@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.
Actually, once again I believe CACG has addressed that! 65C coins don’t have CAC stickers, so when they cross to 64+, they won’t have the “Legacy” designation, which I believe is the letter “L” at the end of the cert number. A 64A coin with a CAC sticker will cross as a 64+ as well, but this one will have the “L” after the cert number, indicating the exact difference you mention!
OK, so now with this new information, there’s even more detail/confusion/craziness than before, lol.
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.
Actually, once again I believe CACG has addressed that! 65C coins don’t have CAC stickers, so when they cross to 64+, they won’t have the “Legacy” designation, which I believe is the letter “L” at the end of the cert number. A 64A coin with a CAC sticker will cross as a 64+ as well, but this one will have the “L” after the cert number, indicating the exact difference you mention!
OK, so now with this new information, there’s even more detail/confusion/craziness than before, lol.
Steve
Legacy designation? This is getting waaaaaaayyyyyy too gimmicky. I had high hopes for CACG, but my hopes are quickly fading.
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.
That was my first reaction too. However, after some thought, I realized the goal is to keep the price points for each grade at two instead of expanding it to three.
As a pre CAC collector, I'm not delighted to learn some of my coins will be downgraded....
@winesteven said:
Actually, once again I believe CACG has addressed that! 65C coins don’t have CAC stickers, so when they cross to 64+, they won’t have the “Legacy” designation, which I believe is the letter “L” at the end of the cert number. A 64A coin with a CAC sticker will cross as a 64+ as well, but this one will have the “L” after the cert number, indicating the exact difference you mention!
What about coins that are not holdered, that would today be 65C or 64A that will, going forward, be considered to be the same grade?
edited to add... For the record, I am not expecting you to have all the answers as it's my understanding you are not a CAC rep (hope I'm not wrong about that). The questions are more rhetorical in nature.
@winesteven said:
Actually, once again I believe CACG has addressed that! 65C coins don’t have CAC stickers, so when they cross to 64+, they won’t have the “Legacy” designation, which I believe is the letter “L” at the end of the cert number. A 64A coin with a CAC sticker will cross as a 64+ as well, but this one will have the “L” after the cert number, indicating the exact difference you mention!
What about coins that are not holdered, that would today be 65C or 64A that will, going forward, be considered to be the same grade?
Indeed I believe that CACG sees most defect-free raw coins that some feel are 65C coins by the other TPG’s, as CACG 64A coins, which CACG will grade as 64+.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
Indeed I believe that CACG sees most defect-free raw coins that some feel are 65C coins by the other TPG’s, as CACG 64A coins, which CACG will grade as 64+.
When CAC started out, they noted that some people broke each numerical grade into three components (A, B and C) and that this is what they were identifying. And now, they're going to take coins that would otherwise be two different grades 65(C) and 64(A) and group them together. Ironic.
I don’t think it’s super hard to understand. Think of CACG as a random company with different (supposedly tighter and more consistent) standards.
It’s like if I decided to start my own company and intentionally make my standard to grade everything a point lower than PCGS and NGC. My 64 simply equals their 65 and the market will probably adjust accordingly. The same thing goes if I intentionally go a point higher. It’s not over or undergrading, it’s simply a different standard. If we stop comparing CACG to PCGS and NGC, this whole thing gets a whole lot simpler.
Forget about the whole ABC thing. We’re complicating this too much. I think that the market will eventually adjust to price CACG plus coins a bit higher than normal, probably to the next grade up (64+ will be priced at 65).
@winesteven said:
Indeed I believe that CACG sees most defect-free raw coins that some feel are 65C coins by the other TPG’s, as CACG 64A coins, which CACG will grade as 64+.
When CAC started out, they noted that some people broke each numerical grade into three components (A, B and C) and that this is what they were identifying. And now, they're going to take coins that would otherwise be two different grades 65(C) and 64(A) and group them together. Ironic.
It’s not ironic because your point is incorrect. While they did indeed reference A, B, and C coins, they would not sticker C coins, since in their opinion, C coins are not solid for that grade. They would only sticker two of those in each whole grade, B and A as solid for that grade. And that’s EXACTLY what they’ll still be doing - B and A coins as solid in that whole grade, but now with the slight difference that they are recognizing A coins as a “+”. Remember, CACG believes that most defect-free C coins from the higher grade by the other TPG’s are equivalent to the CACG A grade at the next lower grade. So they stickered two of the letters before as solid for the grade, and will be doing the same going forward.
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.
Oh really? Haven’t you seen some PCGS coins sell for more than NGC coins in a higher grade?
Yeah, I'm not comparing coins across TPGs. Each TPG has their own criteria. PCGS= apples, NGC = oranges.
"Stricter standards" should ideally mean not letting mistakes through, not taking PCGS standards and shifting 1/3 to 1/2 grade.
@winesteven said:
Indeed I believe that CACG sees most defect-free raw coins that some feel are 65C coins by the other TPG’s, as CACG 64A coins, which CACG will grade as 64+.
When CAC started out, they noted that some people broke each numerical grade into three components (A, B and C) and that this is what they were identifying. And now, they're going to take coins that would otherwise be two different grades 65(C) and 64(A) and group them together. Ironic.
It’s not ironic because your point is incorrect.
You are misunderstanding my point. Regardless of whether or not they labelled the coins ABC, internally, they identified them as such. That's three different categories per numerical grade. Based on your explanation of their grading plans, there will now be two categories per grade. That's less precise than before.
I tried summing it up on an earlier page, but I’ll try again. While they’ve given a LOT of thought as to how they’ll proceed, and have heard (and listened) to all of the concerns and objections, this is their venture, and they’ll proceed in a manner that they believe is best for collectors and the numismatic community. No one is forced to participate by submitting coins to CACG for grading or crossing, and no one is being forced to buy coins in CACG holders. Just like now, no one is forced to submit their graded coins to CAC for stickers, and no one is forced to buy coins with stickers that typically cost more than coins that don’t merit stickers.
Time has told us that coins with CAC stickers now have a solid spot in our hobby, as demand for these coins has increased, the PCGS Registry now has many sets where each slot must be CAC stickered, the NGC Registry gives extra points to every coin (whether NGC or PCGS) that has a sticker, CDN has a separate quarterly publication with CAC coin values, and Heritage and Stacks provide detailed CAC values and pops in their auction listings.
Time will tell us how well accepted (or not) CACG will be with their grading structure as outlined on these 300+ replies. I’m confident it will be very well accepted. Partake if you’d like, or not. Either way is OK!!!!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
Indeed I believe that CACG sees most defect-free raw coins that some feel are 65C coins by the other TPG’s, as CACG 64A coins, which CACG will grade as 64+.
When CAC started out, they noted that some people broke each numerical grade into three components (A, B and C) and that this is what they were identifying. And now, they're going to take coins that would otherwise be two different grades 65(C) and 64(A) and group them together. Ironic.
It’s not ironic because your point is incorrect.
You are misunderstanding my point. Regardless of whether or not they labelled the coins ABC, internally, they identified them as such. That's three different categories per numerical grade. Based on your explanation of their grading plans, there will now be two categories per grade. That's less precise than before.
But the CACG way will then represent defect-free coins that are solid, in their opinion, for the grade on the holder. AS @MFeld said, CAC didn’t grade the C coins in that higher grade. Had they, presumably they would have graded it one grade lower, so that it would be solid at that lower grade.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
..."Stricter standards" should ideally mean not letting mistakes through, not taking PCGS standards and shifting 1/3 to 1/2 grade.
Based on this sentence, I do believe you are severely overcomplicating this. PCGS doesn't have some proprietary formula that CAC is putting their own twist on, this is not an exact science. JA was one co founders of PCGS and founder of NGC, and he started CAC with the hope of restoring some confidence in the market regarding consistency of standards and coin doctoring. The whole "ABC" doctrine is just a way to put in in laymen's terms and break it down for us. As Steve said, the market has already embraced their opinion, and now the only difference is that they will do their best to draw a line halfway between the range of coins that sticker and divide them into two subgroups. It's very simple. If you find value in the service, use it. If you don't, don't.
I'm not talking about misgraded coins or coins with problems. No matter how you define your grades, there will be a point where you transition from one grade to the next and there will always be coins that are just above that point. If you take all the MS65 "C" coins and move them down a grade, then the very worst MS65 "B" coin will now be low end for the MS65 grade. There is no way around this. As well (but not my original point), if you are currently grading such that there are three levels per grade and propose a system that has two levels, you are moving towards a system with less precision.
CAC is certainly free to set up their grading system any way they like. Those who are interested will use it and those who aren't, won't. My comments are mainly directed at the strange (to me) idea that "low end for the grade" coins can be eliminated by juggling the grade levels assigned and somehow saying the low end ones are now gone.
@winesteven said:
Actually, once again I believe CACG has addressed that! 65C coins don’t have CAC stickers, so when they cross to 64+, they won’t have the “Legacy” designation, which I believe is the letter “L” at the end of the cert number. A 64A coin with a CAC sticker will cross as a 64+ as well, but this one will have the “L” after the cert number, indicating the exact difference you mention!
What about coins that are not holdered, that would today be 65C or 64A that will, going forward, be considered to be the same grade?
Indeed I believe that CACG sees most defect-free raw coins that some feel are 65C coins by the other TPG’s, as CACG 64A coins, which CACG will grade as 64+.
Steve
I have to disagree with you Steve, there will not be only two buckets, there will still be three buckets, CAC is simply redefining where the cutoff is for each bucket not reducing the number of buckets. As @MasonG suggests you still have the same low end for the grade coins, but instead of those being the C coins it is now the B coins.
We really are are just debating semantics at this point. Below are all the grades that will exist for each TPG within the 64 grade, disregarding designations.
PCGS - 64,64+
NGC - 64,64+
CAC- 64,64+
As @FlyingAl pointed out, the simplified way to explain this is that CAC is going to attempt to identify the + coins, and figure out where to put the coins they don’t think deserve to be there. They haven’t started yet, so we’ll have to wait to see exactly how it plays out. Maybe JA thought that “C” coins were “over graded” the whole time, and his original statement about ABC was an innocuous way to put it in perspective for us, without causing harm to the other grading companies. At the end of the day, we’re all gonna buy what we like, so it’s futile to dissect the methods of the grading service before it even begins. The minutia are irrelevant if the product performs and satisfies the needs of the customer.
OK to disagree. But the “new” B bucket will have all coins solid for the grade, just as it exactly is now - CAC stickered coins on other TPG coins, in CAC’s opinion, are all solid for the grade. So while the new CACG holdered coins that are all solid for the grade will have some coins at the lower end not as nice as those at the higher end, that’s like it is now with stickered coins - all in their opinion are solid for the grade, but those stickered coins have some at the lower end of being stickered that are not as nice as others that are stickered. I still see no difference.
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@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.
This is really the point that everyone is ignoring.
@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.
All grades are groupings. Not all 64 coins are identical. It's really just about where you draw the line. Take 10 coins that are all "65-ish" and rank them. Sau PCGS takes the lowest 2 and calls them 64. The next 3 are 64+, the next 5 are 65. Tightening standards but CACG or anyone else might take the same coins and can the lowest 2 63+ the next 3 are 64, the next 2 are 64 + abs the last 3 are 65.
Same coins, same relative ranking, different grouping by grade.
@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?
Yeah, I'm not comparing coins across TPGs. Each TPG has their own criteria. PCGS= apples, NGC = oranges.
"Stricter standards" should ideally mean not letting mistakes through, not taking PCGS standards and shifting 1/3 to 1/2 grade.
It could mean both.
You are implying that there is no such thing as grade inflation. Correcting grade inflation would require a "stricter" application of original standardsm
@edwardjulio said: @DisneyFan said:
"As a pre CAC collector, I'm not delighted to learn some of my coins will be downgraded...."
Why would you send your coins to a new grading service knowing some will be downgraded?
Exactly. Theres not going to be a line of people accepting downgrades on their coins, UNLESS the downgraded CACG holder proves to be of higher value in the marketplace. If that becomes the case (It will be the case for SOME coins) and my new CAC 64+ has increased liquidity and value over its previous MS65 coffin, why would I even be concerned about a downgrade?
@edwardjulio said: @DisneyFan said:
"As a pre CAC collector, I'm not delighted to learn some of my coins will be downgraded...."
Why would you send your coins to a new grading service knowing some will be downgraded?
Exactly. Theres not going to be a line of people accepting downgrades on their coins, UNLESS the downgraded CACG holder proves to be of higher value in the marketplace. If that becomes the case (It will be the case for SOME coins) and my new CAC 64+ has increased liquidity and value over its previous MS65 coffin, why would I even be concerned about a downgrade?
I want the assurance of knowing my coins are correctly graded. That's important to me.
The downgraded CACG holder could be more valuable. I see the trend when I look at the PCGS Hawaiian Commemorative MS64 value of $3,200. CAC MS63 Value is $3,230.
@edwardjulio said: @DisneyFan said:
"As a pre CAC collector, I'm not delighted to learn some of my coins will be downgraded...."
Why would you send your coins to a new grading service knowing some will be downgraded?
Exactly. Theres not going to be a line of people accepting downgrades on their coins, UNLESS the downgraded CACG holder proves to be of higher value in the marketplace. If that becomes the case (It will be the case for SOME coins) and my new CAC 64+ has increased liquidity and value over its previous MS65 coffin, why would I even be concerned about a downgrade?
I want the assurance of knowing my coins are correctly graded. That's important to me.
The downgraded CACG holder could be more valuable. I see the trend when I look at the PCGS Hawaiian Commemorative MS64 value of $3,200. CAC MS63 Value is $3,230.
How do you determine whether a coin is “correctly graded”?
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!
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.
All grades are groupings. Not all 64 coins are identical. It's really just about where you draw the line. Take 10 coins that are all "65-ish" and rank them. Sau PCGS takes the lowest 2 and calls them 64. The next 3 are 64+, the next 5 are 65. Tightening standards but CACG or anyone else might take the same coins and can the lowest 2 63+ the next 3 are 64, the next 2 are 64 + abs the last 3 are 65.
Same coins, same relative ranking, different grouping by grade.
And then I can start an even "stricter" grading service where none of the 10 coins will achieve 65 and the market will naively believe that because of this, my PC (Proofcollection) grading service is superior when all I've done is shifted the grading scale a bit.
With a new entrant in any marketplace there are always known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns.
In the known unknowns I would add that we do not know the market acceptability of CAC holders in terms of value and consistency, and how that relates to perception of stickered, legacy and straight grade.
Also bear in mind that of course there is a strong market for tighter grading, conversely there is also a market for loose grading (from sellers).
@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?
Yeah, I'm not comparing coins across TPGs. Each TPG has their own criteria. PCGS= apples, NGC = oranges.
"Stricter standards" should ideally mean not letting mistakes through, not taking PCGS standards and shifting 1/3 to 1/2 grade.
It could mean both.
You are implying that there is no such thing as grade inflation. Correcting grade inflation would require a "stricter" application of original standardsm
I'm not saying grade inflation doesn't exist or isn't a thing, but I would expect PCGS to adhere to their standards which are document in the PCGS online photograde page. That page isn't getting updated.
@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.
All grades are groupings. Not all 64 coins are identical. It's really just about where you draw the line. Take 10 coins that are all "65-ish" and rank them. Sau PCGS takes the lowest 2 and calls them 64. The next 3 are 64+, the next 5 are 65. Tightening standards but CACG or anyone else might take the same coins and can the lowest 2 63+ the next 3 are 64, the next 2 are 64 + abs the last 3 are 65.
Same coins, same relative ranking, different grouping by grade.
And then I can start an even "stricter" grading service where none of the 10 coins will achieve 65 and the market will naively believe that because of this, my PC (Proofcollection) grading service is superior when all I've done is shifted the grading scale a bit.
I can't believe I have to make this point, yet again. You're free to do whatever you want. Open a grading service, a sticker service, whatever. That doesn't mean any of us are going to give a crap or pay a premium for it. Sheesh.
@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?
Yeah, I'm not comparing coins across TPGs. Each TPG has their own criteria. PCGS= apples, NGC = oranges.
"Stricter standards" should ideally mean not letting mistakes through, not taking PCGS standards and shifting 1/3 to 1/2 grade.
It could mean both.
You are implying that there is no such thing as grade inflation. Correcting grade inflation would require a "stricter" application of original standardsm
I'm not saying grade inflation doesn't exist or isn't a thing, but I would expect PCGS to adhere to their standards which are document in the PCGS online photograde page. That page isn't getting updated.
When was it last updated? And why do people believe that a 65 from 20 years ago is a 66 today?
@edwardjulio said: @DisneyFan said:
"As a pre CAC collector, I'm not delighted to learn some of my coins will be downgraded...."
Why would you send your coins to a new grading service knowing some will be downgraded?
Exactly. Theres not going to be a line of people accepting downgrades on their coins, UNLESS the downgraded CACG holder proves to be of higher value in the marketplace. If that becomes the case (It will be the case for SOME coins) and my new CAC 64+ has increased liquidity and value over its previous MS65 coffin, why would I even be concerned about a downgrade?
I want the assurance of knowing my coins are correctly graded. That's important to me.
The downgraded CACG holder could be more valuable. I see the trend when I look at the PCGS Hawaiian Commemorative MS64 value of $3,200. CAC MS63 Value is $3,230.
How do you determine whether a coin is “correctly graded”?
If I can't rely on PCGS and a CAC I'm really in trouble!
@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.
All grades are groupings. Not all 64 coins are identical. It's really just about where you draw the line. Take 10 coins that are all "65-ish" and rank them. Sau PCGS takes the lowest 2 and calls them 64. The next 3 are 64+, the next 5 are 65. Tightening standards but CACG or anyone else might take the same coins and can the lowest 2 63+ the next 3 are 64, the next 2 are 64 + abs the last 3 are 65.
Same coins, same relative ranking, different grouping by grade.
And then I can start an even "stricter" grading service where none of the 10 coins will achieve 65 and the market will naively believe that because of this, my PC (Proofcollection) grading service is superior when all I've done is shifted the grading scale a bit.
Based on your various posts, it sounds like you think you can start a new stickering service AND a new grading service. Please keep us posted on your progress.
It’s far easier to criticize than to do the very thing you’re criticizing.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@edwardjulio said: @DisneyFan said:
"As a pre CAC collector, I'm not delighted to learn some of my coins will be downgraded...."
Why would you send your coins to a new grading service knowing some will be downgraded?
Exactly. Theres not going to be a line of people accepting downgrades on their coins, UNLESS the downgraded CACG holder proves to be of higher value in the marketplace. If that becomes the case (It will be the case for SOME coins) and my new CAC 64+ has increased liquidity and value over its previous MS65 coffin, why would I even be concerned about a downgrade?
I want the assurance of knowing my coins are correctly graded. That's important to me.
The downgraded CACG holder could be more valuable. I see the trend when I look at the PCGS Hawaiian Commemorative MS64 value of $3,200. CAC MS63 Value is $3,230.
How do you determine whether a coin is “correctly graded”?
I know what he meant, but your question is intended to get us to look at it under a different light. @Disneyfan, like myself, finds value in their service and is willing to accept a downgrade because CAC's philosophy is more in line with his own beliefs. He's in the minority though, because most collectors wouldn't accept a downgrade if it meant that the coin would sell for less money.
@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.
All grades are groupings. Not all 64 coins are identical. It's really just about where you draw the line. Take 10 coins that are all "65-ish" and rank them. Sau PCGS takes the lowest 2 and calls them 64. The next 3 are 64+, the next 5 are 65. Tightening standards but CACG or anyone else might take the same coins and can the lowest 2 63+ the next 3 are 64, the next 2 are 64 + abs the last 3 are 65.
Same coins, same relative ranking, different grouping by grade.
And then I can start an even "stricter" grading service where none of the 10 coins will achieve 65 and the market will naively believe that because of this, my PC (Proofcollection) grading service is superior when all I've done is shifted the grading scale a bit.
I can't believe I have to make this point, yet again. You're free to do whatever you want. Open a grading service, a sticker service, whatever. That doesn't mean any of us are going to give a crap or pay a premium for it. Sheesh.
True, but if history repeats itself, and it seems like it always does...
The point is, which seems to keep getting missed, that this is all gimmicks. And the market and coin community don't really care.
@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?
Yeah, I'm not comparing coins across TPGs. Each TPG has their own criteria. PCGS= apples, NGC = oranges.
"Stricter standards" should ideally mean not letting mistakes through, not taking PCGS standards and shifting 1/3 to 1/2 grade.
It could mean both.
You are implying that there is no such thing as grade inflation. Correcting grade inflation would require a "stricter" application of original standardsm
I'm not saying grade inflation doesn't exist or isn't a thing, but I would expect PCGS to adhere to their standards which are document in the PCGS online photograde page. That page isn't getting updated.
When was it last updated? And why do people believe that a 65 from 20 years ago is a 66 today?
I expect that it's never been updated, there should be no reason to.
The reason, theoretically, should be tighter standards and processes and better controls as the company has matured.
@ProofCollection said:
True, but if history repeats itself, and it seems like it always does...
The point is, which seems to keep getting missed, that this is all gimmicks. And the market and coin community don't really care.
Did you seriously just make a statement that the market and coin community "Don't really care" about CAC? Allow me to excuse myself from this thread for a while, this is getting absurd now lol.
@ProofCollection said:
True, but if history repeats itself, and it seems like it always does...
The point is, which seems to keep getting missed, that this is all gimmicks. And the market and coin community don't really care.
Did you seriously just make a statement that the market and coin community "Don't really care" about CAC? Allow me to excuse myself from this thread for a while, this is getting absurd now lol.
Perhaps I was unclear, but I don't think so.
CAC's "stricter" grading standard is just a gimmick, and the market and coin community are eating it up. They don't care that it's just a gimmick. Which is why I am facetiously proposing to start my own grading and stickering companies.
@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?
Yeah, I'm not comparing coins across TPGs. Each TPG has their own criteria. PCGS= apples, NGC = oranges.
"Stricter standards" should ideally mean not letting mistakes through, not taking PCGS standards and shifting 1/3 to 1/2 grade.
It could mean both.
You are implying that there is no such thing as grade inflation. Correcting grade inflation would require a "stricter" application of original standardsm
I'm not saying grade inflation doesn't exist or isn't a thing, but I would expect PCGS to adhere to their standards which are document in the PCGS online photograde page. That page isn't getting updated.
CACG is in the process of literally spending millions of dollars putting together grading sets for each type of coin. They plan on showing these at major shows for educational purposes. You can't get any better than that for a known standard!
Just one more example of how CACG is doing things beneficial for collectors and the numismatic community, even though some of these things reduce profits!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
But the “new” B bucket will have all coins solid for the grade, just as it exactly is now - CAC stickered coins on other TPG coins, in CAC’s opinion, are all solid for the grade.
CAC stickers on other TPG "B" level coins have a whole group of "C" coins of the same grade below them, so it's reasonable to consider them solid for the grade.
CACG holdered "B" level coins will be at the bottom of the group, since the "C" level coins will be removed from that grade level. They may be solid for the grade when grouped and compared with previously stickered/unstickered coins in other TPG holders but they are not solid for the grade when compared with other CACG coins.
Even in CAC's new grading/holdering system, there will be coins that just barely make the grade- that lower lever 65B coin that, with just another bagmark or two, would be a 64+. That coin is hardly "solid for the grade". IMO, it's misleading to make "solid for the grade" claims based on comparisons with other grading systems. Using that argument, PCGS and NGC can claim all the coins they grade are solid for the grade when compared to many of the lower level TPS. Yeah, sure- but so what?
@ProofCollection said:
True, but if history repeats itself, and it seems like it always does...
The point is, which seems to keep getting missed, that this is all gimmicks. And the market and coin community don't really care.>>
If you’re able to, you might want to consider this:
CAC has a 15-year history of success and widespread market acceptance, including among many extremely knowledgeable numismatists. Perhaps it’s not a gimmick and you’re the one who’s missing the point.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I think that a point that we’re missing is CACG’s “claim to fame”.
I don’t see it as their slightly stricter grading structure. I don’t think the majority of collectors are worrying about the slight differences between a 65C and a 64A, and I doubt that they’ll care if the 65C ends up in a 64+ holder.
I see it as their 1) consistency and 2) faster turnarounds and better service. If CACG can maintain an exceptional level of both, they’ll quickly become the preferred grading service among collectibles.
With that said, it is evident that the first few CACG crack outs that go back to CACG matter a lot. If they come back the same grade, it could be very good. If they come back with any more than a +/- 1 point difference, I foresee problems.
@winesteven said:
But the “new” B bucket will have all coins solid for the grade, just as it exactly is now - CAC stickered coins on other TPG coins, in CAC’s opinion, are all solid for the grade.
CAC stickers on other TPG "B" level coins have a whole group of "C" coins of the same grade below them, so it's reasonable to consider them solid for the grade.
CACG holdered "B" level coins will be at the bottom of the group, since the "C" level coins will be removed from that grade level. They may be solid for the grade when grouped and compared with previously stickered/unstickered coins in other TPG holders but they are not solid for the grade when compared with other CACG coins.
Even in CAC's new grading/holdering system, there will be coins that just barely make the grade- that lower lever 65B coin that, with just another bagmark or two, would be a 64+. That coin is hardly "solid for the grade". IMO, it's misleading to make "solid for the grade" claims based on comparisons with other grading systems. Using that argument, PCGS and NGC can claim all the coins they grade are solid for the grade when compared to many of the lower level TPS. Yeah, sure- but so what?
Mason, you’ve always been reasonable, I thought we’ve moved past this part of the discussion? We’re talking about imaginary lines here. If you take 10 stickered MS65s and 10 non-stickered 65s, chances are the stickered group has a better average. They’re going to do their best to carry that over into the grading service. That’s it, it’s not that deep.
If someone starts a sticker company and then decides to go into grading, yet continues to produce the stickers, isn't that something of a conflict of interest? I could see complaints in their future from people with coins from other TPGs who either didn't get a sticker, or the color sticker they thought their item deserved, accusing them of bias or a ploy to get them to switch over to their grading service. Just saying
@MFeld said: @ProofCollection said:
True, but if history repeats itself, and it seems like it always does...
The point is, which seems to keep getting missed, that this is all gimmicks. And the market and coin community don't really care.>>
If you’re able to, you might want to consider this:
CAC has a 15-year history of success and widespread market acceptance, including among many extremely knowledgeable numismatists. Perhaps it’s not a gimmick and you’re the one who’s missing the point.
The irony of it all, of course, is that whenever a thread pops up about PCGS taking months to return a submission, quite a few forum members come to the rescue to cite the rules of the forum. Some of those same “heroes” make their way over to the these threads to voice that CAC is a gimmick, collectors are imbeciles, and JA is the ringleader of a circus. One of those posters even went as far to veil his comparison of CAC to parasitic fish with the use of marine taxonomy, with the hope that few would understand his point 😉.
@telephoto1 said:
If someone starts a sticker company and then decides to go into grading, yet continues to produce the stickers, isn't that something of a conflict of interest? I could see complaints in their future from people with coins from other TPGs who either didn't get a sticker, or the color sticker they thought their item deserved, accusing them of bias or a ploy to get them to switch over to their grading service. Just saying
You could see that, but realistically I don't. However, with that said, we read all the time in many different venues of "human beings" perceiving conflicts when most others don't. That "stretch" might be happening here?
Is it a conflict of interest for PCGS to not publicly disclose which cert numbers have previously been sent in for Reconsideration, so that new owners might then get stuck paying the fee to send that same coin in again for Reconsideration, not knowing PCGS graders already had taken a second look at the coin, and say the grade should stay as is?
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@MFeld said: @ProofCollection said:
True, but if history repeats itself, and it seems like it always does...
The point is, which seems to keep getting missed, that this is all gimmicks. And the market and coin community don't really care.>>
If you’re able to, you might want to consider this:
CAC has a 15-year history of success and widespread market acceptance, including among many extremely knowledgeable numismatists. Perhaps it’s not a gimmick and you’re the one who’s missing the point.
The stickers weren't a gimmick. There was a genuine market need or desire for a second opinion on existing slabs. But shifting another TPG's grading scale to say you have stricter standards is a gimmick. And then it would be a gimmick for me to sticker the CACG coins that are + coins that could be the next grade up's "C" coins. And it would be yet another gimmick if I take CACG's standards and slide that scale down 1/3-1/2 grade under the guise of "stricter standards." We can play this game all day.
@telephoto1 said:
If someone starts a sticker company and then decides to go into grading, yet continues to produce the stickers, isn't that something of a conflict of interest? I could see complaints in their future from people with coins from other TPGs who either didn't get a sticker, or the color sticker they thought their item deserved, accusing them of bias or a ploy to get them to switch over to their grading service. Just saying
You could see that, but realistically I don't. However, with that said, we read all the time in many different venues of "human beings" perceiving conflicts when most others don't. That "stretch" might be happening here?
Steve
Perhaps... time will tell I suppose. Edit to add that if it is a stretch, I'm pretty confident that I'm not the only one making it.
Comments
Actually, once again I believe CACG has addressed that! 65C coins don’t have CAC stickers, so when they cross to 64+, they won’t have the “Legacy” designation, which I believe is the letter “L” at the end of the cert number. A 64A coin with a CAC sticker will cross as a 64+ as well, but this one will have the “L” after the cert number, indicating the exact difference you mention!
OK, so now with this new information, there’s even more detail/confusion/craziness than before, lol.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Legacy designation? This is getting waaaaaaayyyyyy too gimmicky. I had high hopes for CACG, but my hopes are quickly fading.
Why don't we drop all the semantics with grading and just create a sticker that identifies unmolested, original surfaces?
That was my first reaction too. However, after some thought, I realized the goal is to keep the price points for each grade at two instead of expanding it to three.
As a pre CAC collector, I'm not delighted to learn some of my coins will be downgraded....
What about coins that are not holdered, that would today be 65C or 64A that will, going forward, be considered to be the same grade?
edited to add... For the record, I am not expecting you to have all the answers as it's my understanding you are not a CAC rep (hope I'm not wrong about that). The questions are more rhetorical in nature.
Actually they’re changing the buckets from A, B, C to + and B.
Steve> @MasonG said:
Indeed I believe that CACG sees most defect-free raw coins that some feel are 65C coins by the other TPG’s, as CACG 64A coins, which CACG will grade as 64+.
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
We blew through 50 replies on page 6 in less than three hours!
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
When CAC started out, they noted that some people broke each numerical grade into three components (A, B and C) and that this is what they were identifying. And now, they're going to take coins that would otherwise be two different grades 65(C) and 64(A) and group them together. Ironic.
Guys, guys.
I don’t think it’s super hard to understand. Think of CACG as a random company with different (supposedly tighter and more consistent) standards.
It’s like if I decided to start my own company and intentionally make my standard to grade everything a point lower than PCGS and NGC. My 64 simply equals their 65 and the market will probably adjust accordingly. The same thing goes if I intentionally go a point higher. It’s not over or undergrading, it’s simply a different standard. If we stop comparing CACG to PCGS and NGC, this whole thing gets a whole lot simpler.
Forget about the whole ABC thing. We’re complicating this too much. I think that the market will eventually adjust to price CACG plus coins a bit higher than normal, probably to the next grade up (64+ will be priced at 65).
Coin Photographer.
It’s not ironic because your point is incorrect. While they did indeed reference A, B, and C coins, they would not sticker C coins, since in their opinion, C coins are not solid for that grade. They would only sticker two of those in each whole grade, B and A as solid for that grade. And that’s EXACTLY what they’ll still be doing - B and A coins as solid in that whole grade, but now with the slight difference that they are recognizing A coins as a “+”. Remember, CACG believes that most defect-free C coins from the higher grade by the other TPG’s are equivalent to the CACG A grade at the next lower grade. So they stickered two of the letters before as solid for the grade, and will be doing the same going forward.
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
Yeah, I'm not comparing coins across TPGs. Each TPG has their own criteria. PCGS= apples, NGC = oranges.
"Stricter standards" should ideally mean not letting mistakes through, not taking PCGS standards and shifting 1/3 to 1/2 grade.
You are misunderstanding my point. Regardless of whether or not they labelled the coins ABC, internally, they identified them as such. That's three different categories per numerical grade. Based on your explanation of their grading plans, there will now be two categories per grade. That's less precise than before.
I tried summing it up on an earlier page, but I’ll try again. While they’ve given a LOT of thought as to how they’ll proceed, and have heard (and listened) to all of the concerns and objections, this is their venture, and they’ll proceed in a manner that they believe is best for collectors and the numismatic community. No one is forced to participate by submitting coins to CACG for grading or crossing, and no one is being forced to buy coins in CACG holders. Just like now, no one is forced to submit their graded coins to CAC for stickers, and no one is forced to buy coins with stickers that typically cost more than coins that don’t merit stickers.
Time has told us that coins with CAC stickers now have a solid spot in our hobby, as demand for these coins has increased, the PCGS Registry now has many sets where each slot must be CAC stickered, the NGC Registry gives extra points to every coin (whether NGC or PCGS) that has a sticker, CDN has a separate quarterly publication with CAC coin values, and Heritage and Stacks provide detailed CAC values and pops in their auction listings.
Time will tell us how well accepted (or not) CACG will be with their grading structure as outlined on these 300+ replies. I’m confident it will be very well accepted. Partake if you’d like, or not. Either way is OK!!!!
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
But the CACG way will then represent defect-free coins that are solid, in their opinion, for the grade on the holder. AS @MFeld said, CAC didn’t grade the C coins in that higher grade. Had they, presumably they would have graded it one grade lower, so that it would be solid at that 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
Based on this sentence, I do believe you are severely overcomplicating this. PCGS doesn't have some proprietary formula that CAC is putting their own twist on, this is not an exact science. JA was one co founders of PCGS and founder of NGC, and he started CAC with the hope of restoring some confidence in the market regarding consistency of standards and coin doctoring. The whole "ABC" doctrine is just a way to put in in laymen's terms and break it down for us. As Steve said, the market has already embraced their opinion, and now the only difference is that they will do their best to draw a line halfway between the range of coins that sticker and divide them into two subgroups. It's very simple. If you find value in the service, use it. If you don't, don't.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I'm not talking about misgraded coins or coins with problems. No matter how you define your grades, there will be a point where you transition from one grade to the next and there will always be coins that are just above that point. If you take all the MS65 "C" coins and move them down a grade, then the very worst MS65 "B" coin will now be low end for the MS65 grade. There is no way around this. As well (but not my original point), if you are currently grading such that there are three levels per grade and propose a system that has two levels, you are moving towards a system with less precision.
CAC is certainly free to set up their grading system any way they like. Those who are interested will use it and those who aren't, won't. My comments are mainly directed at the strange (to me) idea that "low end for the grade" coins can be eliminated by juggling the grade levels assigned and somehow saying the low end ones are now gone.
I have to disagree with you Steve, there will not be only two buckets, there will still be three buckets, CAC is simply redefining where the cutoff is for each bucket not reducing the number of buckets. As @MasonG suggests you still have the same low end for the grade coins, but instead of those being the C coins it is now the B coins.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
We really are are just debating semantics at this point. Below are all the grades that will exist for each TPG within the 64 grade, disregarding designations.
PCGS - 64,64+
NGC - 64,64+
CAC- 64,64+
As @FlyingAl pointed out, the simplified way to explain this is that CAC is going to attempt to identify the + coins, and figure out where to put the coins they don’t think deserve to be there. They haven’t started yet, so we’ll have to wait to see exactly how it plays out. Maybe JA thought that “C” coins were “over graded” the whole time, and his original statement about ABC was an innocuous way to put it in perspective for us, without causing harm to the other grading companies. At the end of the day, we’re all gonna buy what we like, so it’s futile to dissect the methods of the grading service before it even begins. The minutia are irrelevant if the product performs and satisfies the needs of the customer.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
OK to disagree. But the “new” B bucket will have all coins solid for the grade, just as it exactly is now - CAC stickered coins on other TPG coins, in CAC’s opinion, are all solid for the grade. So while the new CACG holdered coins that are all solid for the grade will have some coins at the lower end not as nice as those at the higher end, that’s like it is now with stickered coins - all in their opinion are solid for the grade, but those stickered coins have some at the lower end of being stickered that are not as nice as others that are stickered. I still see no difference.
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
True but 10 mod 2 and 2 mod 2 are both zero so equivalent. [I should have put a China in there]
This is really the point that everyone is ignoring.
All grades are groupings. Not all 64 coins are identical. It's really just about where you draw the line. Take 10 coins that are all "65-ish" and rank them. Sau PCGS takes the lowest 2 and calls them 64. The next 3 are 64+, the next 5 are 65. Tightening standards but CACG or anyone else might take the same coins and can the lowest 2 63+ the next 3 are 64, the next 2 are 64 + abs the last 3 are 65.
Same coins, same relative ranking, different grouping by grade.
It could mean both.
You are implying that there is no such thing as grade inflation. Correcting grade inflation would require a "stricter" application of original standardsm
It's called the Lake Woebegon effect - all our coins are above average.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
@DisneyFan said:
"As a pre CAC collector, I'm not delighted to learn some of my coins will be downgraded...."
Why would you send your coins to a new grading service knowing some will be downgraded?
End Systemic Elitism - It Takes All Of Us
Exactly. Theres not going to be a line of people accepting downgrades on their coins, UNLESS the downgraded CACG holder proves to be of higher value in the marketplace. If that becomes the case (It will be the case for SOME coins) and my new CAC 64+ has increased liquidity and value over its previous MS65 coffin, why would I even be concerned about a downgrade?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Time will tell!
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 want the assurance of knowing my coins are correctly graded. That's important to me.
The downgraded CACG holder could be more valuable. I see the trend when I look at the PCGS Hawaiian Commemorative MS64 value of $3,200. CAC MS63 Value is $3,230.
How do you determine whether a coin is “correctly graded”?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
And then I can start an even "stricter" grading service where none of the 10 coins will achieve 65 and the market will naively believe that because of this, my PC (Proofcollection) grading service is superior when all I've done is shifted the grading scale a bit.
As usual you are correct.
With a new entrant in any marketplace there are always known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns.
In the known unknowns I would add that we do not know the market acceptability of CAC holders in terms of value and consistency, and how that relates to perception of stickered, legacy and straight grade.
Also bear in mind that of course there is a strong market for tighter grading, conversely there is also a market for loose grading (from sellers).
I'm not saying grade inflation doesn't exist or isn't a thing, but I would expect PCGS to adhere to their standards which are document in the PCGS online photograde page. That page isn't getting updated.
I can't believe I have to make this point, yet again. You're free to do whatever you want. Open a grading service, a sticker service, whatever. That doesn't mean any of us are going to give a crap or pay a premium for it. Sheesh.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
When was it last updated? And why do people believe that a 65 from 20 years ago is a 66 today?
If I can't rely on PCGS and a CAC I'm really in trouble!
Based on your various posts, it sounds like you think you can start a new stickering service AND a new grading service. Please keep us posted on your progress.
It’s far easier to criticize than to do the very thing you’re criticizing.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I know what he meant, but your question is intended to get us to look at it under a different light. @Disneyfan, like myself, finds value in their service and is willing to accept a downgrade because CAC's philosophy is more in line with his own beliefs. He's in the minority though, because most collectors wouldn't accept a downgrade if it meant that the coin would sell for less money.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
True, but if history repeats itself, and it seems like it always does...
The point is, which seems to keep getting missed, that this is all gimmicks. And the market and coin community don't really care.
I expect that it's never been updated, there should be no reason to.
The reason, theoretically, should be tighter standards and processes and better controls as the company has matured.
Did you seriously just make a statement that the market and coin community "Don't really care" about CAC? Allow me to excuse myself from this thread for a while, this is getting absurd now lol.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Perhaps I was unclear, but I don't think so.
CAC's "stricter" grading standard is just a gimmick, and the market and coin community are eating it up. They don't care that it's just a gimmick. Which is why I am facetiously proposing to start my own grading and stickering companies.
CACG is in the process of literally spending millions of dollars putting together grading sets for each type of coin. They plan on showing these at major shows for educational purposes. You can't get any better than that for a known standard!
Just one more example of how CACG is doing things beneficial for collectors and the numismatic community, even though some of these things reduce profits!
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
CAC stickers on other TPG "B" level coins have a whole group of "C" coins of the same grade below them, so it's reasonable to consider them solid for the grade.
CACG holdered "B" level coins will be at the bottom of the group, since the "C" level coins will be removed from that grade level. They may be solid for the grade when grouped and compared with previously stickered/unstickered coins in other TPG holders but they are not solid for the grade when compared with other CACG coins.
Even in CAC's new grading/holdering system, there will be coins that just barely make the grade- that lower lever 65B coin that, with just another bagmark or two, would be a 64+. That coin is hardly "solid for the grade". IMO, it's misleading to make "solid for the grade" claims based on comparisons with other grading systems. Using that argument, PCGS and NGC can claim all the coins they grade are solid for the grade when compared to many of the lower level TPS. Yeah, sure- but so what?
@ProofCollection said:
True, but if history repeats itself, and it seems like it always does...
The point is, which seems to keep getting missed, that this is all gimmicks. And the market and coin community don't really care.>>
If you’re able to, you might want to consider this:
CAC has a 15-year history of success and widespread market acceptance, including among many extremely knowledgeable numismatists. Perhaps it’s not a gimmick and you’re the one who’s missing the point.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I think that a point that we’re missing is CACG’s “claim to fame”.
I don’t see it as their slightly stricter grading structure. I don’t think the majority of collectors are worrying about the slight differences between a 65C and a 64A, and I doubt that they’ll care if the 65C ends up in a 64+ holder.
I see it as their 1) consistency and 2) faster turnarounds and better service. If CACG can maintain an exceptional level of both, they’ll quickly become the preferred grading service among collectibles.
With that said, it is evident that the first few CACG crack outs that go back to CACG matter a lot. If they come back the same grade, it could be very good. If they come back with any more than a +/- 1 point difference, I foresee problems.
Coin Photographer.
Mason, you’ve always been reasonable, I thought we’ve moved past this part of the discussion? We’re talking about imaginary lines here. If you take 10 stickered MS65s and 10 non-stickered 65s, chances are the stickered group has a better average. They’re going to do their best to carry that over into the grading service. That’s it, it’s not that deep.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
If someone starts a sticker company and then decides to go into grading, yet continues to produce the stickers, isn't that something of a conflict of interest? I could see complaints in their future from people with coins from other TPGs who either didn't get a sticker, or the color sticker they thought their item deserved, accusing them of bias or a ploy to get them to switch over to their grading service. Just saying
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
The irony of it all, of course, is that whenever a thread pops up about PCGS taking months to return a submission, quite a few forum members come to the rescue to cite the rules of the forum. Some of those same “heroes” make their way over to the these threads to voice that CAC is a gimmick, collectors are imbeciles, and JA is the ringleader of a circus. One of those posters even went as far to veil his comparison of CAC to parasitic fish with the use of marine taxonomy, with the hope that few would understand his point 😉.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
You could see that, but realistically I don't. However, with that said, we read all the time in many different venues of "human beings" perceiving conflicts when most others don't. That "stretch" might be happening here?
Is it a conflict of interest for PCGS to not publicly disclose which cert numbers have previously been sent in for Reconsideration, so that new owners might then get stuck paying the fee to send that same coin in again for Reconsideration, not knowing PCGS graders already had taken a second look at the coin, and say the grade should stay as is?
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
The stickers weren't a gimmick. There was a genuine market need or desire for a second opinion on existing slabs. But shifting another TPG's grading scale to say you have stricter standards is a gimmick. And then it would be a gimmick for me to sticker the CACG coins that are + coins that could be the next grade up's "C" coins. And it would be yet another gimmick if I take CACG's standards and slide that scale down 1/3-1/2 grade under the guise of "stricter standards." We can play this game all day.
Perhaps... time will tell I suppose. Edit to add that if it is a stretch, I'm pretty confident that I'm not the only one making it.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012