@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.
They’re not “shifting another TPG’s grading scale” - they’re continuing with their own standards that have been in effect for 15 years.
No one’s telling you that you have to like it or have anything to do with it. But you sure sound worked up about a service that hasn’t even started yet. Why not judge it after it’s been in operation for a while?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@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.
Sigh. What is it going to take for you to grasp that they're not "shifting another tpg's grading scale"? Again, JA cofounded PCGS and Founded NGC. He's used the same grading scale the ENTIRE time. He's personally graded over 1,000,000 coins. How many coins have you graded? The whole ABC idea is just a simplified analogy meant to explain how his standards for grading slightly differ from the standards that were used to grade a great number of coins in the marketplace, which have fluctuated over time.
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
Not a conflict of interest, because they are reconsidering their own material-unless you're accusing them of purposely undergrading to get more fees. Crossovers OTOH are simply giving an opinion of someone else's grade. Our host isn't stickering other TPGs coins as to their quality.
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
Not a conflict of interest, because they are reconsidering their own material-unless you're accusing them of purposely undergrading to get more fees. Crossovers OTOH are simply giving an opinion of someone else's grade. Our host isn't stickering other TPGs coins as to their quality.
Are "giving an opinion of someone else's grade" and "stickering other TPGs as to their quality" not synonymous? I'm unclear on the point you're making.
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
Not a conflict of interest, because they are reconsidering their own material-unless you're accusing them of purposely undergrading to get more fees. Crossovers OTOH are simply giving an opinion of someone else's grade. Our host isn't stickering other TPGs coins as to their quality.
Are "giving an opinion of someone else's grade" and "stickering other TPGs as to their quality" not synonymous? I'm unclear on the point you're making.
My point is that reconsideration is taking a second look at your own item for an honest mistake and isn't exactly the same as looking at a competitor's item, particularly when you are now going into direct competition with them. Now if winesteven had said "crossover" instead of "reconsideration"... well...
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
Not a conflict of interest, because they are reconsidering their own material-unless you're accusing them of purposely undergrading to get more fees. Crossovers OTOH are simply giving an opinion of someone else's grade. Our host isn't stickering other TPGs coins as to their quality.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Here's a clear example (and by the way, I'm OK with this, but some people could see this as a conflict-of interest:
Collector A has a lovely coin graded MS65 by PCGS, and thinks it's nice enough to merit a higher grade, possibly MS66, but more likely MS65+. So she sends it in to PCGS for Reconsideration, and pays the full fee. When the PCGS graders look at it, they determine the original grade of MS65 is accurate in their opinion, and return the coin to Collector A in the same holder, grade unchanged.
Collector A then sells the coin at some point, and Collector B buys that coin. When collector B has that coin, he thinks the same as Collector A originally did, that it merits an upgrade, in his opinion. Since it's PCGS policy to NOT disclose publicly that they've already examined this cert on Reconsideration and have already determined it does NOT merit a grade increase, Collector B not knowing this, might spend a full grading fee sending it to PCGS for Reconsideration.
As such, some could say that by PCGS having a policy of not disclosing they've already rejected an upgrade request, now allows them to collect fees from several collectors requesting an upgrade. If collectors knew that it had already been sent for Reconsideration and was rejected for an upgrade, there's a decent likelihood they would then not spend the money asking again. With PCGS having that policy, some could say the reason for the policy is to generate additional grading fees (I don't say that, but others could).
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
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
Not a conflict of interest, because they are reconsidering their own material-unless you're accusing them of purposely undergrading to get more fees. Crossovers OTOH are simply giving an opinion of someone else's grade. Our host isn't stickering other TPGs coins as to their quality.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Here's a clear example (and by the way, I'm OK with this, but some people could see this as a conflict-of interest:
Collector A has a lovely coin graded MS65 by PCGS, and thinks it's nice enough to merit a higher grade, possibly MS66, but more likely MS65+. So she sends it in to PCGS for Reconsideration, and pays the full fee. When the PCGS graders look at it, they determine the original grade of MS65 is accurate in their opinion, and return the coin to Collector A in the same holder, grade unchanged.
Collector A then sells the coin at some point, and Collector B buys that coin. When collector B has that coin, he thinks the same as Collector A originally did, that it merits an upgrade, in his opinion. Since it's PCGS policy to NOT disclose publicly that they've already examined this cert on Reconsideration and have already determined it does NOT merit a grade increase, Collector B not knowing this, might spend a full grading fee sending it to PCGS for Reconsideration.
As such, some could say that by PCGS having a policy of not disclosing they've already rejected an upgrade request, now allows them to collect fees from several collectors requesting an upgrade. If collectors knew that it had already been sent for Reconsideration and was rejected for an upgrade, there's a decent likelihood they would then not spend the money asking again. With PCGS having that policy, some could say the reason for the policy is to generate additional grading fees (I don't say that, but others could).
Steve
I understand where you are coming from but the theory is the same...you insinuate that the TPG is purposely not disclosing to get more reconsideration fees. Along the same lines, there were and are many coins out there that simply got cracked and resubbed multiple times because of a big price bump in the next grade, but the TPG's cash register rang each time. I suppose it goes both ways-submitter as well as TPG insofar as perceived avarice.
@Catbert said:
Call me stupid, but reading this thread has fried my brain. Or maybe the inverse in that it has further fried it, leading me to be truly more stupid.
Lol, this is making me feel smarter by not trying to opine. Nobody honestly knows what EXACTLY is going to happen with cacg . period. Can we please talk about vaultboxes again
@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.
They’re not “shifting another TPG’s grading scale” - they’re continuing with their own standards that have been in effect for 15 years.
No one’s telling you that you have to like it or have anything to do with it. But you sure sound worked up about a service that hasn’t even started yet. Why not judge it after it’s been in operation for a while?
@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.
Sigh. What is it going to take for you to grasp that they're not "shifting another tpg's grading scale"? Again, JA cofounded PCGS and Founded NGC. He's used the same grading scale the ENTIRE time. He's personally graded over 1,000,000 coins. How many coins have you graded? The whole ABC idea is just a simplified analogy meant to explain how his standards for grading slightly differ from the standards that were used to grade a great number of coins in the marketplace, which have fluctuated over time.
When you are taking a coin that would grade as a C coin at another TPG and by policy, you are assigning a grade lower to that coin, you are de facto shifting the grading scale.
@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.
They’re not “shifting another TPG’s grading scale” - they’re continuing with their own standards that have been in effect for 15 years.
No one’s telling you that you have to like it or have anything to do with it. But you sure sound worked up about a service that hasn’t even started yet. Why not judge it after it’s been in operation for a while?
@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.
Sigh. What is it going to take for you to grasp that they're not "shifting another tpg's grading scale"? Again, JA cofounded PCGS and Founded NGC. He's used the same grading scale the ENTIRE time. He's personally graded over 1,000,000 coins. How many coins have you graded? The whole ABC idea is just a simplified analogy meant to explain how his standards for grading slightly differ from the standards that were used to grade a great number of coins in the marketplace, which have fluctuated over time.
When you are taking a coin that would grade as a C coin at another TPG and by policy, you are assigning a grade lower to that coin, you are de facto shifting the grading scale.
OR, one can say CACG is properly grading that coin as a 64+, but the other TPG is shifting the proper grading scale at 64+ to a 65!
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.
They’re not “shifting another TPG’s grading scale” - they’re continuing with their own standards that have been in effect for 15 years.
No one’s telling you that you have to like it or have anything to do with it. But you sure sound worked up about a service that hasn’t even started yet. Why not judge it after it’s been in operation for a while?
@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.
Sigh. What is it going to take for you to grasp that they're not "shifting another tpg's grading scale"? Again, JA cofounded PCGS and Founded NGC. He's used the same grading scale the ENTIRE time. He's personally graded over 1,000,000 coins. How many coins have you graded? The whole ABC idea is just a simplified analogy meant to explain how his standards for grading slightly differ from the standards that were used to grade a great number of coins in the marketplace, which have fluctuated over time.
When you are taking a coin that would grade as a C coin at another TPG and by policy, you are assigning a grade lower to that coin, you are de facto shifting the grading scale.
I see that everything we've tried to explain in the past 3 pages of this thread seems to have gone over your head entirely. When CAC grading opens, you can see how it plays out and decide if you want to play, but my opinion is that they will be just fine, with or without your support. This horse has died 100 replies ago.
@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.
They’re not “shifting another TPG’s grading scale” - they’re continuing with their own standards that have been in effect for 15 years.
No one’s telling you that you have to like it or have anything to do with it. But you sure sound worked up about a service that hasn’t even started yet. Why not judge it after it’s been in operation for a while?
@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.
Sigh. What is it going to take for you to grasp that they're not "shifting another tpg's grading scale"? Again, JA cofounded PCGS and Founded NGC. He's used the same grading scale the ENTIRE time. He's personally graded over 1,000,000 coins. How many coins have you graded? The whole ABC idea is just a simplified analogy meant to explain how his standards for grading slightly differ from the standards that were used to grade a great number of coins in the marketplace, which have fluctuated over time.
When you are taking a coin that would grade as a C coin at another TPG and by policy, you are assigning a grade lower to that coin, you are de facto shifting the grading scale.
How do you know that the coin is a C coin at another company? I’ll answer that for you - you don’t. And each company has the right to set their own standard. That doesn’t mean they’re shifting the grading scale.
You’ll have to carry on without me. I’ve wasted too much time on this thread.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said:
No one’s telling you that you have to like it or have anything to do with it. But you sure sound worked up about a service that hasn’t even started yet. Why not judge it after it’s been in operation for a while?
The absurdity of the proposed operation deserves ridicule. As I've said a few times and I don't think anyone can disagree, coin condition is on a continuous spectrum. CACG's proposed operation omits/ignores/distorts segments of that spectrum, specifically, the "C" coins and shoves them into the next lower grade's A or + category. And for what purpose? To be able to claim CACG graded coins are more accurately graded or of higher quality or fetch higher prices by such artificial manipulation?
@winesteven said: OR, one can say CACG is properly grading that coin as a 64+, but the other TPG is shifting the proper grading scale at 64+ to a 65!
Right, but CACG is intentionally doing it by policy whereas the other TPG is making a judgement call.
@DeplorableDan said:
Mason, you’ve always been reasonable, I thought we’ve moved past this part of the discussion?
I appreciate the vote of confidence but it's clear I am not making my argument understood. I am going to try again, this time with a visual aid based on how I understand CACG grading to work as described by others on this forum. For purposes of this discussion, only accurately graded coins are being considered. Under/overgraded and details coins are not included. The coins are identified by numbers, with the better coins by condition being higher up in the list. The focus will be on coin #7, which should be considered to be accurately graded but, if it was just a bit lower in condition (a couple more bagmarks or more prominent hairlines), it would be the equal of coin #8.
In the PCGS/CAC environment, coin #7 is solid for the grade, with numerous coins of the same grade below it. In the CACG environment, coin #7 is not solid for the grade, being right at the boundary of (and just a couple of bagmarks from) being a grade lower.
CAC says all the coins they slab will be solid for the grade but that is only true if you consider them based on the PCGS grading system. Using CAC's own grading system, they won't all be solid for the grade. IMO, this claim ("All coins will be solid for the grade") is misleading without explaining that the grade they are solid for is based on a competitor's grading system, not their own.
@Catbert said:
Call me stupid, but reading this thread has fried my brain. Or maybe the inverse in that it has further fried it, leading me to be truly more stupid.
Lol, this is making me feel smarter by not trying to opine. Nobody honestly knows what EXACTLY is going to happen with cacg . period. Can we please talk about vaultboxes again
The VB Series 2 announcement should be only a couple weeks away.
@DeplorableDan said:
Mason, you’ve always been reasonable, I thought we’ve moved past this part of the discussion?
I appreciate the vote of confidence but it's clear I am not making my argument understood. I am going to try again, this time with a visual aid based on how I understand CACG grading to work as described by others on this forum. For purposes of this discussion, only accurately graded coins are being considered. Under/overgraded and details coins are not included. The coins are identified by numbers, with the better coins by condition being higher up in the list. The focus will be on coin #7, which should be considered to be accurately graded but, if it was just a bit lower in condition (a couple more bagmarks or more prominent hairlines), it would be the equal of coin #8.
In the PCGS/CAC environment, coin #7 is solid for the grade, with numerous coins of the same grade below it. In the CACG environment, coin #7 is not solid for the grade, being right at the boundary of (and just a couple of bagmarks from) being a grade lower.
CAC says all the coins they slab will be solid for the grade but that is only true if you consider them based on the PCGS grading system. Using CAC's own grading system, they won't all be solid for the grade. IMO, this claim ("All coins will be solid for the grade") is misleading without explaining that the grade they are solid for is based on a competitor's grading system, not their own.
As always, YMMV.
They didn’t move the lines. That C section is still there. They just refuse to put any coins in it because they want only “solid for the grade” coins in their holders. They have two options then. Either refuse to grade those C coins and return them raw to the submitter, or consider those 65C coins as “really high end” 64s. That way, nobody would ever have a truly “low end for the grade” coin in a CACG holder.
The part that is debatable is the bumping down a grade part.
Some people view the grading scale as a continuum. So, a 64 could be thought of as an incredibly nice 63! Remember, 64 wasn’t always a grade used.
Some people believe that there is enough difference in the grading standards so that a 64 coin is a completely different animal than a 63. To them they might be wondering why a 64 coin is sitting in a 63 holder.
While I understand your reasoning, I can’t make the leap that because they refuse to put coins in the C bucket, then the B coins somehow become low end for the grade. They are still B coins…solid for the grade.
Draw that diagram again, but leave the C section empty, and put those coins in the 64A section, and you’ll see what I’m saying.
It wb interesting see how the CACG coins trade on the bourse. Hopefully they are out my next upcoming show. If I can get some at bid + 5 pct (whslr price to me) from one of my 2 wholesale suppliers at show may buy some. How will the public coming in the door react to them - will they pay the higher (CAC CPG) money? Pretty sure the CAC investors coming in the room will.
@Cougar1978 said:
It wb interesting see how the CACG coins trade on the bourse. Hopefully they are out my next upcoming show. If I can get some at bid + 5 pct from one of my 2 wholesale suppliers at show may buy some. How will the public coming in the door react to them - will they pay the higher (CAC) money?
Oh good luck, I bet CACG slabs with early serial numbers will go for huge premiums. it will be all about the plastic!
@Catbert said:
Call me stupid, but reading this thread has fried my brain. Or maybe the inverse in that it has further fried it, leading me to be truly more stupid.
Just wait until we get to the real juicy/meaty questions like, “Will CACG cross Vaultbox Redcore series and pedigree them as such?”
@JoeLewis said:
They didn’t move the lines. That C section is still there. They just refuse to put any coins in it because they want only “solid for the grade” coins in their holders.
That's not so right now. They claim that C coins do exist. From their website (note the bolded part):
For many years, coin dealers and advanced collectors have used the letters A, B, and C among themselves to further describe coins. C indicates low-end for the grade, B indicates solid for the grade, and A indicates high-end. CAC will only award stickers to coins in the A or B category. C coins, although accurately graded, will be returned without a CAC sticker.
The C coins need to be there or the B coins become the low end for the grade. If they move the C coins down to the next lower grade and won't put any coins into C, then functionally, that area doesn't exist and the point where one grade changes to the next is the bottom of the B section. Making them low end, not solid. "Used to be solid", maybe.
Are they going to claim that going forward, the C coins they currently recognize as being accurately graded no longer are? I don't know.
edited to add... Look at coin #7 in my diagram, which should be considered to be accurately graded but, if it was just a bit lower in condition (a couple more bagmarks or more prominent hairlines), it would be the equal of coin #8. How can that coin be "solid for the grade" if just a couple more bagmarks would drop it to the next lower grade?
Coin conditions are continuous from basal state all the way to perfection. Coin grades are discontinuous and subjective
Any grade given by any TPG will have a range of coin conditions in it, even if it’s a tight range. Take 1000 MS 64s from any TPG and the coins at the low end or the ones at the high end will be fodder for a forum argument.
Crack out those 1000 MS64s and resubmit them and they won’t all come back 64s again even at CACG.
I am not worried about C coins. I don’t want them. Coins are PQ, Solid Quality, Average Quality (C). My focus is coins that are PQ or Solid Quality that will SELL at a good retail margin. Additionally what is ABC can be very subjective and vary between different players. This was evident on the thread on coin talk “Will it sticker.”
@Cougar1978 said:
I am not worried about C coins. I don’t want them. Coins are PQ, Solid Quality, Average Quality (C). My focus is coins that are PQ or Solid Quality that will SELL at a good retail margin. Additionally what is ABC can be very subjective and vary between different players.
You do realize how arbitrary that approach is though, right? If you are able to buy A coins for C money, then sure, that's a winning strategy when you can find those deals. But if coins are priced/valued correctly for their A/B/C tier, why does it matter? If coin grades were converted from the Sheldon scale to a 100 point scale for example, now we draw the dividing lines of the coin condition spectrum in different places and that average 64 may now be a "solid" or "PQ" 90. Are you interested in the coin then? The coin hasn't changed. Just it's position within the number grading scale assigned to it.
Everyone is different and entitled to their own thoughts, but if I can buy an average MS65 or a 64+ and the pricing is "accurate" and your budget allows for either, why not get the average 65? It is a better coin. What is the allure of having the 64+?
@JoeLewis said:
They didn’t move the lines. That C section is still there. They just refuse to put any coins in it because they want only “solid for the grade” coins in their holders.
That's not so right now. They claim that C coins do exist. From their website (note the bolded part):
For many years, coin dealers and advanced collectors have used the letters A, B, and C among themselves to further describe coins. C indicates low-end for the grade, B indicates solid for the grade, and A indicates high-end. CAC will only award stickers to coins in the A or B category. C coins, although accurately graded, will be returned without a CAC sticker.
The C coins need to be there or the B coins become the low end for the grade. If they move the C coins down to the next lower grade and won't put any coins into C, then functionally, that area doesn't exist and the point where one grade changes to the next is the bottom of the B section. Making them low end, not solid. "Used to be solid", maybe.
Are they going to claim that going forward, the C coins they currently recognize as being accurately graded no longer are? I don't know.
edited to add... Look at coin #7 in my diagram, which should be considered to be accurately graded but, if it was just a bit lower in condition (a couple more bagmarks or more prominent hairlines), it would be the equal of coin #8. How can that coin be "solid for the grade" if just a couple more bagmarks would drop it to the next lower grade?
I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think you get what they’re doing. There will be no “low end for the grade” coins in their holders. That B coin is solid for that grade. A few more bag marks, and then it would not be solid for the grade. So it would bump to the next lower grade where it would be upper end for THAT grade.
What you are saying is ignoring their original standard of what that grade means. The B coin IS SOLID FOR THAT GRADE. Their insistence that they will not holder the low end coins for that grade is the issue. It doesn’t change their standard.
BTW, I think it’s a mistake that they’re doing it this way. I would prefer they just put A, B, and C on the grade.
Everybody has their own opinion. It’s your hobby strategy your money. If your a big spender on the CAC planet go for it. I would take about $25k to a big show get some PCGS CAC $20 Double Eagles MS 64 or higher. Nice lustrous ones no spots.
What I have found recently (say bin off eBay) is if I want a Mexico PCGS 69 Silver 1 oz Libertad it’s about $54 bin. But I can get a MS 70 PCGS ASE for $53 bin. Interesting huh? I want get 6 of each stack in my case at an upcoming show. Maybe do display 2 stacks of each on either side of a stack of some of my graded banknotes. One heck of a display. I put in a AS bid for a MS 69 Libertad of $53.50 - I lost. That person bid it higher than what one could buy it for bin. Perhaps try again and hope for better outcome lol.
As far as a 64+ vs a 65 I would buy the one I could make the best margin on / move quickest. Either one fills the hole and qualifies under David Halls definition of minimum investment grade of MS 64 from his book years ago (1986). I remember buying my first slabbed coins then going up to a major dealers table at a show with David’s book in hand recommended invest buys (not knowing diddly squat) asking do you have MS 64 or higher PCGS 1938-D nickel, PCGS 1941 WLH, PCGS 1881-S Dollar. They had them all and I bought my first slabbed coins.
@JoeLewis said:
I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think you get what they’re doing.
I get what they're doing. I disagree with how it's said to work and I think it's misleading how they describe it.
@JoeLewis said:
There will be no “low end for the grade” coins in their holders.
Regardless of whatever grade you call it, there is a transition point from one grade to the next. This cannot be avoided. The coins just above that point are low end. There will always be low end for the grade coins. Saying they don't exist is ignoring reality.
@JoeLewis said:
That B coin is solid for that grade [65]. A few more bag marks, and then it would not be solid for the grade [65].
No. Under the proposed system, it would not even be a 65. It would be a 64. I don't know how you can get any more low end than having a couple of bagmarks drop a coin from a 65 to a 64.
[ ] - my edits to quote above
@JoeLewis said:
So it would bump to the next lower grade where it would be upper end for THAT grade.
@JoeLewis said:
I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think you get what they’re doing.
I get what they're doing. I disagree with how it's said to work and I think it's misleading how they describe it.
@JoeLewis said:
There will be no “low end for the grade” coins in their holders.
Regardless of whatever grade you call it, there is a transition point from one grade to the next. This cannot be avoided. The coins just above that point are low end. There will always be low end for the grade coins. Saying they don't exist is ignoring reality.
@JoeLewis said:
That B coin is solid for that grade [65]. A few more bag marks, and then it would not be solid for the grade [65].
No. Under the proposed system, it would not even be a 65. It would be a 64. I don't know how you can get any more low end than having a couple of bagmarks drop a coin from a 65 to a 64.
[ ] - my edits to quote above
@JoeLewis said:
So it would bump to the next lower grade where it would be upper end for THAT grade.
Yes.
So if they refused to holder the C coins, and mailed them back raw to the submitter, would you then say that the B coins are now low end for that grade?
@JoeLewis said:
I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think you get what they’re doing.
I get what they're doing. I disagree with how it's said to work and I think it's misleading how they describe it.
@JoeLewis said:
There will be no “low end for the grade” coins in their holders.
Regardless of whatever grade you call it, there is a transition point from one grade to the next. This cannot be avoided. The coins just above that point are low end. There will always be low end for the grade coins. Saying they don't exist is ignoring reality.
@JoeLewis said:
That B coin is solid for that grade [65]. A few more bag marks, and then it would not be solid for the grade [65].
No. Under the proposed system, it would not even be a 65. It would be a 64. I don't know how you can get any more low end than having a couple of bagmarks drop a coin from a 65 to a 64.
[ ] - my edits to quote above
@JoeLewis said:
So it would bump to the next lower grade where it would be upper end for THAT grade.
Yes.
So if they refused to holder the C coins, and mailed them back raw to the submitter, would you then say that the B coins are now low end for that grade?
If you are not grading any coins as C, then B is low end. How could it be otherwise?
@JoeLewis said:
I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think you get what they’re doing.
I get what they're doing. I disagree with how it's said to work and I think it's misleading how they describe it.
@JoeLewis said:
There will be no “low end for the grade” coins in their holders.
Regardless of whatever grade you call it, there is a transition point from one grade to the next. This cannot be avoided. The coins just above that point are low end. There will always be low end for the grade coins. Saying they don't exist is ignoring reality.
@JoeLewis said:
That B coin is solid for that grade [65]. A few more bag marks, and then it would not be solid for the grade [65].
No. Under the proposed system, it would not even be a 65. It would be a 64. I don't know how you can get any more low end than having a couple of bagmarks drop a coin from a 65 to a 64.
[ ] - my edits to quote above
@JoeLewis said:
So it would bump to the next lower grade where it would be upper end for THAT grade.
Yes.
So if they refused to holder the C coins, and mailed them back raw to the submitter, would you then say that the B coins are now low end for that grade?
If you are not grading any coins as C, then B is low end. How could it be otherwise?
So by your logic, their stickers represent low end for the grade coins too.
@JoeLewis said:
I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think you get what they’re doing.
I get what they're doing. I disagree with how it's said to work and I think it's misleading how they describe it.
@JoeLewis said:
There will be no “low end for the grade” coins in their holders.
Regardless of whatever grade you call it, there is a transition point from one grade to the next. This cannot be avoided. The coins just above that point are low end. There will always be low end for the grade coins. Saying they don't exist is ignoring reality.
@JoeLewis said:
That B coin is solid for that grade [65]. A few more bag marks, and then it would not be solid for the grade [65].
No. Under the proposed system, it would not even be a 65. It would be a 64. I don't know how you can get any more low end than having a couple of bagmarks drop a coin from a 65 to a 64.
[ ] - my edits to quote above
@JoeLewis said:
So it would bump to the next lower grade where it would be upper end for THAT grade.
Yes.
So if they refused to holder the C coins, and mailed them back raw to the submitter, would you then say that the B coins are now low end for that grade?
If you are not grading any coins as C, then B is low end. How could it be otherwise?
Then we can grade B coins as A coins for the grade below. We can perpetually keep splitting grades and adding modifiers until we have a 100 point scale for mint state coins alone.
@JoeLewis said:
I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think you get what they’re doing.
I get what they're doing. I disagree with how it's said to work and I think it's misleading how they describe it.
@JoeLewis said:
There will be no “low end for the grade” coins in their holders.
Regardless of whatever grade you call it, there is a transition point from one grade to the next. This cannot be avoided. The coins just above that point are low end. There will always be low end for the grade coins. Saying they don't exist is ignoring reality.
@JoeLewis said:
That B coin is solid for that grade [65]. A few more bag marks, and then it would not be solid for the grade [65].
No. Under the proposed system, it would not even be a 65. It would be a 64. I don't know how you can get any more low end than having a couple of bagmarks drop a coin from a 65 to a 64.
[ ] - my edits to quote above
@JoeLewis said:
So it would bump to the next lower grade where it would be upper end for THAT grade.
Yes.
So if they refused to holder the C coins, and mailed them back raw to the submitter, would you then say that the B coins are now low end for that grade?
If you are not grading any coins as C, then B is low end. How could it be otherwise?
So by your logic, their stickers represent low end for the grade coins too.
You would agree that there are some coins that could have gone either way and just barely stickered, correct? Wouldn't those coins be "low end" relative to the total population of CAC-stickered coins in that grade?
@JoeLewis said:
I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think you get what they’re doing.
I get what they're doing. I disagree with how it's said to work and I think it's misleading how they describe it.
@JoeLewis said:
There will be no “low end for the grade” coins in their holders.
Regardless of whatever grade you call it, there is a transition point from one grade to the next. This cannot be avoided. The coins just above that point are low end. There will always be low end for the grade coins. Saying they don't exist is ignoring reality.
@JoeLewis said:
That B coin is solid for that grade [65]. A few more bag marks, and then it would not be solid for the grade [65].
No. Under the proposed system, it would not even be a 65. It would be a 64. I don't know how you can get any more low end than having a couple of bagmarks drop a coin from a 65 to a 64.
[ ] - my edits to quote above
@JoeLewis said:
So it would bump to the next lower grade where it would be upper end for THAT grade.
Yes.
So if they refused to holder the C coins, and mailed them back raw to the submitter, would you then say that the B coins are now low end for that grade?
If you are not grading any coins as C, then B is low end. How could it be otherwise?
So by your logic, their stickers represent low end for the grade coins too.
No. Because they are stickering B and above coins and they're onboard with the idea that C coins exist (that's not an opinion, it's directly from their website.) You are mixing up the PCGS and CACG grading systems in your comments. They are not the same.
@JoeLewis said:
I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think you get what they’re doing.
I get what they're doing. I disagree with how it's said to work and I think it's misleading how they describe it.
@JoeLewis said:
There will be no “low end for the grade” coins in their holders.
Regardless of whatever grade you call it, there is a transition point from one grade to the next. This cannot be avoided. The coins just above that point are low end. There will always be low end for the grade coins. Saying they don't exist is ignoring reality.
@JoeLewis said:
That B coin is solid for that grade [65]. A few more bag marks, and then it would not be solid for the grade [65].
No. Under the proposed system, it would not even be a 65. It would be a 64. I don't know how you can get any more low end than having a couple of bagmarks drop a coin from a 65 to a 64.
[ ] - my edits to quote above
@JoeLewis said:
So it would bump to the next lower grade where it would be upper end for THAT grade.
Yes.
So if they refused to holder the C coins, and mailed them back raw to the submitter, would you then say that the B coins are now low end for that grade?
If you are not grading any coins as C, then B is low end. How could it be otherwise?
So by your logic, their stickers represent low end for the grade coins too.
No. Because they are stickering B and above coins and they're onboard with the idea that C coins exist (that's not an opinion, it's directly from their website.) You are mixing up the PCGS and CACG grading systems in your comments. They are not the same.
But they ARE agreeing C coins exist here too. The are making the decision to bump down some 65 coins and assigning them a 64 grade so that no low end coins exist in their holder. They are saying that it is a low end 65 AND a high end 64 at the same time. That’s what I’ve been trying to say. People that believe coins are graded on a continuum understand that a low end 65 is also a really high end 64. CAC would not sticker that coin in a 65 holder, but they WOULD sticker that exact same coin in a 64 holder. They’ve decided to do that same thing with their holders.
Dang it. Now that I realize we’re using two different definitions of low end, I agree with you using your definition. I’m sorry to have wasted your time.
@JoeLewis said:
They are saying that it is a low end 65 AND a high end 64 at the same time.
And I'm saying that description is misleading. Trying to say a low end 65 and a high end 64 is the same thing is pretty much the definition of misleading. Pick one grade and go with it- you can't have it both ways.
@JoeLewis said:
We’re both using the term low end but assigning it two different meanings.
It would appear so. When I say "low end", I mean a coin that, if it was a tiny bit lower in grade, would drop into the next lower numerical grade. As would the #7 coin in my diagram above that some would like to describe as "solid for the grade".
@JoeLewis said:
Also. We’re both using the term low end but assigning it two different meanings.
You nailed it. One side is saying no low end coins on the PCGS scale will be in CAC holders and the other side is saying you'll still have coins that barely made it on the CAC scale. What I still don't understand is how you can argue that they are not shifting the breakpoint for each grade a third of a point lower. That seems very obvious to me but many posters that I respect and normally agree with seem to be taking the other side. I guess extrapolating the same definitional misunderstanding, perhaps they are saying the CAC scale isn't shifting at all, it was always a third of a point higher than PCGS?
I think what will be interesting is what the landscape will look like 5 yrs after CAC grading has been up and running. My guess is over time they will be just as guilty for grade inflation as everyone else. People have said numerous times in this thread that they don't care if their coins grade at CAC less than the current holder says but when that happens regularly people will start tiring of it especially if they see it as being a superior coin that cost $$$ but the value of the coin no longer plays a part in the grading. Why are the other grading companies using market grading vs technical grading for many/most series? For the exact same reason, money talks and people's salaries need to be paid.
What I've read has made it sound like JA will be a consultant (with some profit sharing for sure) for a period of no less than 10 years. He is not going to be the end all be all on business decisions. CAC grading will need to pay the lease on the 29,000 ft facility in Virginia so they do in fact need to make money. Some of the posts in this thread make it sound like they are some sort of non-profit as they could care less about making money. That's not realistic.
CAC's real value right now is being an independent reviewer. When the independent review part goes away, I think overtime things will shift. What I believe this means is that the premium for CAC stickered slabs are going to grow exponentially over time outpacing the premium for CAC slab coins (only exception will be OGH CAC graded slabs).
If you are a grading company, the only way you can have only "solid for the grade or better" coins in your holders is by using another company's standards to evaluate the coins you have graded.
@mtn_scout said:
I think what will be interesting is what the landscape will look like 5 yrs after CAC grading has been up and running. My guess is over time they will be just as guilty for grade inflation as everyone else. People have said numerous times in this thread that they don't care if their coins grade at CAC less than the current holder says but when that happens regularly people will start tiring of it especially if they see it as being a superior coin that cost $$$ but the value of the coin no longer plays a part in the grading. Why are the other grading companies using market grading vs technical grading for many/most series? For the exact same reason, money talks and people's salaries need to be paid.
I would expect that collectors will pay low end PCGS 65 money for CAC 64 coins which will make it look like CAC drives a premium when it's just an MS65 coin in a 64 or 64+ holder. Kind of the way I generally pay less for coins in NGC holders vs PCGS, and I also expect NGC coins to cross to PCGS at a grade lower. There may likely be some opportunities develop to crack out CACG coins and submit to PCGS to make money, or vice versa.
@JoeLewis said:
Also. We’re both using the term low end but assigning it two different meanings.
You nailed it. One side is saying no low end coins on the PCGS scale will be in CAC holders and the other side is saying you'll still have coins that barely made it on the CAC scale. What I still don't understand is how you can argue that they are not shifting the breakpoint for each grade a third of a point lower. That seems very obvious to me but many posters that I respect and normally agree with seem to be taking the other side. I guess extrapolating the same definitional misunderstanding, perhaps they are saying the CAC scale isn't shifting at all, it was always a third of a point higher than PCGS?
They are shifting the breaking point between grades. Isn't that the ONLY remedy to grade inflation?
I find it rather amusing that people complain about grade inflation. People argue that a coin shouldn't be in PCGS X holder because of hits or dipping or whatever. Then when someone comes along and basically says, I'm shaving a half point off these inflated grades, they are having a conniption.
@mtn_scout said:
I think what will be interesting is what the landscape will look like 5 yrs after CAC grading has been up and running. My guess is over time they will be just as guilty for grade inflation as everyone else. People have said numerous times in this thread that they don't care if their coins grade at CAC less than the current holder says but when that happens regularly people will start tiring of it especially if they see it as being a superior coin that cost $$$ but the value of the coin no longer plays a part in the grading. Why are the other grading companies using market grading vs technical grading for many/most series? For the exact same reason, money talks and people's salaries need to be paid.
I would expect that collectors will pay low end PCGS 65 money for CAC 64 coins which will make it look like CAC drives a premium when it's just an MS65 coin in a 64 or 64+ holder. Kind of the way I generally pay less for coins in NGC holders vs PCGS, and I also expect NGC coins to cross to PCGS at a grade lower. There may likely be some opportunities develop to crack out CACG coins and submit to PCGS to make money, or vice versa.
Isn't that the exact same reason people pay a "premium" for a PCGS coin relative to a "Fill in Rando TPGS" coin? There is no premium, the coin is just in a lower grade holder. There is also no CAC premium. People are just paying for a higher end coin for the grade. So what? Isn't that how it is supposed to work?
@JoeLewis said:
Also. We’re both using the term low end but assigning it two different meanings.
You nailed it. One side is saying no low end coins on the PCGS scale will be in CAC holders and the other side is saying you'll still have coins that barely made it on the CAC scale. What I still don't understand is how you can argue that they are not shifting the breakpoint for each grade a third of a point lower. That seems very obvious to me but many posters that I respect and normally agree with seem to be taking the other side. I guess extrapolating the same definitional misunderstanding, perhaps they are saying the CAC scale isn't shifting at all, it was always a third of a point higher than PCGS?
They are shifting the breaking point between grades. Isn't that the ONLY remedy to grade inflation?
I find it rather amusing that people complain about grade inflation. People argue that a coin shouldn't be in PCGS X holder because of hits or dipping or whatever. Then when someone comes along and basically says, I'm shaving a half point off these inflated grades, they are having a conniption.
To be clear, I have no problem that they are shifting the break point between grades. They are free to do as they wish and people are free to use their service or a competitor (or gasp collect raw coins). But you only have to look a few posts up to see Mark and Dan argue with some exasperation that CAC isn't “shifting another TPG’s grading scale” when it seems obvious that they are. If I am understanding them correctly, their argument is CAC is using a scale that has been consistent for 30 years and everyone else has shifted up over time. I think that's fine and I have no reason to doubt them but that doesn't change the fact that CAC is going to take a bunch of coins that, according to their own website, are "accurately graded" but don't meet their quality standards and move them into a lower holder. To me, that is the definition of shifting the grading scale. I am not making an argument for whether that is good or bad.
Comments
They’re not “shifting another TPG’s grading scale” - they’re continuing with their own standards that have been in effect for 15 years.
No one’s telling you that you have to like it or have anything to do with it. But you sure sound worked up about a service that hasn’t even started yet. Why not judge it after it’s been in operation for a while?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Sigh. What is it going to take for you to grasp that they're not "shifting another tpg's grading scale"? Again, JA cofounded PCGS and Founded NGC. He's used the same grading scale the ENTIRE time. He's personally graded over 1,000,000 coins. How many coins have you graded? The whole ABC idea is just a simplified analogy meant to explain how his standards for grading slightly differ from the standards that were used to grade a great number of coins in the marketplace, which have fluctuated over time.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Especially if someone relies only on slabs and stickers to tell them so...
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Not a conflict of interest, because they are reconsidering their own material-unless you're accusing them of purposely undergrading to get more fees. Crossovers OTOH are simply giving an opinion of someone else's grade. Our host isn't stickering other TPGs coins as to their quality.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Are "giving an opinion of someone else's grade" and "stickering other TPGs as to their quality" not synonymous? I'm unclear on the point you're making.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
My point is that reconsideration is taking a second look at your own item for an honest mistake and isn't exactly the same as looking at a competitor's item, particularly when you are now going into direct competition with them. Now if winesteven had said "crossover" instead of "reconsideration"... well...
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
No, that's not what I'm saying. Here's a clear example (and by the way, I'm OK with this, but some people could see this as a conflict-of interest:
Collector A has a lovely coin graded MS65 by PCGS, and thinks it's nice enough to merit a higher grade, possibly MS66, but more likely MS65+. So she sends it in to PCGS for Reconsideration, and pays the full fee. When the PCGS graders look at it, they determine the original grade of MS65 is accurate in their opinion, and return the coin to Collector A in the same holder, grade unchanged.
Collector A then sells the coin at some point, and Collector B buys that coin. When collector B has that coin, he thinks the same as Collector A originally did, that it merits an upgrade, in his opinion. Since it's PCGS policy to NOT disclose publicly that they've already examined this cert on Reconsideration and have already determined it does NOT merit a grade increase, Collector B not knowing this, might spend a full grading fee sending it to PCGS for Reconsideration.
As such, some could say that by PCGS having a policy of not disclosing they've already rejected an upgrade request, now allows them to collect fees from several collectors requesting an upgrade. If collectors knew that it had already been sent for Reconsideration and was rejected for an upgrade, there's a decent likelihood they would then not spend the money asking again. With PCGS having that policy, some could say the reason for the policy is to generate additional grading fees (I don't say that, but others could).
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
Call me stupid, but reading this thread has fried my brain. Or maybe the inverse in that it has further fried it, leading me to be truly more stupid.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
I understand where you are coming from but the theory is the same...you insinuate that the TPG is purposely not disclosing to get more reconsideration fees. Along the same lines, there were and are many coins out there that simply got cracked and resubbed multiple times because of a big price bump in the next grade, but the TPG's cash register rang each time. I suppose it goes both ways-submitter as well as TPG insofar as perceived avarice.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Explains why the rest of the board is so "dead"!
Lol, this is making me feel smarter by not trying to opine. Nobody honestly knows what EXACTLY is going to happen with cacg . period. Can we please talk about vaultboxes again
When you are taking a coin that would grade as a C coin at another TPG and by policy, you are assigning a grade lower to that coin, you are de facto shifting the grading scale.
OR, one can say CACG is properly grading that coin as a 64+, but the other TPG is shifting the proper grading scale at 64+ to a 65!
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 see that everything we've tried to explain in the past 3 pages of this thread seems to have gone over your head entirely. When CAC grading opens, you can see how it plays out and decide if you want to play, but my opinion is that they will be just fine, with or without your support. This horse has died 100 replies ago.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
How do you know that the coin is a C coin at another company? I’ll answer that for you - you don’t. And each company has the right to set their own standard. That doesn’t mean they’re shifting the grading scale.
You’ll have to carry on without me. I’ve wasted too much time on this thread.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The absurdity of the proposed operation deserves ridicule. As I've said a few times and I don't think anyone can disagree, coin condition is on a continuous spectrum. CACG's proposed operation omits/ignores/distorts segments of that spectrum, specifically, the "C" coins and shoves them into the next lower grade's A or + category. And for what purpose? To be able to claim CACG graded coins are more accurately graded or of higher quality or fetch higher prices by such artificial manipulation?
Right, but CACG is intentionally doing it by policy whereas the other TPG is making a judgement call.
I appreciate the vote of confidence but it's clear I am not making my argument understood. I am going to try again, this time with a visual aid based on how I understand CACG grading to work as described by others on this forum. For purposes of this discussion, only accurately graded coins are being considered. Under/overgraded and details coins are not included. The coins are identified by numbers, with the better coins by condition being higher up in the list. The focus will be on coin #7, which should be considered to be accurately graded but, if it was just a bit lower in condition (a couple more bagmarks or more prominent hairlines), it would be the equal of coin #8.
In the PCGS/CAC environment, coin #7 is solid for the grade, with numerous coins of the same grade below it. In the CACG environment, coin #7 is not solid for the grade, being right at the boundary of (and just a couple of bagmarks from) being a grade lower.
CAC says all the coins they slab will be solid for the grade but that is only true if you consider them based on the PCGS grading system. Using CAC's own grading system, they won't all be solid for the grade. IMO, this claim ("All coins will be solid for the grade") is misleading without explaining that the grade they are solid for is based on a competitor's grading system, not their own.
As always, YMMV.
The VB Series 2 announcement should be only a couple weeks away.
They didn’t move the lines. That C section is still there. They just refuse to put any coins in it because they want only “solid for the grade” coins in their holders. They have two options then. Either refuse to grade those C coins and return them raw to the submitter, or consider those 65C coins as “really high end” 64s. That way, nobody would ever have a truly “low end for the grade” coin in a CACG holder.
The part that is debatable is the bumping down a grade part.
Some people view the grading scale as a continuum. So, a 64 could be thought of as an incredibly nice 63! Remember, 64 wasn’t always a grade used.
Some people believe that there is enough difference in the grading standards so that a 64 coin is a completely different animal than a 63. To them they might be wondering why a 64 coin is sitting in a 63 holder.
While I understand your reasoning, I can’t make the leap that because they refuse to put coins in the C bucket, then the B coins somehow become low end for the grade. They are still B coins…solid for the grade.
Draw that diagram again, but leave the C section empty, and put those coins in the 64A section, and you’ll see what I’m saying.
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
It wb interesting see how the CACG coins trade on the bourse. Hopefully they are out my next upcoming show. If I can get some at bid + 5 pct (whslr price to me) from one of my 2 wholesale suppliers at show may buy some. How will the public coming in the door react to them - will they pay the higher (CAC CPG) money? Pretty sure the CAC investors coming in the room will.
Oh good luck, I bet CACG slabs with early serial numbers will go for huge premiums. it will be all about the plastic!
Well in that case pass -
let them just get buried in it.
Er. Folks. I think it is time for a reality check - Buy the coin and NOT the holder...................
Just wait until we get to the real juicy/meaty questions like, “Will CACG cross Vaultbox Redcore series and pedigree them as such?”
That's not so right now. They claim that C coins do exist. From their website (note the bolded part):
For many years, coin dealers and advanced collectors have used the letters A, B, and C among themselves to further describe coins. C indicates low-end for the grade, B indicates solid for the grade, and A indicates high-end. CAC will only award stickers to coins in the A or B category. C coins, although accurately graded, will be returned without a CAC sticker.
The C coins need to be there or the B coins become the low end for the grade. If they move the C coins down to the next lower grade and won't put any coins into C, then functionally, that area doesn't exist and the point where one grade changes to the next is the bottom of the B section. Making them low end, not solid. "Used to be solid", maybe.
Are they going to claim that going forward, the C coins they currently recognize as being accurately graded no longer are? I don't know.
edited to add... Look at coin #7 in my diagram, which should be considered to be accurately graded but, if it was just a bit lower in condition (a couple more bagmarks or more prominent hairlines), it would be the equal of coin #8. How can that coin be "solid for the grade" if just a couple more bagmarks would drop it to the next lower grade?
Coin conditions are continuous from basal state all the way to perfection. Coin grades are discontinuous and subjective
Any grade given by any TPG will have a range of coin conditions in it, even if it’s a tight range. Take 1000 MS 64s from any TPG and the coins at the low end or the ones at the high end will be fodder for a forum argument.
Crack out those 1000 MS64s and resubmit them and they won’t all come back 64s again even at CACG.
I am not worried about C coins. I don’t want them. Coins are PQ, Solid Quality, Average Quality (C). My focus is coins that are PQ or Solid Quality that will SELL at a good retail margin. Additionally what is ABC can be very subjective and vary between different players. This was evident on the thread on coin talk “Will it sticker.”
You do realize how arbitrary that approach is though, right? If you are able to buy A coins for C money, then sure, that's a winning strategy when you can find those deals. But if coins are priced/valued correctly for their A/B/C tier, why does it matter? If coin grades were converted from the Sheldon scale to a 100 point scale for example, now we draw the dividing lines of the coin condition spectrum in different places and that average 64 may now be a "solid" or "PQ" 90. Are you interested in the coin then? The coin hasn't changed. Just it's position within the number grading scale assigned to it.
Everyone is different and entitled to their own thoughts, but if I can buy an average MS65 or a 64+ and the pricing is "accurate" and your budget allows for either, why not get the average 65? It is a better coin. What is the allure of having the 64+?
I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think you get what they’re doing. There will be no “low end for the grade” coins in their holders. That B coin is solid for that grade. A few more bag marks, and then it would not be solid for the grade. So it would bump to the next lower grade where it would be upper end for THAT grade.
What you are saying is ignoring their original standard of what that grade means. The B coin IS SOLID FOR THAT GRADE. Their insistence that they will not holder the low end coins for that grade is the issue. It doesn’t change their standard.
BTW, I think it’s a mistake that they’re doing it this way. I would prefer they just put A, B, and C on the grade.
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
Everybody has their own opinion. It’s your hobby strategy your money. If your a big spender on the CAC planet go for it. I would take about $25k to a big show get some PCGS CAC $20 Double Eagles MS 64 or higher. Nice lustrous ones no spots.
What I have found recently (say bin off eBay) is if I want a Mexico PCGS 69 Silver 1 oz Libertad it’s about $54 bin. But I can get a MS 70 PCGS ASE for $53 bin. Interesting huh? I want get 6 of each stack in my case at an upcoming show. Maybe do display 2 stacks of each on either side of a stack of some of my graded banknotes. One heck of a display. I put in a AS bid for a MS 69 Libertad of $53.50 - I lost. That person bid it higher than what one could buy it for bin. Perhaps try again and hope for better outcome lol.
As far as a 64+ vs a 65 I would buy the one I could make the best margin on / move quickest. Either one fills the hole and qualifies under David Halls definition of minimum investment grade of MS 64 from his book years ago (1986). I remember buying my first slabbed coins then going up to a major dealers table at a show with David’s book in hand recommended invest buys (not knowing diddly squat) asking do you have MS 64 or higher PCGS 1938-D nickel, PCGS 1941 WLH, PCGS 1881-S Dollar. They had them all and I bought my first slabbed coins.
I get what they're doing. I disagree with how it's said to work and I think it's misleading how they describe it.
Regardless of whatever grade you call it, there is a transition point from one grade to the next. This cannot be avoided. The coins just above that point are low end. There will always be low end for the grade coins. Saying they don't exist is ignoring reality.
No. Under the proposed system, it would not even be a 65. It would be a 64. I don't know how you can get any more low end than having a couple of bagmarks drop a coin from a 65 to a 64.
[ ] - my edits to quote above
Yes.
So if they refused to holder the C coins, and mailed them back raw to the submitter, would you then say that the B coins are now low end for that grade?
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
If you are not grading any coins as C, then B is low end. How could it be otherwise?
So by your logic, their stickers represent low end for the grade coins too.
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
Then we can grade B coins as A coins for the grade below. We can perpetually keep splitting grades and adding modifiers until we have a 100 point scale for mint state coins alone.
You would agree that there are some coins that could have gone either way and just barely stickered, correct? Wouldn't those coins be "low end" relative to the total population of CAC-stickered coins in that grade?
No. Because they are stickering B and above coins and they're onboard with the idea that C coins exist (that's not an opinion, it's directly from their website.) You are mixing up the PCGS and CACG grading systems in your comments. They are not the same.
But they ARE agreeing C coins exist here too. The are making the decision to bump down some 65 coins and assigning them a 64 grade so that no low end coins exist in their holder. They are saying that it is a low end 65 AND a high end 64 at the same time. That’s what I’ve been trying to say. People that believe coins are graded on a continuum understand that a low end 65 is also a really high end 64. CAC would not sticker that coin in a 65 holder, but they WOULD sticker that exact same coin in a 64 holder. They’ve decided to do that same thing with their holders.
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
Also. We’re both using the term low end but assigning it two different meanings.
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
Dang it. Now that I realize we’re using two different definitions of low end, I agree with you using your definition. I’m sorry to have wasted your time.
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
And I'm saying that description is misleading. Trying to say a low end 65 and a high end 64 is the same thing is pretty much the definition of misleading. Pick one grade and go with it- you can't have it both ways.
It would appear so. When I say "low end", I mean a coin that, if it was a tiny bit lower in grade, would drop into the next lower numerical grade. As would the #7 coin in my diagram above that some would like to describe as "solid for the grade".
You nailed it. One side is saying no low end coins on the PCGS scale will be in CAC holders and the other side is saying you'll still have coins that barely made it on the CAC scale. What I still don't understand is how you can argue that they are not shifting the breakpoint for each grade a third of a point lower. That seems very obvious to me but many posters that I respect and normally agree with seem to be taking the other side. I guess extrapolating the same definitional misunderstanding, perhaps they are saying the CAC scale isn't shifting at all, it was always a third of a point higher than PCGS?
I think what will be interesting is what the landscape will look like 5 yrs after CAC grading has been up and running. My guess is over time they will be just as guilty for grade inflation as everyone else. People have said numerous times in this thread that they don't care if their coins grade at CAC less than the current holder says but when that happens regularly people will start tiring of it especially if they see it as being a superior coin that cost $$$ but the value of the coin no longer plays a part in the grading. Why are the other grading companies using market grading vs technical grading for many/most series? For the exact same reason, money talks and people's salaries need to be paid.
What I've read has made it sound like JA will be a consultant (with some profit sharing for sure) for a period of no less than 10 years. He is not going to be the end all be all on business decisions. CAC grading will need to pay the lease on the 29,000 ft facility in Virginia so they do in fact need to make money. Some of the posts in this thread make it sound like they are some sort of non-profit as they could care less about making money. That's not realistic.
CAC's real value right now is being an independent reviewer. When the independent review part goes away, I think overtime things will shift. What I believe this means is that the premium for CAC stickered slabs are going to grow exponentially over time outpacing the premium for CAC slab coins (only exception will be OGH CAC graded slabs).
Those are the C coins (based on the PCGS scale) and they will be in CAC holders, just one grade lower than PCGS.
Those would be the B coins (based on the PCGS scale).
What is happening here (well, one thing, anyway) is that people are bouncing back and forth between two different grading systems- PCGS and CACG.
Yes, i should have clarified no low end coins on the PCGS scale will be in CAC holders at the same grade, but I generally agree with you.
If you are a grading company, the only way you can have only "solid for the grade or better" coins in your holders is by using another company's standards to evaluate the coins you have graded.
I would expect that collectors will pay low end PCGS 65 money for CAC 64 coins which will make it look like CAC drives a premium when it's just an MS65 coin in a 64 or 64+ holder. Kind of the way I generally pay less for coins in NGC holders vs PCGS, and I also expect NGC coins to cross to PCGS at a grade lower. There may likely be some opportunities develop to crack out CACG coins and submit to PCGS to make money, or vice versa.
They are shifting the breaking point between grades. Isn't that the ONLY remedy to grade inflation?
I find it rather amusing that people complain about grade inflation. People argue that a coin shouldn't be in PCGS X holder because of hits or dipping or whatever. Then when someone comes along and basically says, I'm shaving a half point off these inflated grades, they are having a conniption.
Isn't that the exact same reason people pay a "premium" for a PCGS coin relative to a "Fill in Rando TPGS" coin? There is no premium, the coin is just in a lower grade holder. There is also no CAC premium. People are just paying for a higher end coin for the grade. So what? Isn't that how it is supposed to work?
To be clear, I have no problem that they are shifting the break point between grades. They are free to do as they wish and people are free to use their service or a competitor (or gasp collect raw coins). But you only have to look a few posts up to see Mark and Dan argue with some exasperation that CAC isn't “shifting another TPG’s grading scale” when it seems obvious that they are. If I am understanding them correctly, their argument is CAC is using a scale that has been consistent for 30 years and everyone else has shifted up over time. I think that's fine and I have no reason to doubt them but that doesn't change the fact that CAC is going to take a bunch of coins that, according to their own website, are "accurately graded" but don't meet their quality standards and move them into a lower holder. To me, that is the definition of shifting the grading scale. I am not making an argument for whether that is good or bad.
From the CAC FAQ:
