so collectors can now seek out the 65Cs that were put in CAC 64+ holders. And then I can start a sticker company to put stickers to indicate which ones those are.
Please let us know how your sticker company fares.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said:
In answer to your question, because CAC didn’t award grades, so had no opportunity to grade a 65C coin as a 64A (or any other grade) to start.
Yes, I understand that. The question was a little clunky- sorry.
@MFeld said:
If they thought the coin was of C quality, their only option was to decline to sticker it.
Going forward, if they think the coin is of C quality, they're going to group it with coins in a lower grade. In effect, they're grading "A" "B" or "C" in one numerical grade (say MS65) and labeling "+" or "No +", with some of the "+" from a higher grade (MS65C) grouped with some in a lower (MS64A) one.
I'm not saying they can't do whatever they want, but taking coins that have been sorted into three bins based on grade ("A" "B" and "C") and reorganizing them into two bins ("+" or "No +") seems... well, odd.
@MFeld said:
In answer to your question, because CAC didn’t award grades, so had no opportunity to grade a 65C coin as a 64A (or any other grade) to start.
Yes, I understand that. The question was a little clunky- sorry.
@MFeld said:
If they thought the coin was of C quality, their only option was to decline to sticker it.
Going forward, if they think the coin is of C quality, they're going to group it with coins in a lower grade. In effect, they're grading "A" "B" or "C" in one numerical grade (say MS65) and labeling "+" or "No +", with some of the "+" from a higher grade (MS65C) grouped with some in a lower (MS64A) one.
I'm not saying they can't do whatever they want, but taking coins that have been sorted into three bins based on grade ("A" "B" and "C") and reorganizing them into two bins ("+" or "No +") seems... well, odd.
I agree with you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@winesteven said:
Those defect-free “C” coins will mostly be “+” coins in the next lower grade, and according to CACG, those coins will now be solid for that new lower grade. Whether you agree or not, as an example, in the opinion of CACG, a former TPG defect free 65 “C” coin is solid as a 64+ in a CACG holder.
The theory is great but the problem with this is that it's dishonest. A low end 65 is better than 64+, and should be graded as such.
That’s subjective. Not everyone would agree with your point. Time will tell how this plays out.
Steve
It's not subjective. The Sheldon coin grading scale is a spectrum wherein a 65 is always better than a 64.
Oh really? Haven’t you seen some PCGS coins sell for more than NGC coins in a higher grade?
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
Those defect-free “C” coins will mostly be “+” coins in the next lower grade, and according to CACG, those coins will now be solid for that new lower grade. Whether you agree or not, as an example, in the opinion of CACG, a former TPG defect free 65 “C” coin is solid as a 64+ in a CACG holder.
The theory is great but the problem with this is that it's dishonest. A low end 65 is better than 64+, and should be graded as such.
That’s subjective. Not everyone would agree with your point. Time will tell how this plays out.
Steve
It's not subjective. The Sheldon coin grading scale is a spectrum wherein a 65 is always better than a 64.
Oh really? Haven’t you seen some PCGS coins sell for more than NGC coins in a higher grade?
This assumes that PCGS and NGC use an identical grading system. Do they? If PCGS coins sell for more than NGC coins in a higher grade, that would seem to indicate they don't.
edited to add... or, you could check out @MFeld below.
@winesteven said:
Those defect-free “C” coins will mostly be “+” coins in the next lower grade, and according to CACG, those coins will now be solid for that new lower grade. Whether you agree or not, as an example, in the opinion of CACG, a former TPG defect free 65 “C” coin is solid as a 64+ in a CACG holder.
The theory is great but the problem with this is that it's dishonest. A low end 65 is better than 64+, and should be graded as such.
That’s subjective. Not everyone would agree with your point. Time will tell how this plays out.
Steve
It's not subjective. The Sheldon coin grading scale is a spectrum wherein a 65 is always better than a 64.
Oh really? Haven’t you seen some PCGS coins sell for more than NGC coins in a higher grade?
For that matter, haven’t you seen some PCGS coins of one grade sell for more than PCGS coins of a higher grade?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
But if all the coins are “special” and PQ (because we undergrade intentionally) then none of the coins are special for most issues. Where does that leave us market wise?
@cameonut2011 said:
But if all the coins are “special” and PQ (because we undergrade intentionally) then none of the coins are special for most issues. Where does that leave us market wise?
Only “the market” can answer that question.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said:
In answer to your question, because CAC didn’t award grades, so had no opportunity to grade a 65C coin as a 64A (or any other grade) to start.
Yes, I understand that. The question was a little clunky- sorry.
@MFeld said:
If they thought the coin was of C quality, their only option was to decline to sticker it.
Going forward, if they think the coin is of C quality, they're going to group it with coins in a lower grade. In effect, they're grading "A" "B" or "C" in one numerical grade (say MS65) and labeling "+" or "No +", with some of the "+" from a higher grade (MS65C) grouped with some in a lower (MS64A) one.
I'm not saying they can't do whatever they want, but taking coins that have been sorted into three bins based on grade ("A" "B" and "C") and reorganizing them into two bins ("+" or "No +") seems... well, odd.
Yet as noted, that is exactly their plan!
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
Those defect-free “C” coins will mostly be “+” coins in the next lower grade, and according to CACG, those coins will now be solid for that new lower grade. Whether you agree or not, as an example, in the opinion of CACG, a former TPG defect free 65 “C” coin is solid as a 64+ in a CACG holder.
The theory is great but the problem with this is that it's dishonest. A low end 65 is better than 64+, and should be graded as such.
That’s subjective. Not everyone would agree with your point. Time will tell how this plays out.
Steve
It's not subjective. The Sheldon coin grading scale is a spectrum wherein a 65 is always better than a 64.
Oh really? Haven’t you seen some PCGS coins sell for more than NGC coins in a higher grade?
To put that another way, how many times has someone here boasted that they took a downgrade on a crossover to P plastic because they feel the coin is worth more in the grade lower plastic.
@winesteven said:
Those defect-free “C” coins will mostly be “+” coins in the next lower grade, and according to CACG, those coins will now be solid for that new lower grade. Whether you agree or not, as an example, in the opinion of CACG, a former TPG defect free 65 “C” coin is solid as a 64+ in a CACG holder.
The theory is great but the problem with this is that it's dishonest. A low end 65 is better than 64+, and should be graded as such.
That’s subjective. Not everyone would agree with your point. Time will tell how this plays out.
Steve
It's not subjective. The Sheldon coin grading scale is a spectrum wherein a 65 is always better than a 64.
Oh really? Haven’t you seen some PCGS coins sell for more than NGC coins in a higher grade?
To put that another way, how many times has someone here boasted that they took a downgrade on a crossover to P plastic because they feel the coin is worth more in the grade lower plastic.
Actually, I’ve read on this forum several times where an NGC coin was crossed to PCGS at a lower grade!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@MFeld said:
In answer to your question, because CAC didn’t award grades, so had no opportunity to grade a 65C coin as a 64A (or any other grade) to start.
Yes, I understand that. The question was a little clunky- sorry.
@MFeld said:
If they thought the coin was of C quality, their only option was to decline to sticker it.
Going forward, if they think the coin is of C quality, they're going to group it with coins in a lower grade. In effect, they're grading "A" "B" or "C" in one numerical grade (say MS65) and labeling "+" or "No +", with some of the "+" from a higher grade (MS65C) grouped with some in a lower (MS64A) one.
I'm not saying they can't do whatever they want, but taking coins that have been sorted into three bins based on grade ("A" "B" and "C") and reorganizing them into two bins ("+" or "No +") seems... well, odd.
Yet as noted, that is exactly their plan!
So- they know that the MS65C coins they are grouping with MS64A ones grade higher, but they're not going to tell their customers which are which. Interesting plan.
@winesteven said:
Those defect-free “C” coins will mostly be “+” coins in the next lower grade, and according to CACG, those coins will now be solid for that new lower grade. Whether you agree or not, as an example, in the opinion of CACG, a former TPG defect free 65 “C” coin is solid as a 64+ in a CACG holder.
The theory is great but the problem with this is that it's dishonest. A low end 65 is better than 64+, and should be graded as such.
That’s subjective. Not everyone would agree with your point. Time will tell how this plays out.
Steve
It's not subjective. The Sheldon coin grading scale is a spectrum wherein a 65 is always better than a 64.
Oh really? Haven’t you seen some PCGS coins sell for more than NGC coins in a higher grade?
This assumes that PCGS and NGC use an identical grading system. Do they? If PCGS coins sell for more than NGC coins in a higher grade, that would seem to indicate they don't.
edited to add... or, you could check out @MFeld below.
And THAT’S the point! CACG grades differently than PCGS and NGC!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
Comments
My initial terminology may have been confusing. Hopefully this can clarify the four basic reasons coins do not pass at CAC. : )
Over dipping may be more logical when referring to Walking Liberty half dollars and Barbers. Cleaned long ago may be more logical when referring to Bust half dollars.
At CACG grading there will be no "C" coins. They will be either knocked down to a lower grade "+" or be DETAILS. Yes, one could submit a "C" coin to CACG and ask that it not be graded if the grade would be less than a "B."
I'm not saying you're wrong but I am saying that is silly if true. For any grade number, for example MS63, there is a spectrum which if decimally expressed would be 63.00 to 63.99. I don't want to have an argument about where A and B and C lines are, but for discussion one could say 63.00 to 63.24 is a C coin, 63.25-63.75 is a B coin, and 63.76 to 63.99 is an A coin. And I don't want to argue about the ability or practicality of assigning a grade with that level of resolution, this is just for discussion. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a coin that would grade MS63.15. Conceptually, a collector would rather have an MS63.15 coin than an 62.85 coin. Why would CAC grade the 62.85 coin and not the 63.15 coin? The concept of the sticker makes sense - you simply identify those coins which are in a certain spectrum (A and B ranges). CAC should grade all non-details coins, but they will probably need to also add A, B, or C to the number. It's absolutely ridiculous to assume that coins that are too good for the prior grade number but "not good enough" (i.e., C) for the next grade can't/won't be graded by CAC.
Not sure agree with that. A C Coin in my view is a coin in the bottom 33 pct of coins in the grade range. Furthermore I don’t believe all graders are so in sync that a coin would consistently be an A or B. Everybody knows grading can be subjective. The other nite some of us in coin club met for coffee the question was what pct of the CAC CPG offer for the coins from the new grading svc from your table at show. The median number was around 67pct. My number slightly higher bc would want be competitive above net after auc juice.
Yeah, but that's not a reason for a company whose purpose is to grade coins not to assign a grade to a coin. If I'm paying for a grading opinion, I want the grade regardless of whether it is A, B, or C.
10=2 mod 2> @spacehayduke said:
I can't wait for the first CAC Vault Box thread... and a full moon.
I never said they would not assign a grade to a coin. Get your facts straight.
I don’t think your grasping my point. If one has 9 coins of an issue and lays them out rating 1-9 the bottom 3 as far as that audit sample wb in theory C coins lol.
Wow Cougar, I was almost about to agree with one of your comments, and then you had to go and edit in the "67% of CPG" comment 🥲. Thats not even greysheet bid for CAC in most cases.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Based on what CACG has said on their forum, @DisneyFan ’s main point is how they plan on grading coins. That is, CACG is saying a coin straight graded in their holder is not only defect-free in their opinion, but is also “solid for the grade” on the label. Hence, most defect-free “C” coins will be graded as a “+” coin at the next lower grade number (and some may grade even lower).
You ( @ProofCollection ) obviously disagree with that methodology, and you’re not alone. But it’s their ball, so they make the rules. I suspect “the market” will go along with that tougher grading methodology, as there is merit to it. But it’s a free market, and not everyone has to play.
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
You said that a coin that was not an A or B coin may be returned as DETAILS which is not a grade:
Um, no 10 mod 2 = 0
The mod (modulo) operation is the arithmetic remainder, the remaining value of the integer division.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
@DismeyFan was the one who posted that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Continuing to sticker for a while is sensible. It is possible that the new grading service might go over like a lead balloon.
You'll get your answer regardless, the line is just being moved 1/3 of a grade. If your 65 is deemed to be a "C" it will come back 64+, and my estimate that a CAC 64+ is going to trade closer to the price of a Non-CAC 65 of the other tpgs. It might be worse than a "C" and even come back as a straight 64, or it might not straight grade at all. Coins that they believe are problem free will receive a straight grade. Do you take issue with PCGS if they refuse to assign a numerical grade and your coin comes back in a "Details" slab?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I know many CAC threads have had legs, but this one is on its 6th page! Fortunately we’ve all been behaving ourselves, so even though many things are subjective, at least many of us have been able to learn some details on what’s coming down the pike with a new TPG regarding their grading policies and two new Registries. Whether we support it or not, will buy or crossover, or not, having an informed understanding of it is good!
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 believe that is pretty close to what the MAN himself said. Start at minute 21:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfsSuW6v7TM
In that case (most defect-free “C” coins will be graded as a “+” coin at the next lower grade number), the "B" coins will be at the bottom end of the grade. There's a cutoff between grades somewhere. And the coins that just make it are low end (not solid) for that grade. There's no way around that.
If the grading process is refining coins into "A", "B" and "C" levels, it seems like it would be much simpler and less confusing to just put that on the label: MS65A, MS65B and MS65C.
I agree with the latter half of your comment, as many of us did, but that's not what they've chosen to do. The alternatives would have been to label A-B-C, or slab A and B coins with the image of a sticker printed on the obverse, but the C coins wouldn't get the printed "sticker". Instead, CAC is chosen this route as to not have any "Low end" for the grade coins in the pop reports at all. Though it sounds like a foreign concept, I could get used to it eventually.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Regarding the point made by @MasonG - In the new CACG holders, a whole grade number only, like MS65, would be all ”B” coins. Even though some are nicer than others, their grading philosophy is that all of those “B” coins are solid for that grade. “A” coins would have a “+” as part of their grade. In this example, MS65+ would indicate all “A” coins.
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
It's not possible to not have any low end for the grade coins. The current cutoff is between "C" of MS65 and "A" of MS64. If you take the MS65C coins and move them to MS64+, the cutoff changes to between MS65B and MS64+, making MS65B the low end of the MS65 grade.
edited to add... The coins are what they are. No matter how you configure the grade levels, there will be a coin at the very bottom which, if it had just a little bit less luster or a few more bagmarks, would be a grade lower.
I would much prefer it if they didn’t holder “C” coins at all. That way, you know you are getting a solid coin for the grade no matter what.
I agree with you, I don't really have a rebuttal for that because you are not wrong. I imagine they just want their "low end" coins that "just made the grade" to look better than the competitors.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
But you are getting a solid coin for the grade, no matter what. If you buy a CAC 65, it's a solid 65. A not-so-solid 65 that gets downgraded is a solid 64 or 64+.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
That's cool. There is no reason they can't create their own grading system, separate from what other TPGs use. It's just my opinion, but I think the idea that there'll be no "low end" coins in any system is silly.
As described above, they will not holder any “C” coins in CAGC holders in the same grade from the former TPG, so your wish of getting a solid coin for the grade in a CACG holder no matter what, is indeed what will happen!
Those defect-free “C” coins will mostly be “+” coins in the next lower grade, and according to CACG, those coins will now be solid for that new lower grade. Whether you agree or not, as an example, in the opinion of CACG, a former TPG defect free 65 “C” coin is solid as a 64+ in a CACG holder.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Wouldn't a 65C that's now a 64+ be high end for that grade? They should be better than 64A coins, right?
No, because 64 “A” coins will grade as 64+ in CACG holders. CACG is saying 65C coins and 64A coins each = 64+ coins.
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
Why? Grading is a continuous spectrum. Why would you omit certain parts of the spectrum in a way which really is arbitrary? The important part, IMO, is that you don't pay A money for a C coin. But why not buy a 65C if you can get it for the price of a 64A? Why is the 65C "garbage" just because of where it falls on the spectrum?
The coin is the coin. What matters is that coins don't get misrepresented or under/over-valued.
The theory is great but the problem with this is that it's dishonest. A low end 65 is better than 64+, and should be graded as such.
The problem with that approach is that it distorts certain sections of the grading spectrum, which is not objectively fair or honest. This approach takes a spectrum and removes sections of it and forces coins lower than they should be.
That’s subjective. Not everyone would agree with your point. Time will tell how this plays out.
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
It's not subjective. The Sheldon coin grading scale is a spectrum wherein a 65 is always better than a 64.
You very well might be able to buy a 65C coin for the price of a 64A. Because if CACG does as planned, a former CAC 65C will be in a CACG 64+ holder.😉 And it won’t be thought of as “garbage”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Then why weren't the 65C coins graded as 64A to start? Taking 65C coins and grouping them with 64A coins as though they're all equal in grade means you're combining some coins (65C) of higher grade with some (64A) of lower grade and saying there's no difference even though you have already made a distinction (65C vs. 64A). How is that an improvement?
In answer to your question, because CAC didn’t award grades, so had no opportunity to grade a 65C coin as a 64A (or any other grade) to start. If they thought the coin was of C quality, their only option was to decline to sticker it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Exactly. I can't support such foolishness.
Edited to add: This creates another problem because it creates a hidden ++ grade so collectors can now seek out the 65Cs that were put in CAC 64+ holders. And then I can start a sticker company to put stickers to indicate which ones those are.
Please let us know how your sticker company fares.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Yes, I understand that. The question was a little clunky- sorry.
Going forward, if they think the coin is of C quality, they're going to group it with coins in a lower grade. In effect, they're grading "A" "B" or "C" in one numerical grade (say MS65) and labeling "+" or "No +", with some of the "+" from a higher grade (MS65C) grouped with some in a lower (MS64A) one.
I'm not saying they can't do whatever they want, but taking coins that have been sorted into three bins based on grade ("A" "B" and "C") and reorganizing them into two bins ("+" or "No +") seems... well, odd.
I agree with you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Oh really? Haven’t you seen some PCGS coins sell for more than NGC coins in a higher grade?
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
This assumes that PCGS and NGC use an identical grading system. Do they? If PCGS coins sell for more than NGC coins in a higher grade, that would seem to indicate they don't.
edited to add... or, you could check out @MFeld below.
For that matter, haven’t you seen some PCGS coins of one grade sell for more than PCGS coins of a higher grade?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
But if all the coins are “special” and PQ (because we undergrade intentionally) then none of the coins are special for most issues. Where does that leave us market wise?
Only “the market” can answer that question.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Yet as noted, that is exactly their plan!
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
To put that another way, how many times has someone here boasted that they took a downgrade on a crossover to P plastic because they feel the coin is worth more in the grade lower plastic.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Actually, I’ve read on this forum several times where an NGC coin was crossed to PCGS at a lower grade!
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
How much over price guide value to win this defect-free CAC VF30 premium quality bust dollar that is up for auction?
So- they know that the MS65C coins they are grouping with MS64A ones grade higher, but they're not going to tell their customers which are which. Interesting plan.
And THAT’S the point! CACG grades differently than PCGS and NGC!
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
It's one point. There are others.
Really all that is happening is that CACG is changing the buckets from A, B, C to A+, A, and B.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.