@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.
From the CAC FAQ:
Each of those talking points was used in a different context, but they are both correct. When trying to put it in perspective, by comparing to PCGS or NGC standards or using the "ABC" theory, you could say they're "moving the line". However, the grading service is going to closely mirror the sticker service, which has been rather consistent over the past 15 years. In addition to that, JA was considered to be an authority on grading decades before the inception of CAC. People seem to keep forgetting about gradeflation in this discussion, and as @jmlanzaf posted out, I often read comments lamenting about how the standards have gotten loose over time. JA is "moving the line", but he's moving it back to where he thinks it belongs.
@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.
From the CAC FAQ:
JA is "moving the line", but he's moving it back to where he thinks it belongs.
And in addition, much more important in my mind than whether a coin is 64+ or 65, CACG will endeavor to not straight grade any problem/doctored/unoriginal surface coins. No market acceptable or net grading. I think this is much more important and momentous than quibbling over half a grade.
And in addition, much more important in my mind than whether a coin is 64+ or 65, CACG will endeavor to not straight grade any problem/doctored/unoriginal surface coins. No market acceptable or net grading. I think this is much more important and momentous than quibbling over half a grade.
>
That is not completely true, at least with CAC stickers. They will sticker a dipped coin if it did not mess it up.
And in addition, much more important in my mind than whether a coin is 64+ or 65, CACG will endeavor to not straight grade any problem/doctored/unoriginal surface coins. No market acceptable or net grading. I think this is much more important and momentous than quibbling over half a grade.
>
That is not completely true, at least with CAC stickers. They will sticker a dipped coin if it did not mess it up.
Agreed, I was being a bit too general. But I don't think we will see many blast white CBHs.
And in addition, much more important in my mind than whether a coin is 64+ or 65, CACG will endeavor to not straight grade any problem/doctored/unoriginal surface coins. No market acceptable or net grading. I think this is much more important and momentous than quibbling over half a grade.
>
That is not completely true, at least with CAC stickers. They will sticker a dipped coin if it did not mess it up.
Agreed, I was being a bit too general. But I don't think we will see many blast white CBHs.
Here’s mine, but it's more lustrous in hand:
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@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.
From the CAC FAQ:
Each of those talking points was used in a different context, but they are both correct. When trying to put it in perspective, by comparing to PCGS or NGC standards or using the "ABC" theory, you could say they're "moving the line". However, the grading service is going to closely mirror the sticker service, which has been rather consistent over the past 15 years. In addition to that, JA was considered to be an authority on grading decades before the inception of CAC. People seem to keep forgetting about gradeflation in this discussion, and as @jmlanzaf posted out, I often read comments lamenting about how the standards have gotten loose over time. JA is "moving the line", but he's moving it back to where he thinks it belongs.
Edited for clarity
Good post and your edit helped me understand your point of view.
Once the CACG coins are out it will be interesting see how many in marketplace (can u imagine the bid wars when they come out) their valuation, grading cost, etc.
Dealer A has 700 slabbed coins all USA Classic Coins - Walkers, Dollars, Commmems, Gold, Type. All PCGS / NGC nice coins but not CAC. He is submitter to CACG. He has spreadsheet of his coins priced out at CPG Non CAC. He knows how pick out nice coins. Sends them all to CACG - cross at any grade. Gets them back and inputs to spreadsheet w the CACG grade and valued at CPG CAC MV. Would love to see the delta on that. I bet he probably comes out way in the green assuming he has nice coins. What say ye?
Then at next show he has them all in newly slabbed CACG holders in what 4 display cases? Of course many wb stacked. Impressive display - can you imagine the people crowding around to buy. Agree or disagree? Will the CACG coins come on market via big bang like that?
Dealer A has 700 slabbed coins all USA Classic Coins - Walkers, Dollars, Commmems, Gold, Type. All PCGS / NGC nice coins but not CAC. He is submitter to CACG. He has spreadsheet of his coins priced out at CPG Non CAC. He knows how pick out nice coins. Sends them all to CACG. Gets them back and inputs to spreadsheet w the CACG grade and valued at CPG CAC MV. Would love to see the delta on that. I bet he probably comes out way in the green assuming he has nice coins. What say ye?
I say assuming most of those non-CAC coins are valued at $1,000+, not a high percentage will cross at the same grade! Chances are many of them have already seen the offices in NJ, and failed, either due to being "C" coins, or having surface issues in the opinion of CAC that would keep them from straight grading!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
Interesting thread. Many claims being made here by posters who are certain that they know exactly how CACG will be running their business and exactly how their product will be accepted by the market place even though there hasn't been one coin sold in a CACG holder.
One of the recurring claims is that PCGS MS65 coins that CAC sees as lower end or C coins will be downgraded to MS64+. Now, on the surface, that may seem to make sense because who wants ugly low end coins anyway. But in reality, coins that have not stickered are not necessarily coins that you might guess would be low end. Many collectors, including quite a few on the board have sent in coins that they bought for their own collections thinking that they were especially nice coins for the grade only to have them come back without a sticker.
So, does it really matter? Most of the posters who have claimed that non stickered coins will downgrade say that financially it will not matter because now that the coin is correctly graded in its new CACG holder they will be happy and it will still be worth the same (in dollars, that is). There are many quotes similar to this: " 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."
Is that true? I don't know, so I checked with a higher authority. This is a comparison of prices between MS65 coins and MS64 CAC coins:
Looks like there may be some disappointed submitters if their coins come back with that kind of loss. And before you think that I just cherry picked these numbers, I can assure you that I did not. I picked a random page in my most current Greysheet and just went down and chose something of a range. The page had over 100 different dates/mints and in every case the MS65 coins were valued higher than the MS64 CAC coins. Often substantially.
And before you think that I am a hater, I have several CAC coins and just last night i purchased a very nice MS67+ CAC Morgan dollar. Maybe I will post it here when I get it.
@Cougar1978 said:
Well what I would be curious to see -
Dealer A has 700 slabbed coins all USA Classic Coins - Walkers, Dollars, Commmems, Gold, Type. All PCGS / NGC nice coins but not CAC. He is submitter to CACG. He has spreadsheet of his coins priced out at CPG Non CAC. He knows how pick out nice coins. Sends them all to CACG - cross at any grade. Gets them back and inputs to spreadsheet w the CACG grade and valued at CPG CAC MV. Would love to see the delta on that. I bet he probably comes out way in the green assuming he has nice coins. What say ye?
Then at next show he has them all in newly slabbed CACG holders in what 4 display cases? Of course many wb stacked. Impressive display - can you imagine the people crowding around to buy. Agree or disagree? Will the CACG coins come on market via big bang like that?
CAC’d PCGS coins are special from a market perspective. Consumers see them as “elite” coins because they have been graded by the best grading company and then the grade has been confirmed by the best stickering company (who has also said they will buy it since they stickered it). If CACG grades EVERYTHING that is sent to it that would straight grade with PCGS, it loses its elite status even if CACG knocks it down a grade. All they will be is a stricter version of PCGS instead of a way for consumers to identify top-tier coins for the grade.
@coinhack said: Interesting thread. Many claims being made here by posters who are certain that they know exactly how CACG will be running their business and exactly how their product will be accepted by the market place even though there hasn't been one coin sold in a CACG holder.
I don't believe the claims Ive made in the thread, nor the claims I've read from others, were stated with absolute certainty. Rather, they were educated assumptions based on the past performance of CAC, and interpretations of the facts that have been gathered from the CAC forum, where JA has answered many of the most common questions regarding the grading service.
One of the recurring claims is that PCGS MS65 coins that CAC sees as lower end or C coins will be downgraded to MS64+. Now, on the surface, that may seem to make sense because who wants ugly low end coins anyway. But in reality, coins that have not stickered are not necessarily coins that you might guess would be low end. Many collectors, including quite a few on the board have sent in coins that they bought for their own collections thinking that they were especially nice coins for the grade only to have them come back without a sticker.
This is not an assumption, this came directly from the horses mouth. JA stated that manyproblem free C coins would downgrade to the next lowest grade with a +. It was also stated that some will downgrade to the next lowest grade with no +, or even lower than that. Many other coins will not straight grade at all, whether it be due to damage, cleaning, or other types of surface manipulation.
So, does it really matter? Most of the posters who have claimed that non stickered coins will downgrade say that financially it will not matter because now that the coin is correctly graded in its new CACG holder they will be happy and it will still be worth the same (in dollars, that is). There are many quotes similar to this: " 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."
It really depends on the coin. What I said was that I don't think theres going to be a line of people ready to accept a downgrade, unless the downgraded coin in the CACG + holder will be of similar value to its former holder. Some collectors are more idealistic, and that small minority may accept downgrades simply because they prefer CAC standards.
Is that true? I don't know, so I checked with a higher authority. This is a comparison of prices between MS65 coins and MS64 CAC coins:
Looks like there may be some disappointed submitters if their coins come back with that kind of loss. And before you think that I just cherry picked these numbers, I can assure you that I did not. I picked a random page in my most current Greysheet and just went down and chose something of a range. The page had over 100 different dates/mints and in every case the MS65 coins were valued higher than the MS64 CAC coins. Often substantially.
You are sort of cherrypicking the numbers though. Try that exercise again, but with early gold, early seated material, or any scarcer coins that don't have such dramatic price increase from one grade to the next. Condition rarities that jump from $1,600 in 64 to $10,500 in 65 are only one segment of the market. Obviously, it would be unwise financially to downgrade a coin like that. Also, you should use auction prices realized, not greysheet.
And before you think that I am a hater, I have several CAC coins and just last night i purchased a very nice MS67+ CAC Morgan dollar. Maybe I will post it here when I get it.
@coinhack said:
Interesting thread. Many claims being made here by posters who are certain that they know exactly how CACG will be running their business and exactly how their product will be accepted by the market place even though there hasn't been one coin sold in a CACG holder.
One of the recurring claims is that PCGS MS65 coins that CAC sees as lower end or C coins will be downgraded to MS64+. Now, on the surface, that may seem to make sense because who wants ugly low end coins anyway. But in reality, coins that have not stickered are not necessarily coins that you might guess would be low end. Many collectors, including quite a few on the board have sent in coins that they bought for their own collections thinking that they were especially nice coins for the grade only to have them come back without a sticker.
So, does it really matter? Most of the posters who have claimed that non stickered coins will downgrade say that financially it will not matter because now that the coin is correctly graded in its new CACG holder they will be happy and it will still be worth the same (in dollars, that is). There are many quotes similar to this: " 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."
Is that true? I don't know, so I checked with a higher authority. This is a comparison of prices between MS65 coins and MS64 CAC coins:
Looks like there may be some disappointed submitters if their coins come back with that kind of loss. And before you think that I just cherry picked these numbers, I can assure you that I did not. I picked a random page in my most current Greysheet and just went down and chose something of a range. The page had over 100 different dates/mints and in every case the MS65 coins were valued higher than the MS64 CAC coins. Often substantially.
And before you think that I am a hater, I have several CAC coins and just last night i purchased a very nice MS67+ CAC Morgan dollar. Maybe I will post it here when I get it.
Faulty comparison!!!
While we know that CAC stickers on a plus coin does not say that the coin is solid as a plus, but only solid at that whole grade number, a MUCH fairer/more valid comparison would have been to use 64+ graded coins with CAC stickers as a comparison, since pricing data is easily available. Using prices for CAC 64’s is really useless!
JA has said he estimates that most defect-free C coins will grade at cross at a plus at the next lower grade. Those are defect free coins that CACG deems are A coins at that next lower level. In those cases, CACG is saying those coins are indeed solid at that plus level. The fewer defect free C coins that cross at lower grades are not appropriate for this comparison for two reasons: 1) Probably very few people will indicate on their submission form to allow an unstickered coin to cross at a full grade lower, 2) More importantly, the posters who are making a case for a potential fair value comparison between C coins and CACG plus coins at the next lower grade (not me) are ONLY REFERRING to the coins that cross at a plus grade lower. They are NOT referring to coins that cross at even lower grades, or coins with defects (in CAC’s opinion).
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven is right, I made a generalization of the the term "C" coins in my last comment. According to JA, not all coins that fail to sticker are considered to be "C" coins, the ones that he believes are more severely over graded, have damage, cleaning, and other types of surface manipulation I guess would be considered to be D,E, and F coins.
Don't be defensive. I was not replying my post to you or anyone else specifically. I was mainly questioning the monetary value of exchanging an MS65 graded coin to a CACG holder with a lower 64+ grade and expecting the same coin to sell for equal or higher money. Maybe it will but who knows.
My own opinion is that the first coins will do spectacularly well. If for no other reason than they are brand new and already have the CAC cache and followers. NGCX coins are selling for premiums over coins graded using the Sheldon scale. For now at least. And Vault Box coins are selling for even higher premiums. For now.
I am guessing that the first CACG coins are going to have very high premiums. Similar to the first CAC stickered coins. I remember seeing dealers with cases full of newly stickered common Morgan dollars in grades of MS64 to 65 with markups of 200%. Now you can get the same coins with markups of what, 5% or 10%.
Other coins still have very large markups over non stickered coins. Old gold, very high grades and rare dates for sure.
If someone has the right connections or is one of the few dealers having access to the first graded coins, I believe a LOT of money will be made. Any insiders who want to sell me some of the first graded coins, I have some funds available.
Don't be defensive. I was not replying my post to you or anyone else specifically. I was mainly questioning the monetary value of exchanging an MS65 graded coin to a CACG holder with a lower 64+ grade and expecting the same coin to sell for equal or higher money. Maybe it will but who knows.
My own opinion is that the first coins will do spectacularly well. If for no other reason than they are brand new and already have the CAC cache and followers. NGCX coins are selling for premiums over coins graded using the Sheldon scale. For now at least. And Vault Box coins are selling for even higher premiums. For now.
I am guessing that the first CACG coins are going to have very high premiums. Similar to the first CAC stickered coins. I remember seeing dealers with cases full of newly stickered common Morgan dollars in grades of MS64 to 65 with markups of 200%. Now you can get the same coins with markups of what, 5% or 10%.
Other coins still have very large markups over non stickered coins. Old gold, very high grades and rare dates for sure.
If someone has the right connections or is one of the few dealers having access to the first graded coins, I believe a LOT of money will be made. Any insiders who want to sell me some of the first graded coins, I have some funds available.
I didn’t mean to come off defensively, it’s just the claims you were mentioning sounded like things I have said, so I figured I’d clear up any confusion.
I agree with a lot of what you just said. The CAC investors will likely have fist shot at grading, and I don’t know how many of those coins will be on the market immediately. I’m really curious to see how this plays out, especially for early (pre-1834) gold where CAC makes a HUGE difference, and a downgrade in a CAC holder would be favorable. Time will tell, all we’re able to do is speculate for the time being 😬
I agree with a lot of what you just said. The CAC investors will likely have fist shot at grading, and I don’t know how many of those coins will be on the market immediately. I’m really curious to see how this plays out, especially for early (pre-1834) gold where CAC makes a HUGE difference, and a downgrade in a CAC holder would be favorable. Time will tell, all we’re able to do is speculate for the time being 😬
I don't know - I am a collector and I went out of my way to take perfectly good in NGC and ANACS holder coins, some really rare, to get crossed at PCGS and then CAC, many times re-CAC'd. I don't think I am up for this again. The grading fees on rarities are really high plus the risk (shipping).
I think your comparison is slightly flawed just in the way the use of my quote was slightly flawed. I am anticipating an upward adjustment in price for a 64+ CACG coin. Therefore, a 64+ CACG will sell for the amount of a PCGS/NGC 65 (they will adjust the 64+ - which is really a 65C - to the price of a 65). Other than that, I agree entirely with what you said. I could also be wrong about the market correction.
This thread has gotten way to technical for me to actually read every post. I skimmed them, but I think we are still thinking way too hard.
I think of it this way - if CACG is too tight, then the market will price their coins higher. If they're too loose, then the market will price their coins lower. I'll also add this personal opinion caveat - if CACG cannot be as consistent as they are supposedly claiming (breaking a grade to thirds), they will not be able to surpass that of PCGS and NGC - which seems to be what many posters are assuming.
I believe it is impossible for any grading service to maintain the consistency that CACG is claiming it will have (breaking a grade to thirds). If anyone cares, make of this what you will. I believe the first month and the first publicized crack outs will be a make or break for CACG. They must come back the same grade as the first time.
I'm surprised no one has really touched on this yet - can CACG really grade to that level of consistency? Even years after the first grading event?
@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.
From the CAC FAQ:
JA is "moving the line", but he's moving it back to where he thinks it belongs.
And in addition, much more important in my mind than whether a coin is 64+ or 65, CACG will endeavor to not straight grade any problem/doctored/unoriginal surface coins. No market acceptable or net grading. I think this is much more important and momentous than quibbling over half a grade.
I wonder why net grading shouldn’t be accepted by CAC in some cases as it can still be an accurate grade. As an example I have a MS 64 SLQ that has all the attributes of a MS 66 quarter in terms of very clean surfaces and superb luster and eye appeal. Only a touch of very slight imperceptible friction. Yes technically it is not 100% uncirculated. But I prefer this over a MS 64 with too many bag marks that is for sure overgraded and is truly a C coin. I think there are some superb net graded coins that have good value that are don’t get the respect of the purist collectors
I agree with a lot of what you just said. The CAC investors will likely have fist shot at grading, and I don’t know how many of those coins will be on the market immediately. I’m really curious to see how this plays out, especially for early (pre-1834) gold where CAC makes a HUGE difference, and a downgrade in a CAC holder would be favorable. Time will tell, all we’re able to do is speculate for the time being 😬
I don't know - I am a collector and I went out of my way to take perfectly good in NGC and ANACS holder coins, some really rare, to get crossed at PCGS and then CAC, many times re-CAC'd. I don't think I am up for this again. The grading fees on rarities are really high plus the risk (shipping).
You’re thinking about the past, I’m thinking about the future. you’re not going to have to send your coin all around the country. Take an NGC 61 1801 $10, send it to CACg to cross at no less than 58, and voila! (I made it sound so easy, didn’t I?)
Also, I feel it may be important to note that it’s likely that CACG will have no “guarantee premium” fee in place for crossovers. Being a new grading company, I would think they want to encourage crossovers, and substantial grading fees would not be conducive to that goal 😉.
I agree with a lot of what you just said. The CAC investors will likely have fist shot at grading, and I don’t know how many of those coins will be on the market immediately. I’m really curious to see how this plays out, especially for early (pre-1834) gold where CAC makes a HUGE difference, and a downgrade in a CAC holder would be favorable. Time will tell, all we’re able to do is speculate for the time being 😬
I don't know - I am a collector and I went out of my way to take perfectly good in NGC and ANACS holder coins, some really rare, to get crossed at PCGS and then CAC, many times re-CAC'd. I don't think I am up for this again. The grading fees on rarities are really high plus the risk (shipping).
You’re thinking about the past, I’m thinking about the future. you’re not going to have to send your coin all around the country. Take an NGC 61 1801 $10, send it to CACg to cross at no less than 58, and voila! (I made it sound so easy, didn’t I?)
Also, I feel it may be important to note that it’s likely that CACG will have no “guarantee premium” fee in place for crossovers. Being a new grading company, I would think they want to encourage crossovers, and substantial grading fees would not be conducive to that goal 😉.
Actually, it was made clear by CACG there will be 0% Guarantee Premium on crossovers. So basically just the grading fee and minimal handling fee, plus postage.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
I agree with a lot of what you just said. The CAC investors will likely have fist shot at grading, and I don’t know how many of those coins will be on the market immediately. I’m really curious to see how this plays out, especially for early (pre-1834) gold where CAC makes a HUGE difference, and a downgrade in a CAC holder would be favorable. Time will tell, all we’re able to do is speculate for the time being 😬
I don't know - I am a collector and I went out of my way to take perfectly good in NGC and ANACS holder coins, some really rare, to get crossed at PCGS and then CAC, many times re-CAC'd. I don't think I am up for this again. The grading fees on rarities are really high plus the risk (shipping).
You’re thinking about the past, I’m thinking about the future. you’re not going to have to send your coin all around the country. Take an NGC 61 1801 $10, send it to CACg to cross at no less than 58, and voila! (I made it sound so easy, didn’t I?)
Also, I feel it may be important to note that it’s likely that CACG will have no “guarantee premium” fee in place for crossovers. Being a new grading company, I would think they want to encourage crossovers, and substantial grading fees would not be conducive to that goal 😉.
Actually, it was made clear by CACG there will be 0% Guarantee Premium on crossovers. So basically just the grading fee and minimal handling fee, plus postage.
Steve
Thank you for making that clarification, Steve! I sometimes have difficulty recalling all the details from the CAC forum discussions, glad your memory is better than mine.
CAC’d PCGS coins are special from a market perspective. Consumers see them as “elite” coins because they have been graded by the best grading company and then the grade has been confirmed by the best stickering company (who has also said they will buy it since they stickered it). If CACG grades EVERYTHING that is sent to it that would straight grade with PCGS, it loses its elite status even if CACG knocks it down a grade. All they will be is a stricter version of PCGS instead of a way for consumers to identify top-tier coins for the grade.
Uh, there are 2 best grading companies for now, NGC and PCGS. The perspective pushed by some that PCGS is better, is well, incorrect. They are equal.............. CACG will surpass both when up and running as the green sticker had done already.
CAC’d PCGS coins are special from a market perspective. Consumers see them as “elite” coins because they have been graded by the best grading company and then the grade has been confirmed by the best stickering company (who has also said they will buy it since they stickered it). If CACG grades EVERYTHING that is sent to it that would straight grade with PCGS, it loses its elite status even if CACG knocks it down a grade. All they will be is a stricter version of PCGS instead of a way for consumers to identify top-tier coins for the grade.
Uh, there are 2 best grading companies for now, NGC and PCGS. The perspective pushed by some that PCGS is better, is well, incorrect. They are equal.............. CACG will surpass both when up and running as the green sticker had done already.
The market believes differently. PCGS coins bring a premium over NGC. CAC PCGS coins being the highest premium.
The market believes differently. PCGS coins bring a premium over NGC. CAC PCGS coins being the highest premium.
>
Uh. No. Some in the market believe differently bc they believe the hype. My experience comes from looking at 1000s of coins on both holders. So pay a premium for hype if one wants to, their choice. NGG still dominates some sectors of the market even with the hype. I actually look at the coin in the slab, irrespective of slab brand, hmmm. Imagine that.
@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.
From the CAC FAQ:
JA is "moving the line", but he's moving it back to where he thinks it belongs.
And in addition, much more important in my mind than whether a coin is 64+ or 65, CACG will endeavor to not straight grade any problem/doctored/unoriginal surface coins. No market acceptable or net grading. I think this is much more important and momentous than quibbling over half a grade.
I wonder why net grading shouldn’t be accepted by CAC in some cases as it can still be an accurate grade. As an example I have a MS 64 SLQ that has all the attributes of a MS 66 quarter in terms of very clean surfaces and superb luster and eye appeal. Only a touch of very slight imperceptible friction. Yes technically it is not 100% uncirculated. But I prefer this over a MS 64 with too many bag marks that is for sure overgraded and is truly a C coin. I think there are some superb net graded coins that have good value that are don’t get the respect of the purist collectors
Not a judgement call; I am not totally against net grading. I have some nice net graded coins. But I just spoke to JA this week and he made clear that he is absolutely against it. I don't think this is breaking news.
The market believes differently. PCGS coins bring a premium over NGC. CAC PCGS coins being the highest premium.
>
Uh. No. Some in the market believe differently bc they believe the hype. My experience comes from looking at 1000s of coins on both holders. So pay a premium for hype if one wants to, their choice. NGG still dominates some sectors of the market even with the hype. I actually look at the coin in the slab, irrespective of slab brand, hmmm. Imagine that.
Why is it that this hype brings so much more at market? Is it really the hype or the coin inside.
You are correct, I did use your statement on price comparisons. I didn't quote you because I said "there are many quotes similar to this". So, I wasn't aiming at yours, I was saying that several people have said something similar but yours was concise and easy to understand, so I used it.
Also, I completely agree with you about grading consistency. No one, even professional graders can consistently grade to 1/3 of a point (A, B & C). No one.
I have been in grading competitions and witnessed others. In a typical contest, if you can get 5 out of 15 or 7 out of 20 you will be in the top 10% with a shot at winning. I don't know who the contestants were or if any of them had ever graded professionally.
I did see the results of a grading competition where all of the contestants had either been professional graders or were currently working at well known companies. The winner of that contest had less than 50% right on grade.
Why is it that this hype brings so much more at market? Is it really the hype or the coin inside.
Agree it is the coin inside and not really correlated with the slab around it. Those who feel that the plastic matters, which I see many posts supporting the plastic and say that this is the market speaking, well, go for it. It creates a great opportunity for those of us that think the coin matters. I have seen dogs in all brands of plastic and I have seen uber coins in all brands of plastic as well. So I don't buy the hype...............
You are right. I didn't compare MS65 coin values to MS65+ CAC because I used the Greysheet and they did not post prices for + graded coins. The difference in values was so large between these grades, it made me believe that even with a + the CAC 64 would be less than a PCGS 65. I may be wrong but I still believe that.
I also stated in another post that I think the prices that the first wave of CACG coins is going to be unbelievable. I think it will be like the coins from the Mint that sell out in minutes and then re-sell on eBay for huge premiums. And you know how that works out for the Mint coins. They slowly decline in value for a few months before they hit an equilibrium and the values stabilize. I think it will be similar and with the limited number of coins that are first available it will probably take a couple of years before we know how CACG compares to the other two grading services.
You are correct, I did use your statement on price comparisons. I didn't quote you because I said "there are many quotes similar to this". So, I wasn't aiming at yours, I was saying that several people have said something similar but yours was concise and easy to understand, so I used it.
Also, I completely agree with you about grading consistency. No one, even professional graders can consistently grade to 1/3 of a point (A, B & C). No one.
I have been in grading competitions and witnessed others. In a typical contest, if you can get 5 out of 15 or 7 out of 20 you will be in the top 10% with a shot at winning. I don't know who the contestants were or if any of them had ever graded professionally.
I did see the results of a grading competition where all of the contestants had either been professional graders or were currently working at well known companies. The winner of that contest had less than 50% right on grade.
I think we're on exactly the same page here .
I didn't think you were aiming at me at all by using my quote. I'm glad you did, because we cleared up some confusion.
I also haven't seen anyone be able to grade to a 1/3 of a grade consistently ever. I know there are instances of CAC being off by more than one grade jump (for example, they green sticker a 66 and then when the coin gets downgraded to a 64 they still green sticker it).
The whole premise behind CACG is that that situation will never happen. I don't believe it, and I'm surprised (shocked really) that everyone seems to believe that can happen.
The market believes differently. PCGS coins bring a premium over NGC. CAC PCGS coins being the highest premium.
>
Uh. No. Some in the market believe differently bc they believe the hype. My experience comes from looking at 1000s of coins on both holders. So pay a premium for hype if one wants to, their choice. NGG still dominates some sectors of the market even with the hype. I actually look at the coin in the slab, irrespective of slab brand, hmmm. Imagine that.
Why is it that this hype brings so much more at market? Is it really the hype or the coin inside.
One theory is that a many of the best NGC coins have already been crossed over to PCGS. Its a reasonable theory, and a seasoned grader at CAC opined that his experience as a grader at PCGS leads him to believe this is the case. My opinion is that there is a great need in the marketplace for a TPG that maintains unwavering standards in the way of consistency, customer service, and reasonable turnaround times. Since CAC already has already overcome all of those obstacles(?) for the past 15 years, and taking market perception and sale prices into consideration, I believe that CAC is in an eminent position to set the gold standard. If they happen to succeed, all we can hope for is that they aren't bought out by a super corporation after JA is no longer involved.
If you know how to grade, you don't need a TPG to confirm what you already know but if you don't know how to grade, you need that TPG. So- if you can't grade well enough to do it yourself, how do you know which TPG you should believe? The one everybody else believes, of course.
Yes I agree - it reminds me of some USM promo that crashed and burned in the aftermarket. I think after a lot of them make big bucks in the early stages there may be some kind of crash. Classic US seems so overpriced IMO especially vs World. Tough finding any investment grade slabbed nice 19th century Mexico. With some banks going kaput recently no mood invest much. Will coin market crash be next?
One theory is that a many of the best NGC coins have already been crossed over to PCGS.
That's an interesting theory and it may be (obviously) true but it doesn't explain why they migrated over in the first place.
It was the same (whatever) mechanism that still prevails today, whatever that is. I'm sure you've mentioned most of them in the recent post.
Edit. This may be the platform that one day owns Cacd. just a thought.
@Coinscratch said:
That's an interesting theory and it may be (obviously) true but it doesn't explain why they migrated over in the first place.
If the general perception is that TPG A is better than TPG B, people will attempt to move coins in TPG B plastic to TPG A to take advantage of that belief. Of course, it will be the best coins in TPG B holders that will be the first to be crossed and eventually it will be noted that compared to TPG B, there are more "better" coins in TPG A holders. Perception affects reality.
Why is it that this hype brings so much more at market? Is it really the hype or the coin inside.
Agree it is the coin inside and not really correlated with the slab around it. Those who feel that the plastic matters, which I see many posts supporting the plastic and say that this is the market speaking, well, go for it. It creates a great opportunity for those of us that think the coin matters. I have seen dogs in all brands of plastic and I have seen uber coins in all brands of plastic as well. So I don't buy the hype...............
Respectfully, the data bears this out whether you think it should be the case or not. The same coin in a PCGS holder will likely bring more than if it were in an NGC holder. Add a CAC sticker to that same coin and people will pay even more. Same coin, three different prices.
@Coinscratch said:
That's an interesting theory and it may be (obviously) true but it doesn't explain why they migrated over in the first place.
If the general perception is that TPG A is better than TPG B, people will attempt to move coins in TPG B plastic to TPG A to take advantage of that belief. Of course, it will be the best coins in TPG B holders that will be the first to be crossed and eventually it will be noted that compared to TPG B, there are more "better" coins in TPG A holders. Perception affects reality.
That's also interesting so then there must of have a high percentage actually cross from TPG B even though their best was supposedly not up to TPG A standards. Obviously they were, I wonder what % this was.
..."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 think Dan makes a good point here, especially this point "The whole "ABC" doctrine is just a way to put in in laymen's terms and break it down for us. "
I have graded several million coins in my life for PCGS. I have also graded a substantial number of raw coins over my life for submissions to ANACS, PCGS, NGC, NCI, PCI and ICG. I have never looked at a coin to determine if it was an A, B or C. What I have done in auction catalogs is to very rarely put an A+ on a lot in the auction catalog to note that the coin had exceptional color or other attributes. Mostly to indicate that its okay to stretch substantially on the coin if I had the right under bidder, such as Martin Paul. That's the extent of my using letters in my numismatic career.
In all my discussions with John Albanese he has never brought this up with me or us as a group in our discussions about grading coins. If CACG is going to allegedly be putting an A, B or C on a coin then this has not been told to any of the graders/finalizers as far as I am aware of at this point. I have also seen the grading screen for CACG on a brief test run. There is no place on this grading screen for A, B or C. I have no idea how this is going to take place given what I have been told or not told & also have seen. I suspect your theories regarding this A,B or C designations are just conjecture based on a few tidbits of information thrown out by John Albanese to make it easier to answer someone's question in an interview or a question on another forum.
I also believe these so-called "65C" coins will still be in 65 holders. However, it will be in either NGC or PCGS holders instead of CACG holder. There will also be times that CACG will grade a coin 65 that in PCGS or NGC opinions are only 64 or 64+.
@JohnBCoins said:
I suspect your theories regarding this A,B or C designations are just conjecture based on a few tidbits of information thrown out by John Albanese to make it easier to answer someone's question in an interview or a question on another forum.
I don't know about anyone else, but my posts relating to ABC grading have been based on how CAC says they grade on their website...
If they don't really do that, maybe they shouldn't say they do, and instead, explain what it is they do do. Just a thought...
@JohnBCoins said:
There will also be times that CACG will grade a coin 65 that in PCGS or NGC opinions are only 64 or 64+.
@MasonG
CACG doesn't have a live web site. These are two separate businesses. That is the CAC stickering business web site you reference. I will not be participating in the stickering portion of the business. I will only be involved in the coin grading portion of the business. If a coin is a 65 then that coin will be either 65 or 65+. That company has an entirely different purpose. I believe it is to designate which coins John Albanese is willing to purchase or make markets. They have purchased well over $500 million of coins since they started stickering. He can do whatever he wants when he stickers coins since its his business on what he is willing to purchase. CACG will not be in the coin buying business. It is a grading company not a coin buying company.
@JohnBCoins Interesting - thanks for the info. Much of the backstory that you gave was a mystery to me. I am a collector, use to be a huge submitter (call it semi pro) just to make my sets instead of buying the individual coins. Back in the day you could find vintage OBW rolls on Ebay. I ran into a seller that sold be hundreds of rolls of 30's and 40's OBW Lincolns and Jeffs. I will say having submitted thousands of coins (means you went through 100X raw) I have seen the wave form of standards since 1999. It is upsetting - especially when you sell a coin only to see it pop up having been upgraded. MS68RD Lincolns were unheard of for a good period of time.
What I really liked about CAC was the fact that you could get a neutral party to agree that coin is PQ. Plus designation helped but my lord it is so expensive to regrade 1000 coins. I think CACG is going to run into the problem with collectors in the registry. Unless PCGS and/or NGC agree to take the coins in it will be an issue.
Another issue are moderns - which are not modern to many; heck coins stuck years before I was born are "modern" and I am 53. There is a huge market for these and aside of a few dollars of silver are the same exact thing.
You are correct, I did use your statement on price comparisons. I didn't quote you because I said "there are many quotes similar to this". So, I wasn't aiming at yours, I was saying that several people have said something similar but yours was concise and easy to understand, so I used it.
Also, I completely agree with you about grading consistency. No one, even professional graders can consistently grade to 1/3 of a point (A, B & C). No one.
I have been in grading competitions and witnessed others. In a typical contest, if you can get 5 out of 15 or 7 out of 20 you will be in the top 10% with a shot at winning. I don't know who the contestants were or if any of them had ever graded professionally.
I did see the results of a grading competition where all of the contestants had either been professional graders or were currently working at well known companies. The winner of that contest had less than 50% right on grade.
They work in teams. Even if you're right and they are individually only 50% correct, the consensus will be fast now accurate from 3 graders + finalizer
Why is it that this hype brings so much more at market? Is it really the hype or the coin inside.
Agree it is the coin inside and not really correlated with the slab around it. Those who feel that the plastic matters, which I see many posts supporting the plastic and say that this is the market speaking, well, go for it. It creates a great opportunity for those of us that think the coin matters. I have seen dogs in all brands of plastic and I have seen uber coins in all brands of plastic as well. So I don't buy the hype...............
That's fine as long as you don't care about the price of the coin. Call it hype if you want, but if you pay PCGS money for an NGC coin in a series where that matters, you can only sell it for NGC money unless you pay to cross it - assuming it crosses.
Actually, it was made clear by CACG there will be 0% Guarantee Premium on crossovers. So basically just the grading fee and minimal handling fee, plus postage.
Steve
Thank you for making that clarification, Steve! I sometimes have difficulty recalling all the details from the CAC forum discussions, glad your memory is better than mine.
That’s because Steve is on the marketing staff of CAC and CACG!!! 😉😉😉😉
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@coinhack said: One of the recurring claims is that PCGS MS65 coins that CAC sees as lower end or C coins will be downgraded to MS64+. Now, on the surface, that may seem to make sense because who wants ugly low end coins anyway. But in reality, coins that have not stickered are not necessarily coins that you might guess would be low end. Many collectors, including quite a few on the board have sent in coins that they bought for their own collections thinking that they were especially nice coins for the grade only to have them come back without a sticker.
This is not an assumption, this came directly from the horses mouth. JA stated that manyproblem free C coins would downgrade to the next lowest grade with a +. It was also stated that some will downgrade to the next lowest grade with no +, or even lower than that. Many other coins will not straight grade at all, whether it be due to damage, cleaning, or other types of surface manipulation.
That sounds like a mere statement that CACG has its own standards and not a statement that all C quality for the grade coins will automatically downgrade as the way it was presented in this thread. There is a BIG difference there.
So, does it really matter? Most of the posters who have claimed that non stickered coins will downgrade say that financially it will not matter because now that the coin is correctly graded in its new CACG holder they will be happy and it will still be worth the same (in dollars, that is). There are many quotes similar to this: " 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."
It really depends on the coin. What I said was that I don't think theres going to be a line of people ready to accept a downgrade, unless the downgraded coin in the CACG + holder will be of similar value to its former holder. Some collectors are more idealistic, and that small minority may accept downgrades simply because they prefer CAC standards.
Unless the market shows an early preference for CACG (possible but far from guaranteed), there is little incentive to submit for stricter standards from a financial perspective for the submitter, meaning CACG will be severely limiting its own revenue/volume. I’m fine with that except it is just as likely if not more likely CACG will similarly loosen, kill the value of CAC,
and then CAC won’t accomplish its goal and it may cause confusion as collectors and the market sort out the value between CAC the sticker company and CACG which will likely be forced financially to toe the line and acquiesce to grade inflation at least somewhat if it wants to compete financially.
My next serious question: JA started both PCGS and NGC. Why will CACG’s long term fate and grading practices be any different? And to those bringing up CAC the sticker company, it is not a grading service so it would be difficult to draw parallels. And if it will operate like the sticker company, does anyone else see a conflict in buying/selling the coins you grade?
I’m all for a new TPGS, but I hope it is well thought through or it will only create total chaos.
@coinhack said: One of the recurring claims is that PCGS MS65 coins that CAC sees as lower end or C coins will be downgraded to MS64+. Now, on the surface, that may seem to make sense because who wants ugly low end coins anyway. But in reality, coins that have not stickered are not necessarily coins that you might guess would be low end. Many collectors, including quite a few on the board have sent in coins that they bought for their own collections thinking that they were especially nice coins for the grade only to have them come back without a sticker.
This is not an assumption, this came directly from the horses mouth. JA stated that manyproblem free C coins would downgrade to the next lowest grade with a +. It was also stated that some will downgrade to the next lowest grade with no +, or even lower than that. Many other coins will not straight grade at all, whether it be due to damage, cleaning, or other types of surface manipulation.
That sounds like a mere statement that CACG has its own standards and not a statement that all C quality for the grade coins will automatically downgrade as the way it was presented in this thread. There is a BIG difference there.
So, does it really matter? Most of the posters who have claimed that non stickered coins will downgrade say that financially it will not matter because now that the coin is correctly graded in its new CACG holder they will be happy and it will still be worth the same (in dollars, that is). There are many quotes similar to this: " 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."
It really depends on the coin. What I said was that I don't think theres going to be a line of people ready to accept a downgrade, unless the downgraded coin in the CACG + holder will be of similar value to its former holder. Some collectors are more idealistic, and that small minority may accept downgrades simply because they prefer CAC standards.
Unless the market shows an early preference for CACG (possible but far from guaranteed), there is little incentive to submit for stricter standards from a financial perspective for the submitter, meaning CACG will be severely limiting its own revenue/volume. I’m fine with that except it is just as likely if not more likely CACG will similarly loosen, kill the value of CAC,
and then CAC won’t accomplish its goal and it may cause confusion as collectors and the market sort out the value between CAC the sticker company and CACG which will likely be forced financially to toe the line and acquiesce to grade inflation at least somewhat if it wants to compete financially.
Really? Why didn't PCGS acquiesce to SEGS grading standards?
Comments
Each of those talking points was used in a different context, but they are both correct. When trying to put it in perspective, by comparing to PCGS or NGC standards or using the "ABC" theory, you could say they're "moving the line". However, the grading service is going to closely mirror the sticker service, which has been rather consistent over the past 15 years. In addition to that, JA was considered to be an authority on grading decades before the inception of CAC. People seem to keep forgetting about gradeflation in this discussion, and as @jmlanzaf posted out, I often read comments lamenting about how the standards have gotten loose over time. JA is "moving the line", but he's moving it back to where he thinks it belongs.
Edited for clarity
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
And in addition, much more important in my mind than whether a coin is 64+ or 65, CACG will endeavor to not straight grade any problem/doctored/unoriginal surface coins. No market acceptable or net grading. I think this is much more important and momentous than quibbling over half a grade.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
>
That is not completely true, at least with CAC stickers. They will sticker a dipped coin if it did not mess it up.
Agreed, I was being a bit too general. But I don't think we will see many blast white CBHs.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
Here’s mine, but it's more lustrous in hand:
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
Good post and your edit helped me understand your point of view.
Beautiful coin, @winesteven!
Once the CACG coins are out it will be interesting see how many in marketplace (can u imagine the bid wars when they come out) their valuation, grading cost, etc.
I have a strong feeling many who are used to getting all their coins for dirt cheap won't be getting many of these
Well what I would be curious to see -
Dealer A has 700 slabbed coins all USA Classic Coins - Walkers, Dollars, Commmems, Gold, Type. All PCGS / NGC nice coins but not CAC. He is submitter to CACG. He has spreadsheet of his coins priced out at CPG Non CAC. He knows how pick out nice coins. Sends them all to CACG - cross at any grade. Gets them back and inputs to spreadsheet w the CACG grade and valued at CPG CAC MV. Would love to see the delta on that. I bet he probably comes out way in the green assuming he has nice coins. What say ye?
Then at next show he has them all in newly slabbed CACG holders in what 4 display cases? Of course many wb stacked. Impressive display - can you imagine the people crowding around to buy. Agree or disagree? Will the CACG coins come on market via big bang like that?
I say assuming most of those non-CAC coins are valued at $1,000+, not a high percentage will cross at the same grade! Chances are many of them have already seen the offices in NJ, and failed, either due to being "C" coins, or having surface issues in the opinion of CAC that would keep them from straight grading!
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
Interesting thread. Many claims being made here by posters who are certain that they know exactly how CACG will be running their business and exactly how their product will be accepted by the market place even though there hasn't been one coin sold in a CACG holder.
One of the recurring claims is that PCGS MS65 coins that CAC sees as lower end or C coins will be downgraded to MS64+. Now, on the surface, that may seem to make sense because who wants ugly low end coins anyway. But in reality, coins that have not stickered are not necessarily coins that you might guess would be low end. Many collectors, including quite a few on the board have sent in coins that they bought for their own collections thinking that they were especially nice coins for the grade only to have them come back without a sticker.
So, does it really matter? Most of the posters who have claimed that non stickered coins will downgrade say that financially it will not matter because now that the coin is correctly graded in its new CACG holder they will be happy and it will still be worth the same (in dollars, that is). There are many quotes similar to this: " 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."
Is that true? I don't know, so I checked with a higher authority. This is a comparison of prices between MS65 coins and MS64 CAC coins:
MS65 $2,300 MS64 CAC $776
MS65 $425 MS64CAC $198
MS65 $10,500 MS64 CAC $1,600
MS65 $180 MS64 CAC $113
MS65 $170 MS64CAC $108
MS65 $45,000 MS64 CAC $1,500
Looks like there may be some disappointed submitters if their coins come back with that kind of loss. And before you think that I just cherry picked these numbers, I can assure you that I did not. I picked a random page in my most current Greysheet and just went down and chose something of a range. The page had over 100 different dates/mints and in every case the MS65 coins were valued higher than the MS64 CAC coins. Often substantially.
And before you think that I am a hater, I have several CAC coins and just last night i purchased a very nice MS67+ CAC Morgan dollar. Maybe I will post it here when I get it.
CAC’d PCGS coins are special from a market perspective. Consumers see them as “elite” coins because they have been graded by the best grading company and then the grade has been confirmed by the best stickering company (who has also said they will buy it since they stickered it). If CACG grades EVERYTHING that is sent to it that would straight grade with PCGS, it loses its elite status even if CACG knocks it down a grade. All they will be is a stricter version of PCGS instead of a way for consumers to identify top-tier coins for the grade.
I don't believe the claims Ive made in the thread, nor the claims I've read from others, were stated with absolute certainty. Rather, they were educated assumptions based on the past performance of CAC, and interpretations of the facts that have been gathered from the CAC forum, where JA has answered many of the most common questions regarding the grading service.
This is not an assumption, this came directly from the horses mouth. JA stated that many problem free C coins would downgrade to the next lowest grade with a +. It was also stated that some will downgrade to the next lowest grade with no +, or even lower than that. Many other coins will not straight grade at all, whether it be due to damage, cleaning, or other types of surface manipulation.
https://www.caccoin.com/forums/discussion/531/c-coin-discussion
It really depends on the coin. What I said was that I don't think theres going to be a line of people ready to accept a downgrade, unless the downgraded coin in the CACG + holder will be of similar value to its former holder. Some collectors are more idealistic, and that small minority may accept downgrades simply because they prefer CAC standards.
You are sort of cherrypicking the numbers though. Try that exercise again, but with early gold, early seated material, or any scarcer coins that don't have such dramatic price increase from one grade to the next. Condition rarities that jump from $1,600 in 64 to $10,500 in 65 are only one segment of the market. Obviously, it would be unwise financially to downgrade a coin like that. Also, you should use auction prices realized, not greysheet.
I would LOVE to see it!
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Faulty comparison!!!
While we know that CAC stickers on a plus coin does not say that the coin is solid as a plus, but only solid at that whole grade number, a MUCH fairer/more valid comparison would have been to use 64+ graded coins with CAC stickers as a comparison, since pricing data is easily available. Using prices for CAC 64’s is really useless!
JA has said he estimates that most defect-free C coins will grade at cross at a plus at the next lower grade. Those are defect free coins that CACG deems are A coins at that next lower level. In those cases, CACG is saying those coins are indeed solid at that plus level. The fewer defect free C coins that cross at lower grades are not appropriate for this comparison for two reasons: 1) Probably very few people will indicate on their submission form to allow an unstickered coin to cross at a full grade lower, 2) More importantly, the posters who are making a case for a potential fair value comparison between C coins and CACG plus coins at the next lower grade (not me) are ONLY REFERRING to the coins that cross at a plus grade lower. They are NOT referring to coins that cross at even lower grades, or coins with defects (in CAC’s opinion).
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
@winesteven is right, I made a generalization of the the term "C" coins in my last comment. According to JA, not all coins that fail to sticker are considered to be "C" coins, the ones that he believes are more severely over graded, have damage, cleaning, and other types of surface manipulation I guess would be considered to be D,E, and F coins.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
@DeplorableDan
Don't be defensive. I was not replying my post to you or anyone else specifically. I was mainly questioning the monetary value of exchanging an MS65 graded coin to a CACG holder with a lower 64+ grade and expecting the same coin to sell for equal or higher money. Maybe it will but who knows.
My own opinion is that the first coins will do spectacularly well. If for no other reason than they are brand new and already have the CAC cache and followers. NGCX coins are selling for premiums over coins graded using the Sheldon scale. For now at least. And Vault Box coins are selling for even higher premiums. For now.
I am guessing that the first CACG coins are going to have very high premiums. Similar to the first CAC stickered coins. I remember seeing dealers with cases full of newly stickered common Morgan dollars in grades of MS64 to 65 with markups of 200%. Now you can get the same coins with markups of what, 5% or 10%.
Other coins still have very large markups over non stickered coins. Old gold, very high grades and rare dates for sure.
If someone has the right connections or is one of the few dealers having access to the first graded coins, I believe a LOT of money will be made. Any insiders who want to sell me some of the first graded coins, I have some funds available.
I didn’t mean to come off defensively, it’s just the claims you were mentioning sounded like things I have said, so I figured I’d clear up any confusion.
I agree with a lot of what you just said. The CAC investors will likely have fist shot at grading, and I don’t know how many of those coins will be on the market immediately. I’m really curious to see how this plays out, especially for early (pre-1834) gold where CAC makes a HUGE difference, and a downgrade in a CAC holder would be favorable. Time will tell, all we’re able to do is speculate for the time being 😬
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I don't know - I am a collector and I went out of my way to take perfectly good in NGC and ANACS holder coins, some really rare, to get crossed at PCGS and then CAC, many times re-CAC'd. I don't think I am up for this again. The grading fees on rarities are really high plus the risk (shipping).
@coinhack
Since you used my quote, I'll respond to you.
I think your comparison is slightly flawed just in the way the use of my quote was slightly flawed. I am anticipating an upward adjustment in price for a 64+ CACG coin. Therefore, a 64+ CACG will sell for the amount of a PCGS/NGC 65 (they will adjust the 64+ - which is really a 65C - to the price of a 65). Other than that, I agree entirely with what you said. I could also be wrong about the market correction.
This thread has gotten way to technical for me to actually read every post. I skimmed them, but I think we are still thinking way too hard.
I think of it this way - if CACG is too tight, then the market will price their coins higher. If they're too loose, then the market will price their coins lower. I'll also add this personal opinion caveat - if CACG cannot be as consistent as they are supposedly claiming (breaking a grade to thirds), they will not be able to surpass that of PCGS and NGC - which seems to be what many posters are assuming.
I believe it is impossible for any grading service to maintain the consistency that CACG is claiming it will have (breaking a grade to thirds). If anyone cares, make of this what you will. I believe the first month and the first publicized crack outs will be a make or break for CACG. They must come back the same grade as the first time.
I'm surprised no one has really touched on this yet - can CACG really grade to that level of consistency? Even years after the first grading event?
Coin Photographer.
I wonder why net grading shouldn’t be accepted by CAC in some cases as it can still be an accurate grade. As an example I have a MS 64 SLQ that has all the attributes of a MS 66 quarter in terms of very clean surfaces and superb luster and eye appeal. Only a touch of very slight imperceptible friction. Yes technically it is not 100% uncirculated. But I prefer this over a MS 64 with too many bag marks that is for sure overgraded and is truly a C coin. I think there are some superb net graded coins that have good value that are don’t get the respect of the purist collectors
You’re thinking about the past, I’m thinking about the future. you’re not going to have to send your coin all around the country. Take an NGC 61 1801 $10, send it to CACg to cross at no less than 58, and voila! (I made it sound so easy, didn’t I?)
Also, I feel it may be important to note that it’s likely that CACG will have no “guarantee premium” fee in place for crossovers. Being a new grading company, I would think they want to encourage crossovers, and substantial grading fees would not be conducive to that goal 😉.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Actually, it was made clear by CACG there will be 0% Guarantee Premium on crossovers. So basically just the grading fee and minimal handling fee, plus postage.
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
Thank you for making that clarification, Steve! I sometimes have difficulty recalling all the details from the CAC forum discussions, glad your memory is better than mine.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Uh, there are 2 best grading companies for now, NGC and PCGS. The perspective pushed by some that PCGS is better, is well, incorrect. They are equal.............. CACG will surpass both when up and running as the green sticker had done already.
The market believes differently. PCGS coins bring a premium over NGC. CAC PCGS coins being the highest premium.
>
Uh. No. Some in the market believe differently bc they believe the hype. My experience comes from looking at 1000s of coins on both holders. So pay a premium for hype if one wants to, their choice. NGG still dominates some sectors of the market even with the hype. I actually look at the coin in the slab, irrespective of slab brand, hmmm. Imagine that.
Not a judgement call; I am not totally against net grading. I have some nice net graded coins. But I just spoke to JA this week and he made clear that he is absolutely against it. I don't think this is breaking news.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
Why is it that this hype brings so much more at market? Is it really the hype or the coin inside.
@FlyingAl
You are correct, I did use your statement on price comparisons. I didn't quote you because I said "there are many quotes similar to this". So, I wasn't aiming at yours, I was saying that several people have said something similar but yours was concise and easy to understand, so I used it.
Also, I completely agree with you about grading consistency. No one, even professional graders can consistently grade to 1/3 of a point (A, B & C). No one.
I have been in grading competitions and witnessed others. In a typical contest, if you can get 5 out of 15 or 7 out of 20 you will be in the top 10% with a shot at winning. I don't know who the contestants were or if any of them had ever graded professionally.
I did see the results of a grading competition where all of the contestants had either been professional graders or were currently working at well known companies. The winner of that contest had less than 50% right on grade.
Agree it is the coin inside and not really correlated with the slab around it. Those who feel that the plastic matters, which I see many posts supporting the plastic and say that this is the market speaking, well, go for it. It creates a great opportunity for those of us that think the coin matters. I have seen dogs in all brands of plastic and I have seen uber coins in all brands of plastic as well. So I don't buy the hype...............
@winesteven
You are right. I didn't compare MS65 coin values to MS65+ CAC because I used the Greysheet and they did not post prices for + graded coins. The difference in values was so large between these grades, it made me believe that even with a + the CAC 64 would be less than a PCGS 65. I may be wrong but I still believe that.
I also stated in another post that I think the prices that the first wave of CACG coins is going to be unbelievable. I think it will be like the coins from the Mint that sell out in minutes and then re-sell on eBay for huge premiums. And you know how that works out for the Mint coins. They slowly decline in value for a few months before they hit an equilibrium and the values stabilize. I think it will be similar and with the limited number of coins that are first available it will probably take a couple of years before we know how CACG compares to the other two grading services.
Just my opinion.
I think we're on exactly the same page here
.
I didn't think you were aiming at me at all by using my quote. I'm glad you did, because we cleared up some confusion.
I also haven't seen anyone be able to grade to a 1/3 of a grade consistently ever. I know there are instances of CAC being off by more than one grade jump (for example, they green sticker a 66 and then when the coin gets downgraded to a 64 they still green sticker it).
The whole premise behind CACG is that that situation will never happen. I don't believe it, and I'm surprised (shocked really) that everyone seems to believe that can happen.
Coin Photographer.
One theory is that a many of the best NGC coins have already been crossed over to PCGS. Its a reasonable theory, and a seasoned grader at CAC opined that his experience as a grader at PCGS leads him to believe this is the case. My opinion is that there is a great need in the marketplace for a TPG that maintains unwavering standards in the way of consistency, customer service, and reasonable turnaround times. Since CAC already has already overcome all of those obstacles(?) for the past 15 years, and taking market perception and sale prices into consideration, I believe that CAC is in an eminent position to set the gold standard. If they happen to succeed, all we can hope for is that they aren't bought out by a super corporation after JA is no longer involved.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
If you know how to grade, you don't need a TPG to confirm what you already know but if you don't know how to grade, you need that TPG. So- if you can't grade well enough to do it yourself, how do you know which TPG you should believe? The one everybody else believes, of course.
Yes I agree - it reminds me of some USM promo that crashed and burned in the aftermarket. I think after a lot of them make big bucks in the early stages there may be some kind of crash. Classic US seems so overpriced IMO especially vs World. Tough finding any investment grade slabbed nice 19th century Mexico. With some banks going kaput recently no mood invest much. Will coin market crash be next?
That's an interesting theory and it may be (obviously) true but it doesn't explain why they migrated over in the first place.
It was the same (whatever) mechanism that still prevails today, whatever that is. I'm sure you've mentioned most of them in the recent post.
Edit. This may be the platform that one day owns Cacd. just a thought.
If the general perception is that TPG A is better than TPG B, people will attempt to move coins in TPG B plastic to TPG A to take advantage of that belief. Of course, it will be the best coins in TPG B holders that will be the first to be crossed and eventually it will be noted that compared to TPG B, there are more "better" coins in TPG A holders. Perception affects reality.
Respectfully, the data bears this out whether you think it should be the case or not. The same coin in a PCGS holder will likely bring more than if it were in an NGC holder. Add a CAC sticker to that same coin and people will pay even more. Same coin, three different prices.
That's also interesting so then there must of have a high percentage actually cross from TPG B even though their best was supposedly not up to TPG A standards. Obviously they were, I wonder what % this was.
@winesteven @MasonG
I think Dan makes a good point here, especially this point "The whole "ABC" doctrine is just a way to put in in laymen's terms and break it down for us. "
I have graded several million coins in my life for PCGS. I have also graded a substantial number of raw coins over my life for submissions to ANACS, PCGS, NGC, NCI, PCI and ICG. I have never looked at a coin to determine if it was an A, B or C. What I have done in auction catalogs is to very rarely put an A+ on a lot in the auction catalog to note that the coin had exceptional color or other attributes. Mostly to indicate that its okay to stretch substantially on the coin if I had the right under bidder, such as Martin Paul. That's the extent of my using letters in my numismatic career.
I also believe these so-called "65C" coins will still be in 65 holders. However, it will be in either NGC or PCGS holders instead of CACG holder. There will also be times that CACG will grade a coin 65 that in PCGS or NGC opinions are only 64 or 64+.
I don't know about anyone else, but my posts relating to ABC grading have been based on how CAC says they grade on their website...
If they don't really do that, maybe they shouldn't say they do, and instead, explain what it is they do do. Just a thought...
No doubt.
Well what will happen when CU buys out CAC?..... Just kidding....
@MasonG
CACG doesn't have a live web site. These are two separate businesses. That is the CAC stickering business web site you reference. I will not be participating in the stickering portion of the business. I will only be involved in the coin grading portion of the business. If a coin is a 65 then that coin will be either 65 or 65+. That company has an entirely different purpose. I believe it is to designate which coins John Albanese is willing to purchase or make markets. They have purchased well over $500 million of coins since they started stickering. He can do whatever he wants when he stickers coins since its his business on what he is willing to purchase. CACG will not be in the coin buying business. It is a grading company not a coin buying company.
@JohnBCoins Interesting - thanks for the info. Much of the backstory that you gave was a mystery to me. I am a collector, use to be a huge submitter (call it semi pro) just to make my sets instead of buying the individual coins. Back in the day you could find vintage OBW rolls on Ebay. I ran into a seller that sold be hundreds of rolls of 30's and 40's OBW Lincolns and Jeffs. I will say having submitted thousands of coins (means you went through 100X raw) I have seen the wave form of standards since 1999. It is upsetting - especially when you sell a coin only to see it pop up having been upgraded. MS68RD Lincolns were unheard of for a good period of time.
What I really liked about CAC was the fact that you could get a neutral party to agree that coin is PQ. Plus designation helped but my lord it is so expensive to regrade 1000 coins. I think CACG is going to run into the problem with collectors in the registry. Unless PCGS and/or NGC agree to take the coins in it will be an issue.
Another issue are moderns - which are not modern to many; heck coins stuck years before I was born are "modern" and I am 53. There is a huge market for these and aside of a few dollars of silver are the same exact thing.
They work in teams. Even if you're right and they are individually only 50% correct, the consensus will be fast now accurate from 3 graders + finalizer
That's fine as long as you don't care about the price of the coin. Call it hype if you want, but if you pay PCGS money for an NGC coin in a series where that matters, you can only sell it for NGC money unless you pay to cross it - assuming it crosses.
That’s because Steve is on the marketing staff of CAC and CACG!!! 😉😉😉😉
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
That sounds like a mere statement that CACG has its own standards and not a statement that all C quality for the grade coins will automatically downgrade as the way it was presented in this thread. There is a BIG difference there.
Unless the market shows an early preference for CACG (possible but far from guaranteed), there is little incentive to submit for stricter standards from a financial perspective for the submitter, meaning CACG will be severely limiting its own revenue/volume. I’m fine with that except it is just as likely if not more likely CACG will similarly loosen, kill the value of CAC,
and then CAC won’t accomplish its goal and it may cause confusion as collectors and the market sort out the value between CAC the sticker company and CACG which will likely be forced financially to toe the line and acquiesce to grade inflation at least somewhat if it wants to compete financially.
My next serious question: JA started both PCGS and NGC. Why will CACG’s long term fate and grading practices be any different? And to those bringing up CAC the sticker company, it is not a grading service so it would be difficult to draw parallels. And if it will operate like the sticker company, does anyone else see a conflict in buying/selling the coins you grade?
I’m all for a new TPGS, but I hope it is well thought through or it will only create total chaos.
Really? Why didn't PCGS acquiesce to SEGS grading standards?