And as JA said in his video....from a value perspective crossing a Gold CAC into a CACG holder ..in a majority of cases will not make financial sense. Gold CAC stickers bring a hefty premium now. Five years from now when many have been foolishly crossed they will be very scarce and bring an even higher premium.
HA even has a special auction devoted in part to Gold CAC coins coming up on June 12. Great timing and marketing on their part. I will be interested to see the prices. I predict some very spirited bidding.
The reality is that I bought and sold 600 DE's over the past 10 years. I managed to own 1 plus grade that was stickered. After viewing the video I now have a better understanding as to why a CACG + coin more than likely will sell for a higher price than a PCGS + w/Cac sticker. It is good to know. Unless I missed, quite a bit more , I still am incline to believe that I would pay more for a TPG graded coin w/ a CAC sticker then a CAGG graded coin alone.
Does the legacy designation have any value to you? For example there could be a CACG 64+ Legacy. You're not going to know if the previous holder was PCGS, or NGC, however we would know that the coin was previously stickered as either a 64 or 64+ from one of those TPGS. CACG has then marked it as an A coin by awarding a + when it crossed.
I would much rather have that coin than the identical coin in the p/n holder as a 64/64+ with the sticker. I know the coin was already stickered at that number grade, so we have more than 1 opinion, and I now know that CAC believes its an A coin.
This is not necessarily true, and will be even less likely to be true if they end up giving the L designation to gold stickered coins (last I read, there was no clarity on this point). This is one of the problems I have with the Legacy designation. People will look at a CACG 65L and assume it was also a 65 at PCGS/NGC and that may not be true. Maybe it was a 63 gold CAC, for example, or maybe even a 64 green CAC that was close to getting a gold, like the 1795 dollar posted by @Zoins. JA has described gold stickers as 1.5 grades higher, so there is a lot of room for green CAC stickers to bump up a full number grade. The Legacy designation says nothing at all about how PCGS or NGC felt about a coin, other than that it was in one of their holders. I am not sure that is how people are going to interpret it however.
I don’t think that “ JA has described gold stickers as 1.5 grades higher”. I think he’s described them as being at least solid for the next grade higher. In some cases that will be a one point difference but in others, it will be more, with a 2 point difference not being out of the question.
I seem to recall him using that terminology in one of the interviews he has done in the past year but unfortunately don't have evidence at my fingertips to support my claim. Regardless, my broader point was that people seem ready to treat the Legacy designation as having two opinions on a coin, but for certain Legacy-designated coins, the CACG grade will be higher than what the PCGS/NGC grade used to be. This is very different that the two opinions we have today with stickers.
Consider a PCGS/CAC 65 tells us both companies think the coin is at least a 65 with no upper bound on what CAC thinks. A CACG legacy 65 tells us CACG thinks the coin is a 65 and either PCGS or NGC once holdered the coin with no lower bound on the PCGS/NGC grade.
The reality is that I bought and sold 600 DE's over the past 10 years. I managed to own 1 plus grade that was stickered. After viewing the video I now have a better understanding as to why a CACG + coin more than likely will sell for a higher price than a PCGS + w/Cac sticker. It is good to know. Unless I missed, quite a bit more , I still am incline to believe that I would pay more for a TPG graded coin w/ a CAC sticker then a CAGG graded coin alone.
Does the legacy designation have any value to you? For example there could be a CACG 64+ Legacy. You're not going to know if the previous holder was PCGS, or NGC, however we would know that the coin was previously stickered as either a 64 or 64+ from one of those TPGS. CACG has then marked it as an A coin by awarding a + when it crossed.
I would much rather have that coin than the identical coin in the p/n holder as a 64/64+ with the sticker. I know the coin was already stickered at that number grade, so we have more than 1 opinion, and I now know that CAC believes its an A coin.
This is not necessarily true, and will be even less likely to be true if they end up giving the L designation to gold stickered coins (last I read, there was no clarity on this point). This is one of the problems I have with the Legacy designation. People will look at a CACG 65L and assume it was also a 65 at PCGS/NGC and that may not be true. Maybe it was a 63 gold CAC, for example, or maybe even a 64 green CAC that was close to getting a gold, like the 1795 dollar posted by @Zoins. JA has described gold stickers as 1.5 grades higher, so there is a lot of room for green CAC stickers to bump up a full number grade. The Legacy designation says nothing at all about how PCGS or NGC felt about a coin, other than that it was in one of their holders. I am not sure that is how people are going to interpret it however.
I don’t think that “ JA has described gold stickers as 1.5 grades higher”. I think he’s described them as being at least solid for the next grade higher. In some cases that will be a one point difference but in others, it will be more, with a 2 point difference not being out of the question.
I seem to recall him using that terminology in one of the interviews he has done in the past year but unfortunately don't have evidence at my fingertips to support my claim. Regardless, my broader point was that people seem ready to treat the Legacy designation as having two opinions on a coin, but for certain Legacy-designated coins, the CACG grade will be higher than what the PCGS/NGC grade used to be. This is very different that the two opinions we have today with stickers.
Consider a PCGS/CAC 65 tells us both companies think the coin is at least a 65 with no upper bound on what CAC thinks. A CACG legacy 65 tells us CACG thinks the coin is a 65 and either PCGS or NGC once holdered the coin with no lower bound on the PCGS/NGC grade.
The interesting thing is that the CACG-L 65 could have been a 65 CAC at one TPG and 64+ CAC at another TPG as seen above.
@Zoins said:
My view on CACG-L is that it’s more useful as an indication that the grade was finalized by JA in NJ vs the VB team.
I assume even after CACG starts, a raw coin could be stickered and then L-ed.
I completely agree with your first sentence.
I believe CACG intends to verify when a coin submitted for crossover was stickered and only apply the legacy designation to coins that were stickered before a certain date (was it June 5, 2023?).
@TheMayor said:
I believe CACG intends to verify when a coin submitted for crossover was stickered and only apply the legacy designation to coins that were stickered before a certain date (was it June 5, 2023?).
You are correct, coins stickered after June 5th and submitted for crossover to the CAC grading are not eligible for the Legacy designation.
@TheMayor said:
I believe CACG intends to verify when a coin submitted for crossover was stickered and only apply the legacy designation to coins that were stickered before a certain date (was it June 5, 2023?).
You are correct, coins stickered after June 5th and submitted for crossover to the CAC grading are not eligible for the Legacy designation.
Interesting. I’m guessing that might change if there ends up being a significant amount of post-launch stickered coins that they want to convert to CACG.
The reality is that I bought and sold 600 DE's over the past 10 years. I managed to own 1 plus grade that was stickered. After viewing the video I now have a better understanding as to why a CACG + coin more than likely will sell for a higher price than a PCGS + w/Cac sticker. It is good to know. Unless I missed, quite a bit more , I still am incline to believe that I would pay more for a TPG graded coin w/ a CAC sticker then a CAGG graded coin alone.
Does the legacy designation have any value to you? For example there could be a CACG 64+ Legacy. You're not going to know if the previous holder was PCGS, or NGC, however we would know that the coin was previously stickered as either a 64 or 64+ from one of those TPGS. CACG has then marked it as an A coin by awarding a + when it crossed.
I would much rather have that coin than the identical coin in the p/n holder as a 64/64+ with the sticker. I know the coin was already stickered at that number grade, so we have more than 1 opinion, and I now know that CAC believes its an A coin.
This is not necessarily true, and will be even less likely to be true if they end up giving the L designation to gold stickered coins (last I read, there was no clarity on this point). This is one of the problems I have with the Legacy designation. People will look at a CACG 65L and assume it was also a 65 at PCGS/NGC and that may not be true. Maybe it was a 63 gold CAC, for example, or maybe even a 64 green CAC that was close to getting a gold, like the 1795 dollar posted by @Zoins. JA has described gold stickers as 1.5 grades higher, so there is a lot of room for green CAC stickers to bump up a full number grade. The Legacy designation says nothing at all about how PCGS or NGC felt about a coin, other than that it was in one of their holders. I am not sure that is how people are going to interpret it however.
I don’t think that “ JA has described gold stickers as 1.5 grades higher”. I think he’s described them as being at least solid for the next grade higher. In some cases that will be a one point difference but in others, it will be more, with a 2 point difference not being out of the question.
I seem to recall him using that terminology in one of the interviews he has done in the past year but unfortunately don't have evidence at my fingertips to support my claim. Regardless, my broader point was that people seem ready to treat the Legacy designation as having two opinions on a coin, but for certain Legacy-designated coins, the CACG grade will be higher than what the PCGS/NGC grade used to be. This is very different that the two opinions we have today with stickers.
Consider a PCGS/CAC 65 tells us both companies think the coin is at least a 65 with no upper bound on what CAC thinks. A CACG legacy 65 tells us CACG thinks the coin is a 65 and either PCGS or NGC once holdered the coin with no lower bound on the PCGS/NGC grade.
The interesting thing is that the CACG-L 65 could have been a 65 CAC at one TPG and 64+ CAC at another TPG as seen above.
The last sentence above is incorrect. A 64+ CAC crossover to CACG is NOT eligible for a L designation (unless it was a Gold sticker). A Green stickered coin that upgrades at CACG will be not a Legacy coin because the former TPG assigned a lower numeric grade to the piece.
There's been a bevy of misinformation about the application of the L at CACG. Mike A cleared the air yesterday with an email to all CAC collector members/dealers. I have copy/pasted the (CACGs) table below.
The reality is that I bought and sold 600 DE's over the past 10 years. I managed to own 1 plus grade that was stickered. After viewing the video I now have a better understanding as to why a CACG + coin more than likely will sell for a higher price than a PCGS + w/Cac sticker. It is good to know. Unless I missed, quite a bit more , I still am incline to believe that I would pay more for a TPG graded coin w/ a CAC sticker then a CAGG graded coin alone.
Does the legacy designation have any value to you? For example there could be a CACG 64+ Legacy. You're not going to know if the previous holder was PCGS, or NGC, however we would know that the coin was previously stickered as either a 64 or 64+ from one of those TPGS. CACG has then marked it as an A coin by awarding a + when it crossed.
I would much rather have that coin than the identical coin in the p/n holder as a 64/64+ with the sticker. I know the coin was already stickered at that number grade, so we have more than 1 opinion, and I now know that CAC believes its an A coin.
This is not necessarily true, and will be even less likely to be true if they end up giving the L designation to gold stickered coins (last I read, there was no clarity on this point). This is one of the problems I have with the Legacy designation. People will look at a CACG 65L and assume it was also a 65 at PCGS/NGC and that may not be true. Maybe it was a 63 gold CAC, for example, or maybe even a 64 green CAC that was close to getting a gold, like the 1795 dollar posted by @Zoins. JA has described gold stickers as 1.5 grades higher, so there is a lot of room for green CAC stickers to bump up a full number grade. The Legacy designation says nothing at all about how PCGS or NGC felt about a coin, other than that it was in one of their holders. I am not sure that is how people are going to interpret it however.
I don’t think that “ JA has described gold stickers as 1.5 grades higher”. I think he’s described them as being at least solid for the next grade higher. In some cases that will be a one point difference but in others, it will be more, with a 2 point difference not being out of the question.
I seem to recall him using that terminology in one of the interviews he has done in the past year but unfortunately don't have evidence at my fingertips to support my claim. Regardless, my broader point was that people seem ready to treat the Legacy designation as having two opinions on a coin, but for certain Legacy-designated coins, the CACG grade will be higher than what the PCGS/NGC grade used to be. This is very different that the two opinions we have today with stickers.
Consider a PCGS/CAC 65 tells us both companies think the coin is at least a 65 with no upper bound on what CAC thinks. A CACG legacy 65 tells us CACG thinks the coin is a 65 and either PCGS or NGC once holdered the coin with no lower bound on the PCGS/NGC grade.
The interesting thing is that the CACG-L 65 could have been a 65 CAC at one TPG and 64+ CAC at another TPG as seen above.
The last sentence above is incorrect. A 64+ CAC crossover to CACG is NOT eligible for a L designation (unless it was a Gold sticker). A Green stickered coin that upgrades at CACG will be not a Legacy coin because the former TPG assigned a lower numeric grade to the piece.
There's been a bevy of misinformation about the application of the L at CACG. Mike A cleared the air yesterday with an email to all CAC collector members/dealers. I have copy/pasted the (CACGs) table below.
I don't see how that sentence is incorrect.
If a coin was both of the following at different times:
Non-CAC TPG A MS64+ CAC
Non-CAC TPG B MS65 CAC
It could become either CACG-L MS65(+) or CACG-L MS64(+) depending on which TPG graded it last, before submission to CACG.
The reality is that I bought and sold 600 DE's over the past 10 years. I managed to own 1 plus grade that was stickered. After viewing the video I now have a better understanding as to why a CACG + coin more than likely will sell for a higher price than a PCGS + w/Cac sticker. It is good to know. Unless I missed, quite a bit more , I still am incline to believe that I would pay more for a TPG graded coin w/ a CAC sticker then a CAGG graded coin alone.
Does the legacy designation have any value to you? For example there could be a CACG 64+ Legacy. You're not going to know if the previous holder was PCGS, or NGC, however we would know that the coin was previously stickered as either a 64 or 64+ from one of those TPGS. CACG has then marked it as an A coin by awarding a + when it crossed.
I would much rather have that coin than the identical coin in the p/n holder as a 64/64+ with the sticker. I know the coin was already stickered at that number grade, so we have more than 1 opinion, and I now know that CAC believes its an A coin.
This is not necessarily true, and will be even less likely to be true if they end up giving the L designation to gold stickered coins (last I read, there was no clarity on this point). This is one of the problems I have with the Legacy designation. People will look at a CACG 65L and assume it was also a 65 at PCGS/NGC and that may not be true. Maybe it was a 63 gold CAC, for example, or maybe even a 64 green CAC that was close to getting a gold, like the 1795 dollar posted by @Zoins. JA has described gold stickers as 1.5 grades higher, so there is a lot of room for green CAC stickers to bump up a full number grade. The Legacy designation says nothing at all about how PCGS or NGC felt about a coin, other than that it was in one of their holders. I am not sure that is how people are going to interpret it however.
I don’t think that “ JA has described gold stickers as 1.5 grades higher”. I think he’s described them as being at least solid for the next grade higher. In some cases that will be a one point difference but in others, it will be more, with a 2 point difference not being out of the question.
I seem to recall him using that terminology in one of the interviews he has done in the past year but unfortunately don't have evidence at my fingertips to support my claim. Regardless, my broader point was that people seem ready to treat the Legacy designation as having two opinions on a coin, but for certain Legacy-designated coins, the CACG grade will be higher than what the PCGS/NGC grade used to be. This is very different that the two opinions we have today with stickers.
Consider a PCGS/CAC 65 tells us both companies think the coin is at least a 65 with no upper bound on what CAC thinks. A CACG legacy 65 tells us CACG thinks the coin is a 65 and either PCGS or NGC once holdered the coin with no lower bound on the PCGS/NGC grade.
The interesting thing is that the CACG-L 65 could have been a 65 CAC at one TPG and 64+ CAC at another TPG as seen above.
The last sentence above is incorrect. A 64+ CAC crossover to CACG is NOT eligible for a L designation (unless it was a Gold sticker). A Green stickered coin that upgrades at CACG will be not a Legacy coin because the former TPG assigned a lower numeric grade to the piece.
There's been a bevy of misinformation about the application of the L at CACG. Mike A cleared the air yesterday with an email to all CAC collector members/dealers. I have copy/pasted the (CACGs) table below.
I don't see how that sentence is incorrect.
If a coin was both of the following at different times:
Non-CAC TPG A MS64+ CAC
Non-CAC TPG B MS65 CAC
It could be either CACG-L MS65 or CACG-L MS64 depending on which TPG graded it last, before submission to CACG.
By the train of thought you could say CACG accepts ANACS, ICG, SEGS and Accugrade for crossover and gives them an L designation.
It could be anything if it had been graded multiple times in the past by multiple different TPG. At issue here is what CACG will designate an L on a coin when submitted for crossover.
The reality is that I bought and sold 600 DE's over the past 10 years. I managed to own 1 plus grade that was stickered. After viewing the video I now have a better understanding as to why a CACG + coin more than likely will sell for a higher price than a PCGS + w/Cac sticker. It is good to know. Unless I missed, quite a bit more , I still am incline to believe that I would pay more for a TPG graded coin w/ a CAC sticker then a CAGG graded coin alone.
Does the legacy designation have any value to you? For example there could be a CACG 64+ Legacy. You're not going to know if the previous holder was PCGS, or NGC, however we would know that the coin was previously stickered as either a 64 or 64+ from one of those TPGS. CACG has then marked it as an A coin by awarding a + when it crossed.
I would much rather have that coin than the identical coin in the p/n holder as a 64/64+ with the sticker. I know the coin was already stickered at that number grade, so we have more than 1 opinion, and I now know that CAC believes its an A coin.
This is not necessarily true, and will be even less likely to be true if they end up giving the L designation to gold stickered coins (last I read, there was no clarity on this point). This is one of the problems I have with the Legacy designation. People will look at a CACG 65L and assume it was also a 65 at PCGS/NGC and that may not be true. Maybe it was a 63 gold CAC, for example, or maybe even a 64 green CAC that was close to getting a gold, like the 1795 dollar posted by @Zoins. JA has described gold stickers as 1.5 grades higher, so there is a lot of room for green CAC stickers to bump up a full number grade. The Legacy designation says nothing at all about how PCGS or NGC felt about a coin, other than that it was in one of their holders. I am not sure that is how people are going to interpret it however.
I don’t think that “ JA has described gold stickers as 1.5 grades higher”. I think he’s described them as being at least solid for the next grade higher. In some cases that will be a one point difference but in others, it will be more, with a 2 point difference not being out of the question.
I seem to recall him using that terminology in one of the interviews he has done in the past year but unfortunately don't have evidence at my fingertips to support my claim. Regardless, my broader point was that people seem ready to treat the Legacy designation as having two opinions on a coin, but for certain Legacy-designated coins, the CACG grade will be higher than what the PCGS/NGC grade used to be. This is very different that the two opinions we have today with stickers.
Consider a PCGS/CAC 65 tells us both companies think the coin is at least a 65 with no upper bound on what CAC thinks. A CACG legacy 65 tells us CACG thinks the coin is a 65 and either PCGS or NGC once holdered the coin with no lower bound on the PCGS/NGC grade.
The interesting thing is that the CACG-L 65 could have been a 65 CAC at one TPG and 64+ CAC at another TPG as seen above.
The last sentence above is incorrect. A 64+ CAC crossover to CACG is NOT eligible for a L designation (unless it was a Gold sticker). A Green stickered coin that upgrades at CACG will be not a Legacy coin because the former TPG assigned a lower numeric grade to the piece.
There's been a bevy of misinformation about the application of the L at CACG. Mike A cleared the air yesterday with an email to all CAC collector members/dealers. I have copy/pasted the (CACGs) table below.
I don't see how that sentence is incorrect.
If a coin was both of the following at different times:
Non-CAC TPG A MS64+ CAC
Non-CAC TPG B MS65 CAC
It could be either CACG-L MS65 or CACG-L MS64 depending on which TPG graded it last, before submission to CACG.
By the train of thought you could say CACG accepts ANACS, ICG, SEGS and Accugrade for crossover and gives them an L designation.
It could be anything if it had been graded multiple times in the past by multiple different TPG. At issue here is what CACG will designate an L on a coin when submitted for crossover.
These grading services wouldn't apply here since CAC doesn't sticker coins from those services and all the examples here are CAC stickered. The specific issue I was referring to is when CAC sticker approval occurred at multiple, different numeric grades for the same coin.
@VanHalen said:
A 64+ CAC crossover to CACG is NOT eligible for a L designation (unless it was a Gold sticker).
From the CAC screenshot you provided from Mike A, it's not clear this is correct. The screenshot seems to show a Non-CAC TPG 65+ green bean could cross as a CACG 65+ with a Legacy notation.
@TheMayor said:
I believe CACG intends to verify when a coin submitted for crossover was stickered and only apply the legacy designation to coins that were stickered before a certain date (was it June 5, 2023?).
You are correct, coins stickered after June 5th and submitted for crossover to the CAC grading are not eligible for the Legacy designation.
Interesting. I’m guessing that might change if there ends up being a significant amount of post-launch stickered coins that they want to convert to CACG.
I wonder if they'll change the sticker designs so we know visually the difference between pre-Jun 5 and post Jun 5?> @Zoins said:
@VanHalen said:
A 64+ CAC crossover to CACG is NOT eligible for a L designation (unless it was a Gold sticker).
From the CAC screenshot you provided from Mike A, it's not clear this is correct. The screenshot seems to show a Non-CAC TPG 65+ green bean could cross as a CACG 65+ with a Legacy notation.
Yep. If the coin doesn't change number-grade, it retains the Legacy designation. This means that the old TPG and CAC agree on the number grade. Two concurring opinions = L.
Yep. If the coin doesn't change number-grade, it retains the Legacy designation. This means that the old TPG and CAC agree on the number grade. Two concurring opinions = L.
Except if the coin was previously stickered with a gold CAC, you will have a Legacy designation without two concurring opinions, and there will be no way to tell which Legacies were gold CAC vs. green CAC.
So while two concurring opinions will result in a Legacy designation, the Legacy designation may not be the result of two concurring opinions.
Edit to add: This really feels like a missed opportunity for CACG. If they had elected to treat gold stickers differently with regard to Legacy, the L designation would have conveyed a lot more information to users than it appears it will under their current plan.
@TheMayor said:
I believe CACG intends to verify when a coin submitted for crossover was stickered and only apply the legacy designation to coins that were stickered before a certain date (was it June 5, 2023?).
You are correct, coins stickered after June 5th and submitted for crossover to the CAC grading are not eligible for the Legacy designation.
Interesting. I’m guessing that might change if there ends up being a significant amount of post-launch stickered coins that they want to convert to CACG.
I wonder if they'll change the sticker designs so we know visually the difference between pre-Jun 5 and post Jun 5?> @Zoins said:
@VanHalen said:
A 64+ CAC crossover to CACG is NOT eligible for a L designation (unless it was a Gold sticker).
From the CAC screenshot you provided from Mike A, it's not clear this is correct. The screenshot seems to show a Non-CAC TPG 65+ green bean could cross as a CACG 65+ with a Legacy notation.
Yep. If the coin doesn't change number-grade, it retains the Legacy designation. This means that the old TPG and CAC agree on the number grade. Two concurring opinions = L.
Agree, but it seems like it's 3 concurring opinions:
Yep. If the coin doesn't change number-grade, it retains the Legacy designation. This means that the old TPG and CAC agree on the number grade. Two concurring opinions = L.
Except if the coin was previously stickered with a gold CAC, you will have a Legacy designation without two concurring opinions, and there will be no way to tell which Legacies were gold CAC vs. green CAC.
So while two concurring opinions will result in a Legacy designation, the Legacy designation may not be the result of two concurring opinions.
Edit to add: This really feels like a missed opportunity for CACG. If they had elected to treat gold stickers differently with regard to Legacy, the L designation would have conveyed a lot more information to users than it appears it will under their current plan.
An interesting thing is that JA indicated he never expected CAC gold to turn out the way that it did. It's probably such a minor part of their business that they need to focus on the more important parts first.
Yep. If the coin doesn't change number-grade, it retains the Legacy designation. This means that the old TPG and CAC agree on the number grade. Two concurring opinions = L.
Except if the coin was previously stickered with a gold CAC, you will have a Legacy designation without two concurring opinions, and there will be no way to tell which Legacies were gold CAC vs. green CAC.
So while two concurring opinions will result in a Legacy designation, the Legacy designation may not be the result of two concurring opinions.
Edit to add: This really feels like a missed opportunity for CACG. If they had elected to treat gold stickers differently with regard to Legacy, the L designation would have conveyed a lot more information to users than it appears it will under their current plan.
An interesting thing is that JA indicated he never expected CAC gold to turn out the way that it did. It's probably such a minor part of their business that they need to focus on the more important parts first.
That makes sense. And I think they have the expectation that very few people will decide to cross gold CACs.
@TheMayor said:
I believe CACG intends to verify when a coin submitted for crossover was stickered and only apply the legacy designation to coins that were stickered before a certain date (was it June 5, 2023?).
You are correct, coins stickered after June 5th and submitted for crossover to the CAC grading are not eligible for the Legacy designation.
Interesting. I’m guessing that might change if there ends up being a significant amount of post-launch stickered coins that they want to convert to CACG.
I wonder if they'll change the sticker designs so we know visually the difference between pre-Jun 5 and post Jun 5?> @Zoins said:
@VanHalen said:
A 64+ CAC crossover to CACG is NOT eligible for a L designation (unless it was a Gold sticker).
From the CAC screenshot you provided from Mike A, it's not clear this is correct. The screenshot seems to show a Non-CAC TPG 65+ green bean could cross as a CACG 65+ with a Legacy notation.
Yep. If the coin doesn't change number-grade, it retains the Legacy designation. This means that the old TPG and CAC agree on the number grade. Two concurring opinions = L.
Agree, but it seems like it's 3 concurring opinions:
Non-CAC TPG
CAC sticker (CAC NJ)
CACG (CAC VB)
Except not really. The CACG opinion is restricted. They can't downgrade the coin so it's not an "honest" grade opinion.
@TheMayor said:
I believe CACG intends to verify when a coin submitted for crossover was stickered and only apply the legacy designation to coins that were stickered before a certain date (was it June 5, 2023?).
You are correct, coins stickered after June 5th and submitted for crossover to the CAC grading are not eligible for the Legacy designation.
Interesting. I’m guessing that might change if there ends up being a significant amount of post-launch stickered coins that they want to convert to CACG.
I wonder if they'll change the sticker designs so we know visually the difference between pre-Jun 5 and post Jun 5?> @Zoins said:
@VanHalen said:
A 64+ CAC crossover to CACG is NOT eligible for a L designation (unless it was a Gold sticker).
From the CAC screenshot you provided from Mike A, it's not clear this is correct. The screenshot seems to show a Non-CAC TPG 65+ green bean could cross as a CACG 65+ with a Legacy notation.
Yep. If the coin doesn't change number-grade, it retains the Legacy designation. This means that the old TPG and CAC agree on the number grade. Two concurring opinions = L.
Agree, but it seems like it's 3 concurring opinions:
Non-CAC TPG
CAC sticker (CAC NJ)
CACG (CAC VB)
Except not really. The CACG opinion is restricted. They can't downgrade the coin so it's not an "honest" grade opinion.
True, but they can + or even grade higher. So in the case of "+" or higher numerical grades, it's a stand-alone opinion.
@TheMayor said:
I believe CACG intends to verify when a coin submitted for crossover was stickered and only apply the legacy designation to coins that were stickered before a certain date (was it June 5, 2023?).
You are correct, coins stickered after June 5th and submitted for crossover to the CAC grading are not eligible for the Legacy designation.
Interesting. I’m guessing that might change if there ends up being a significant amount of post-launch stickered coins that they want to convert to CACG.
I wonder if they'll change the sticker designs so we know visually the difference between pre-Jun 5 and post Jun 5?> @Zoins said:
@VanHalen said:
A 64+ CAC crossover to CACG is NOT eligible for a L designation (unless it was a Gold sticker).
From the CAC screenshot you provided from Mike A, it's not clear this is correct. The screenshot seems to show a Non-CAC TPG 65+ green bean could cross as a CACG 65+ with a Legacy notation.
Yep. If the coin doesn't change number-grade, it retains the Legacy designation. This means that the old TPG and CAC agree on the number grade. Two concurring opinions = L.
Agree, but it seems like it's 3 concurring opinions:
Non-CAC TPG
CAC sticker (CAC NJ)
CACG (CAC VB)
Except not really. The CACG opinion is restricted. They can't downgrade the coin so it's not an "honest" grade opinion.
True, but they can + or even grade higher. So in the case of "+" or higher numerical grades, it's a stand-alone opinion.
But it's like when your wife asks if you like her hair cut or dress. You can always provide a positive assessment but if you don't like it or it looks bad, you can't ever say that. So can you really trust/value the opinion?
For me it would be the CACG COIN itself (and what I thought about it) and would research what CDN CPG for CAC is - Then would price it accordingly within business goals. As far as any Legacy Data that’s past history. If photo of coin at time it Legacy stickered would want compare that to present see if any PVC / tarnish, spots showing up since then. Is it still as nice as when got sticker? What matters to me is MY opinion of the COIN and if can move quickly / positive P&L. If some badly tarnished, spotted disaster, dark tarnish trash piece then pass. The coin could have what they consider great Legacy data LOL but if it has since gone to heck over time what does Legacy really matter? My offer based on the coin if want buy at all. Reaction of coinage metals with heat, humidity, the atmosphere is a reality.
@TheMayor said:
I believe CACG intends to verify when a coin submitted for crossover was stickered and only apply the legacy designation to coins that were stickered before a certain date (was it June 5, 2023?).
You are correct, coins stickered after June 5th and submitted for crossover to the CAC grading are not eligible for the Legacy designation.
Interesting. I’m guessing that might change if there ends up being a significant amount of post-launch stickered coins that they want to convert to CACG.
I wonder if they'll change the sticker designs so we know visually the difference between pre-Jun 5 and post Jun 5?> @Zoins said:
@VanHalen said:
A 64+ CAC crossover to CACG is NOT eligible for a L designation (unless it was a Gold sticker).
From the CAC screenshot you provided from Mike A, it's not clear this is correct. The screenshot seems to show a Non-CAC TPG 65+ green bean could cross as a CACG 65+ with a Legacy notation.
Yep. If the coin doesn't change number-grade, it retains the Legacy designation. This means that the old TPG and CAC agree on the number grade. Two concurring opinions = L.
Agree, but it seems like it's 3 concurring opinions:
Non-CAC TPG
CAC sticker (CAC NJ)
CACG (CAC VB)
Except not really. The CACG opinion is restricted. They can't downgrade the coin so it's not an "honest" grade opinion.
True, but they can + or even grade higher. So in the case of "+" or higher numerical grades, it's a stand-alone opinion.
But it's like when your wife asks if you like her hair cut or dress. You can always provide a positive assessment but if you don't like it or it looks bad, you can't ever say that. So can you really trust/value the opinion?
It's a bit different here since CACS and CACG are the same company. The company has already provided one grade (CACS). The downside production is a bit more like PCGS Reconsideration in my mind.
@Vasanti said:
It would be nice if they made the “failed to sticker” database public.
They don't want to get sued.
Perhaps PCGS should put a scarlet letter on any reconsideration that fails to upgrade? Maybe PCGS could also create a database of NGC coins that failed to cross at grade. That would be helpful.
I'm not sure the legal bills will make grading cheaper, though.
That’s like saying you could sue PCGS for giving a coin an MS63 instead of an MS65.
No. It's not. The issue is libel aimed at a competitor or collector. PCGS can downgrade their own coins all they want. When they start putting scarlet letters on NGC coins, NGC is going to complain. And if they put a scarlet letter on one of their own coins that you own, you're going to complain because it will be unsaleble.
@Vasanti said:
It would be nice if they made the “failed to sticker” database public.
They don't want to get sued.
Perhaps PCGS should put a scarlet letter on any reconsideration that fails to upgrade? Maybe PCGS could also create a database of NGC coins that failed to cross at grade. That would be helpful.
I'm not sure the legal bills will make grading cheaper, though.
I think they could defend against getting sued. I think it’s more that they’d get much fewer submissions, so a business decision more than a legal one.
No. They'd get sued. The minute PCGS even implies that ATS grades are inflated or inaccurate, the filings will fly.
@Vasanti said:
It would be nice if they made the “failed to sticker” database public.
They don't want to get sued.
Perhaps PCGS should put a scarlet letter on any reconsideration that fails to upgrade? Maybe PCGS could also create a database of NGC coins that failed to cross at grade. That would be helpful.
I'm not sure the legal bills will make grading cheaper, though.
I think they could defend against getting sued. I think it’s more that they’d get much fewer submissions, so a business decision more than a legal one.
No. They'd get sued. The minute PCGS even implies that ATS grades are inflated or inaccurate, the filings will fly.
I don't see much difference when a coin is crossed at a lower grade, except that no one is saying things are inflated or inaccurate, just different grading standards.
Of course, Laura did say grades were inflated, and I don't think any TPG sued Legend.
@Vasanti said:
It would be nice if they made the “failed to sticker” database public.
They don't want to get sued.
Perhaps PCGS should put a scarlet letter on any reconsideration that fails to upgrade? Maybe PCGS could also create a database of NGC coins that failed to cross at grade. That would be helpful.
I'm not sure the legal bills will make grading cheaper, though.
I think they could defend against getting sued. I think it’s more that they’d get much fewer submissions, so a business decision more than a legal one.
No. They'd get sued. The minute PCGS even implies that ATS grades are inflated or inaccurate, the filings will fly.
I don't see much difference when a coin is crossed at a lower grade, except that no one is saying things are inflated or inaccurate, just different grading standards.
But they don't publish the fact publicly. No one but the coin owner knows it crossed lower.
@Vasanti said:
It would be nice if they made the “failed to sticker” database public.
They don't want to get sued.
Perhaps PCGS should put a scarlet letter on any reconsideration that fails to upgrade? Maybe PCGS could also create a database of NGC coins that failed to cross at grade. That would be helpful.
I'm not sure the legal bills will make grading cheaper, though.
I think they could defend against getting sued. I think it’s more that they’d get much fewer submissions, so a business decision more than a legal one.
No. They'd get sued. The minute PCGS even implies that ATS grades are inflated or inaccurate, the filings will fly.
I don't see much difference when a coin is crossed at a lower grade, except that no one is saying things are inflated or inaccurate, just different grading standards.
But they don't publish the fact publicly. No one but the coin owner knows it crossed lower.
For famous coins, it's well known. The owner doesn't have to publish anything.
CoinFacts publishes the top 3 coins for each coin number publicly without any involvement from the coin owners.
Why are they making this so complicated? Maybe this will highlight how insane the obsession with plastic and stickers is and people will go back to collecting coins.
@cameonut2011 said:
Why are they making this so complicated? Maybe this will highlight how insane the obsession with plastic and stickers is and people will go back to collecting coins.
With CACG, it's getting less complicated. Just "+" ("A") and "No+" ("B") coins. No more "C" coins or gold stickers.
@cameonut2011 said:
Why are they making this so complicated? Maybe this will highlight how insane the obsession with plastic and stickers is and people will go back to collecting coins.
With CACG, it's getting less complicated. Just "+" ("A") and "No+" ("B") coins. No more "C" coins or gold stickers.
There will always be C coins. Even if they change the standards by tightening them, there will be coins in the bottom 1/3 of CAC’s grading interval and thus are CACG C material. Those will limit the value of the other 2/3s of CACG coins. By their logic, I guess we need another sticker service CACGAC.
@Vasanti said:
It would be nice if they made the “failed to sticker” database public.
They don't want to get sued.
Perhaps PCGS should put a scarlet letter on any reconsideration that fails to upgrade? Maybe PCGS could also create a database of NGC coins that failed to cross at grade. That would be helpful.
I'm not sure the legal bills will make grading cheaper, though.
I think they could defend against getting sued. I think it’s more that they’d get much fewer submissions, so a business decision more than a legal one.
No. They'd get sued. The minute PCGS even implies that ATS grades are inflated or inaccurate, the filings will fly.
I don't see much difference when a coin is crossed at a lower grade, except that no one is saying things are inflated or inaccurate, just different grading standards.
But they don't publish the fact publicly. No one but the coin owner knows it crossed lower.
For famous coins, it's well known. The owner doesn't have to publish anything.
CoinFacts publishes the top 3 coins for each coin number publicly without any involvement from the coin owners.
What people know or figure out is COMPLETELY different than what one company EXPLICITLY STATES about a competitor.
@cameonut2011 said:
Why are they making this so complicated? Maybe this will highlight how insane the obsession with plastic and stickers is and people will go back to collecting coins.
With CACG, it's getting less complicated. Just "+" ("A") and "No+" ("B") coins. No more "C" coins or gold stickers.
There will always be C coins. Even if they change the standards by tightening them, there will be coins in the bottom 1/3 of CAC’s grading interval and thus are CACG C material. Those will limit the value of the other 2/3s of CACG coins. By their logic, I guess we need another sticker service CACGAC.
CACG only has 2 designations per numeric grade, "+" or "No+" representing "A" or "B", so there is no 3rd option to capture "C" coins. To fit into this 2 designation system, my understanding is that CACG would simply grade a "C" coin at one grade as a "A" or "B" coin at a lower grade... so there would be no "C" coins in CACG.
If you don't agree, how would CACG designate a "C" coin?
@Vasanti said:
It would be nice if they made the “failed to sticker” database public.
They don't want to get sued.
Perhaps PCGS should put a scarlet letter on any reconsideration that fails to upgrade? Maybe PCGS could also create a database of NGC coins that failed to cross at grade. That would be helpful.
I'm not sure the legal bills will make grading cheaper, though.
I think they could defend against getting sued. I think it’s more that they’d get much fewer submissions, so a business decision more than a legal one.
No. They'd get sued. The minute PCGS even implies that ATS grades are inflated or inaccurate, the filings will fly.
I don't see much difference when a coin is crossed at a lower grade, except that no one is saying things are inflated or inaccurate, just different grading standards.
But they don't publish the fact publicly. No one but the coin owner knows it crossed lower.
For famous coins, it's well known. The owner doesn't have to publish anything.
CoinFacts publishes the top 3 coins for each coin number publicly without any involvement from the coin owners.
What people know or figure out is COMPLETELY different than what one company EXPLICITLY STATES about a competitor.
I'm not sure I agree from a legal perspective, but I do think it's not good practice from a business perspective.
Can you provide an example that was successfully litigated?
@cameonut2011 said:
Why are they making this so complicated? Maybe this will highlight how insane the obsession with plastic and stickers is and people will go back to collecting coins.
I think the simple answer is there is demand for it. JA has even stated he would like if there was less stratification, fewer grades, etc. but the market has moved in the other direction.
I am sympathetic to the point you are making and view the legacy designation as an unnecessary distraction. You will find many people disagree with me and find the L designation critical, so many so in fact that CACG has adopted a very complex system that people are bound to misinterpret to satisfy this demand.
Has anyone been able to use the on-line submission form to create a submission for stickering? I can log-in to my regular CAC account but I can’t log-in to the submission pages?
@GRANDAM said:
Has anyone been able to use the on-line submission form to create a submission for stickering? I can log-in to my regular CAC account but I can’t log-in to the submission pages?
That sounds like an excellent inquiry to the company to whom you’re submitting the coins.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@GRANDAM said:
Has anyone been able to use the on-line submission form to create a submission for stickering? I can log-in to my regular CAC account but I can’t log-in to the submission pages?
That sounds like an excellent inquiry to the company to whom you’re submitting the coins.
@Vasanti said:
It would be nice if they made the “failed to sticker” database public.
They don't want to get sued.
Perhaps PCGS should put a scarlet letter on any reconsideration that fails to upgrade? Maybe PCGS could also create a database of NGC coins that failed to cross at grade. That would be helpful.
I'm not sure the legal bills will make grading cheaper, though.
That’s like saying you could sue PCGS for giving a coin an MS63 instead of an MS65.
No. It's not. The issue is libel aimed at a competitor or collector. PCGS can downgrade their own coins all they want. When they start putting scarlet letters on NGC coins, NGC is going to complain. And if they put a scarlet letter on one of their own coins that you own, you're going to complain because it will be unsaleble.
Unsalable? Why would a C-grade coin be unsaleable? It still meets the grade. It just isn’t great for the grade.
@GRANDAM said:
Has anyone been able to use the on-line submission form to create a submission for stickering? I can log-in to my regular CAC account but I can’t log-in to the submission pages?
Stickering submissions cannot be done online at this time. I'll quote Mike A from a 06/06/23 email he has sent:
_We are excited to announce the new changes that are happening at CAC for stickering coins. First, we want to let you know that the stickering function will remain in New Jersey. Because of the addition of the new CAC Grading company in Virginia Beach as well as updates to our software and processing, we are introducing a new CAC stickering submission form that you may find at the bottom of this E-mail.
This submission form must be used for all CAC stickering submissions. The body of the submission form is similar to the old form; however, there are some changes that have been added to accommodate new methods of payment allowed and clarify information required for return shipping.
The submission form lists the new pricing tiers for stickering. As communicated previously, all dealer and collector members will receive a 25% discount on coins that do not sticker. Members may resume sending coin submissions for stickering beginning on June 7.
You may log in to the new CAC member portal with your old credentials (email address and password) to download and print a blank CAC stickering submission form. Once you log in, you will have a side bar with an option to choose “Submissions.” On the Submissions screen, there will be an option on the top right corner named “Submission Forms.” Click on that item and you will choose “CAC Stickering Submission Form.” You can print a blank form, manually fill out the form and send 2 copies of the completed form with your coins to CAC. You can also use the attached CAC Stickering Submission Form.
When made available, you will have the capability to do your submission forms entirely online. We can mail submission forms to members, if necessary, once they become available. _
Thank-you for that info,,,,,, I will proceed to do my submission by hand and I won't have to wait for an answer from the company to whom I am submitting the coins to.
@Vasanti said:
It would be nice if they made the “failed to sticker” database public.
They don't want to get sued.
Perhaps PCGS should put a scarlet letter on any reconsideration that fails to upgrade? Maybe PCGS could also create a database of NGC coins that failed to cross at grade. That would be helpful.
I'm not sure the legal bills will make grading cheaper, though.
That’s like saying you could sue PCGS for giving a coin an MS63 instead of an MS65.
No. It's not. The issue is libel aimed at a competitor or collector. PCGS can downgrade their own coins all they want. When they start putting scarlet letters on NGC coins, NGC is going to complain. And if they put a scarlet letter on one of their own coins that you own, you're going to complain because it will be unsaleble.
Unsalable? Why would a C-grade coin be unsaleable? It still meets the grade. It just isn’t great for the grade.
I didn't say "C" coin. It could be PVC, putty, etc.
@Vasanti said:
It would be nice if they made the “failed to sticker” database public.
They don't want to get sued.
Perhaps PCGS should put a scarlet letter on any reconsideration that fails to upgrade? Maybe PCGS could also create a database of NGC coins that failed to cross at grade. That would be helpful.
I'm not sure the legal bills will make grading cheaper, though.
That’s like saying you could sue PCGS for giving a coin an MS63 instead of an MS65.
No. It's not. The issue is libel aimed at a competitor or collector. PCGS can downgrade their own coins all they want. When they start putting scarlet letters on NGC coins, NGC is going to complain. And if they put a scarlet letter on one of their own coins that you own, you're going to complain because it will be unsaleble.
Unsalable? Why would a C-grade coin be unsaleable? It still meets the grade. It just isn’t great for the grade.
I didn't say "C" coin. It could be PVC, putty, etc.
That’s the thing. Nobody will know why it didn’t sticker. It could be a C coin, it could be PVC. All you have to know is that it didn’t sticker. That’s not actionable and it creates no civil liability. I understand why CAC didn’t want to do it when they weren’t charging for coins that didn’t sticker. Now they appear to be charging for coins that don’t sticker. It’s kinda messed up to charge people for coins you’ve looked at before.
@Vasanti said:
It would be nice if they made the “failed to sticker” database public.
They don't want to get sued.
Perhaps PCGS should put a scarlet letter on any reconsideration that fails to upgrade? Maybe PCGS could also create a database of NGC coins that failed to cross at grade. That would be helpful.
I'm not sure the legal bills will make grading cheaper, though.
That’s like saying you could sue PCGS for giving a coin an MS63 instead of an MS65.
No. It's not. The issue is libel aimed at a competitor or collector. PCGS can downgrade their own coins all they want. When they start putting scarlet letters on NGC coins, NGC is going to complain. And if they put a scarlet letter on one of their own coins that you own, you're going to complain because it will be unsaleble.
Unsalable? Why would a C-grade coin be unsaleable? It still meets the grade. It just isn’t great for the grade.
I didn't say "C" coin. It could be PVC, putty, etc.
That’s the thing. Nobody will know why it didn’t sticker. It could be a C coin, it could be PVC. All you have to know is that it didn’t sticker. That’s not actionable and it creates no civil liability. I understand why CAC didn’t want to do it when they weren’t charging for coins that didn’t sticker. Now they appear to be charging for coins that don’t sticker. It’s kinda messed up to charge people for coins you’ve looked at before.
And if no one knows, they aren't going to take a chance. No TPGS releases such data. Dont you see why?
@Vasanti said:
It would be nice if they made the “failed to sticker” database public.
They don't want to get sued.
Perhaps PCGS should put a scarlet letter on any reconsideration that fails to upgrade? Maybe PCGS could also create a database of NGC coins that failed to cross at grade. That would be helpful.
I'm not sure the legal bills will make grading cheaper, though.
That’s like saying you could sue PCGS for giving a coin an MS63 instead of an MS65.
No. It's not. The issue is libel aimed at a competitor or collector. PCGS can downgrade their own coins all they want. When they start putting scarlet letters on NGC coins, NGC is going to complain. And if they put a scarlet letter on one of their own coins that you own, you're going to complain because it will be unsaleble.
Unsalable? Why would a C-grade coin be unsaleable? It still meets the grade. It just isn’t great for the grade.
I didn't say "C" coin. It could be PVC, putty, etc.
That’s the thing. Nobody will know why it didn’t sticker. It could be a C coin, it could be PVC. All you have to know is that it didn’t sticker. That’s not actionable and it creates no civil liability. I understand why CAC didn’t want to do it when they weren’t charging for coins that didn’t sticker. Now they appear to be charging for coins that don’t sticker. It’s kinda messed up to charge people for coins you’ve looked at before.
CAC Dealer submissions were charged previously, regardless of whether the coins stickered.
Now, both dealers and collectors will be charged a discounted fee for coins that don’t sticker.
PCGS and NGC charge for failed crossover attempts, no matter how many times the coins have been tried. And they charge for resubmissions of coins they’ve looked at before. In each case, CAC, NGC and PCGS are charging a fee for the service provided. Like it or not, it’s up to the owner of a coin, not the grading company, whether to publicize its previous known grading history.
Edited to add: So you know, I’m a strong proponent of full disclosure. When I had my own rare coin business, for my coins that I’d tried at CAC, which failed to sticker, I made note of that in my coin descriptions on my website and in my email lists of coin offerings.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Vasanti said:
It would be nice if they made the “failed to sticker” database public.
They don't want to get sued.
Perhaps PCGS should put a scarlet letter on any reconsideration that fails to upgrade? Maybe PCGS could also create a database of NGC coins that failed to cross at grade. That would be helpful.
I'm not sure the legal bills will make grading cheaper, though.
That’s like saying you could sue PCGS for giving a coin an MS63 instead of an MS65.
No. It's not. The issue is libel aimed at a competitor or collector. PCGS can downgrade their own coins all they want. When they start putting scarlet letters on NGC coins, NGC is going to complain. And if they put a scarlet letter on one of their own coins that you own, you're going to complain because it will be unsaleble.
Unsalable? Why would a C-grade coin be unsaleable? It still meets the grade. It just isn’t great for the grade.
I didn't say "C" coin. It could be PVC, putty, etc.
That’s the thing. Nobody will know why it didn’t sticker. It could be a C coin, it could be PVC. All you have to know is that it didn’t sticker. That’s not actionable and it creates no civil liability. I understand why CAC didn’t want to do it when they weren’t charging for coins that didn’t sticker. Now they appear to be charging for coins that don’t sticker. It’s kinda messed up to charge people for coins you’ve looked at before.
And if no one knows, they aren't going to take a chance. No TPGS releases such data. Dont you see why?
CAC wasn’t a grading company until recently. It was a third party reviewer of already graded coins and I don’t think the comparison is valid. When I’m buying a coin from Heritage, Stacks or GC and it isn’t already stickered, I’m making the reasonable assumption that it’s already been to CAC and failed, or that the auction house thought it was a C-grade coin and didn’t send it in. Now I know exactly why auction houses, dealers and collectors don’t want CAC failures publicized. It will lead to a lower value for those coins in the market. I also know why CAC doesn’t want that. They are a market maker, not a company catering to the needs of collectors. They operate within their dealer network and make their money that way, not off of their stickering service. Nobody wants to piss off their customers (the dealers). That would be phenomenally stupid.
My only comment is that it would be nice for a collector to know whether a coin has already failed before submitting it. Failing that, it would be nice to not be charged for the stickering service if all the person on the other end is doing is sticking the number into a database. Now if they are doing a de novo review and not paying attention to any previous decision not to sticker (which is what PCGS claims to do with crossovers), then it would be a different story.
My only comment is that it would be nice for a collector to know whether a coin has already failed before submitting it. Failing that, it would be nice to not be charged for the stickering service if all the person on the other end is doing is sticking the number into a database.
So the expert grader's time and opinion have no value?
My only comment is that it would be nice for a collector to know whether a coin has already failed before submitting it. Failing that, it would be nice to not be charged for the stickering service if all the person on the other end is doing is sticking the number into a database.
So the expert grader's time and opinion have no value?
Of course it does, which is the reason why PCGS charges for looking at each submission even if it has been submitted before. Does CAC relook at coins that have already been rejected?
My only comment is that it would be nice for a collector to know whether a coin has already failed before submitting it. Failing that, it would be nice to not be charged for the stickering service if all the person on the other end is doing is sticking the number into a database.
So the expert grader's time and opinion have no value?
Of course it does, which is the reason why PCGS charges for looking at each submission even if it has been submitted before. Does CAC relook at coins that have already been rejected?
I hope so. I had a CAC coin that I had re-holdered. Then sent it back to CAC and it failed to sticker. I plan to send it back to CAC again.
Of course it does, which is the reason why PCGS charges for looking at each submission even if it has been submitted before. Does CAC relook at coins that have already been rejected?
Comments
And as JA said in his video....from a value perspective crossing a Gold CAC into a CACG holder ..in a majority of cases will not make financial sense. Gold CAC stickers bring a hefty premium now. Five years from now when many have been foolishly crossed they will be very scarce and bring an even higher premium.
HA even has a special auction devoted in part to Gold CAC coins coming up on June 12. Great timing and marketing on their part. I will be interested to see the prices. I predict some very spirited bidding.
My view on CACG-L is that it’s more useful as an indication that the grade was finalized by JA in NJ vs the VB team.
I assume even after CACG starts, a raw coin could be stickered and then L-ed.
I seem to recall him using that terminology in one of the interviews he has done in the past year but unfortunately don't have evidence at my fingertips to support my claim. Regardless, my broader point was that people seem ready to treat the Legacy designation as having two opinions on a coin, but for certain Legacy-designated coins, the CACG grade will be higher than what the PCGS/NGC grade used to be. This is very different that the two opinions we have today with stickers.
Consider a PCGS/CAC 65 tells us both companies think the coin is at least a 65 with no upper bound on what CAC thinks. A CACG legacy 65 tells us CACG thinks the coin is a 65 and either PCGS or NGC once holdered the coin with no lower bound on the PCGS/NGC grade.
The interesting thing is that the CACG-L 65 could have been a 65 CAC at one TPG and 64+ CAC at another TPG as seen above.
I completely agree with your first sentence.
I believe CACG intends to verify when a coin submitted for crossover was stickered and only apply the legacy designation to coins that were stickered before a certain date (was it June 5, 2023?).
You are correct, coins stickered after June 5th and submitted for crossover to the CAC grading are not eligible for the Legacy designation.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Interesting. I’m guessing that might change if there ends up being a significant amount of post-launch stickered coins that they want to convert to CACG.
The last sentence above is incorrect. A 64+ CAC crossover to CACG is NOT eligible for a L designation (unless it was a Gold sticker). A Green stickered coin that upgrades at CACG will be not a Legacy coin because the former TPG assigned a lower numeric grade to the piece.
There's been a bevy of misinformation about the application of the L at CACG. Mike A cleared the air yesterday with an email to all CAC collector members/dealers. I have copy/pasted the (CACGs) table below.
I don't see how that sentence is incorrect.
If a coin was both of the following at different times:
It could become either CACG-L MS65(+) or CACG-L MS64(+) depending on which TPG graded it last, before submission to CACG.
By the train of thought you could say CACG accepts ANACS, ICG, SEGS and Accugrade for crossover and gives them an L designation.
It could be anything if it had been graded multiple times in the past by multiple different TPG. At issue here is what CACG will designate an L on a coin when submitted for crossover.
These grading services wouldn't apply here since CAC doesn't sticker coins from those services and all the examples here are CAC stickered. The specific issue I was referring to is when CAC sticker approval occurred at multiple, different numeric grades for the same coin.
From the CAC screenshot you provided from Mike A, it's not clear this is correct. The screenshot seems to show a Non-CAC TPG 65+ green bean could cross as a CACG 65+ with a Legacy notation.
I wonder if they'll change the sticker designs so we know visually the difference between pre-Jun 5 and post Jun 5?> @Zoins said:
Yep. If the coin doesn't change number-grade, it retains the Legacy designation. This means that the old TPG and CAC agree on the number grade. Two concurring opinions = L.
http://ProofCollection.Net
Except if the coin was previously stickered with a gold CAC, you will have a Legacy designation without two concurring opinions, and there will be no way to tell which Legacies were gold CAC vs. green CAC.
So while two concurring opinions will result in a Legacy designation, the Legacy designation may not be the result of two concurring opinions.
Edit to add: This really feels like a missed opportunity for CACG. If they had elected to treat gold stickers differently with regard to Legacy, the L designation would have conveyed a lot more information to users than it appears it will under their current plan.
Agree, but it seems like it's 3 concurring opinions:
An interesting thing is that JA indicated he never expected CAC gold to turn out the way that it did. It's probably such a minor part of their business that they need to focus on the more important parts first.
That makes sense. And I think they have the expectation that very few people will decide to cross gold CACs.
Except not really. The CACG opinion is restricted. They can't downgrade the coin so it's not an "honest" grade opinion.
http://ProofCollection.Net
True, but they can + or even grade higher. So in the case of "+" or higher numerical grades, it's a stand-alone opinion.
But it's like when your wife asks if you like her hair cut or dress. You can always provide a positive assessment but if you don't like it or it looks bad, you can't ever say that. So can you really trust/value the opinion?
http://ProofCollection.Net
For me it would be the CACG COIN itself (and what I thought about it) and would research what CDN CPG for CAC is - Then would price it accordingly within business goals. As far as any Legacy Data that’s past history. If photo of coin at time it Legacy stickered would want compare that to present see if any PVC / tarnish, spots showing up since then. Is it still as nice as when got sticker? What matters to me is MY opinion of the COIN and if can move quickly / positive P&L. If some badly tarnished, spotted disaster, dark tarnish trash piece then pass. The coin could have what they consider great Legacy data LOL but if it has since gone to heck over time what does Legacy really matter? My offer based on the coin if want buy at all. Reaction of coinage metals with heat, humidity, the atmosphere is a reality.
It's a bit different here since CACS and CACG are the same company. The company has already provided one grade (CACS). The downside production is a bit more like PCGS Reconsideration in my mind.
No. It's not. The issue is libel aimed at a competitor or collector. PCGS can downgrade their own coins all they want. When they start putting scarlet letters on NGC coins, NGC is going to complain. And if they put a scarlet letter on one of their own coins that you own, you're going to complain because it will be unsaleble.
No. They'd get sued. The minute PCGS even implies that ATS grades are inflated or inaccurate, the filings will fly.
I don't see much difference when a coin is crossed at a lower grade, except that no one is saying things are inflated or inaccurate, just different grading standards.
Of course, Laura did say grades were inflated, and I don't think any TPG sued Legend.
But they don't publish the fact publicly. No one but the coin owner knows it crossed lower.
For famous coins, it's well known. The owner doesn't have to publish anything.
CoinFacts publishes the top 3 coins for each coin number publicly without any involvement from the coin owners.
Why are they making this so complicated? Maybe this will highlight how insane the obsession with plastic and stickers is and people will go back to collecting coins.
With CACG, it's getting less complicated. Just "+" ("A") and "No+" ("B") coins. No more "C" coins or gold stickers.
There will always be C coins. Even if they change the standards by tightening them, there will be coins in the bottom 1/3 of CAC’s grading interval and thus are CACG C material. Those will limit the value of the other 2/3s of CACG coins. By their logic, I guess we need another sticker service CACGAC.
What people know or figure out is COMPLETELY different than what one company EXPLICITLY STATES about a competitor.
CACG only has 2 designations per numeric grade, "+" or "No+" representing "A" or "B", so there is no 3rd option to capture "C" coins. To fit into this 2 designation system, my understanding is that CACG would simply grade a "C" coin at one grade as a "A" or "B" coin at a lower grade... so there would be no "C" coins in CACG.
If you don't agree, how would CACG designate a "C" coin?
I'm not sure I agree from a legal perspective, but I do think it's not good practice from a business perspective.
Can you provide an example that was successfully litigated?
I think the simple answer is there is demand for it. JA has even stated he would like if there was less stratification, fewer grades, etc. but the market has moved in the other direction.
I am sympathetic to the point you are making and view the legacy designation as an unnecessary distraction. You will find many people disagree with me and find the L designation critical, so many so in fact that CACG has adopted a very complex system that people are bound to misinterpret to satisfy this demand.
This is insanity.
Has anyone been able to use the on-line submission form to create a submission for stickering? I can log-in to my regular CAC account but I can’t log-in to the submission pages?
That sounds like an excellent inquiry to the company to whom you’re submitting the coins.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Unfortunately they aren't open right now,,,,,,,
Unsalable? Why would a C-grade coin be unsaleable? It still meets the grade. It just isn’t great for the grade.
Stickering submissions cannot be done online at this time. I'll quote Mike A from a 06/06/23 email he has sent:
_We are excited to announce the new changes that are happening at CAC for stickering coins. First, we want to let you know that the stickering function will remain in New Jersey. Because of the addition of the new CAC Grading company in Virginia Beach as well as updates to our software and processing, we are introducing a new CAC stickering submission form that you may find at the bottom of this E-mail.
This submission form must be used for all CAC stickering submissions. The body of the submission form is similar to the old form; however, there are some changes that have been added to accommodate new methods of payment allowed and clarify information required for return shipping.
The submission form lists the new pricing tiers for stickering. As communicated previously, all dealer and collector members will receive a 25% discount on coins that do not sticker. Members may resume sending coin submissions for stickering beginning on June 7.
You may log in to the new CAC member portal with your old credentials (email address and password) to download and print a blank CAC stickering submission form. Once you log in, you will have a side bar with an option to choose “Submissions.” On the Submissions screen, there will be an option on the top right corner named “Submission Forms.” Click on that item and you will choose “CAC Stickering Submission Form.” You can print a blank form, manually fill out the form and send 2 copies of the completed form with your coins to CAC. You can also use the attached CAC Stickering Submission Form.
When made available, you will have the capability to do your submission forms entirely online. We can mail submission forms to members, if necessary, once they become available. _
Thank-you for that info,,,,,, I will proceed to do my submission by hand and I won't have to wait for an answer from the company to whom I am submitting the coins to.
I didn't say "C" coin. It could be PVC, putty, etc.
That’s the thing. Nobody will know why it didn’t sticker. It could be a C coin, it could be PVC. All you have to know is that it didn’t sticker. That’s not actionable and it creates no civil liability. I understand why CAC didn’t want to do it when they weren’t charging for coins that didn’t sticker. Now they appear to be charging for coins that don’t sticker. It’s kinda messed up to charge people for coins you’ve looked at before.
And if no one knows, they aren't going to take a chance. No TPGS releases such data. Dont you see why?
CAC Dealer submissions were charged previously, regardless of whether the coins stickered.
Now, both dealers and collectors will be charged a discounted fee for coins that don’t sticker.
PCGS and NGC charge for failed crossover attempts, no matter how many times the coins have been tried. And they charge for resubmissions of coins they’ve looked at before. In each case, CAC, NGC and PCGS are charging a fee for the service provided. Like it or not, it’s up to the owner of a coin, not the grading company, whether to publicize its previous known grading history.
Edited to add: So you know, I’m a strong proponent of full disclosure. When I had my own rare coin business, for my coins that I’d tried at CAC, which failed to sticker, I made note of that in my coin descriptions on my website and in my email lists of coin offerings.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
CAC wasn’t a grading company until recently. It was a third party reviewer of already graded coins and I don’t think the comparison is valid. When I’m buying a coin from Heritage, Stacks or GC and it isn’t already stickered, I’m making the reasonable assumption that it’s already been to CAC and failed, or that the auction house thought it was a C-grade coin and didn’t send it in. Now I know exactly why auction houses, dealers and collectors don’t want CAC failures publicized. It will lead to a lower value for those coins in the market. I also know why CAC doesn’t want that. They are a market maker, not a company catering to the needs of collectors. They operate within their dealer network and make their money that way, not off of their stickering service. Nobody wants to piss off their customers (the dealers). That would be phenomenally stupid.
My only comment is that it would be nice for a collector to know whether a coin has already failed before submitting it. Failing that, it would be nice to not be charged for the stickering service if all the person on the other end is doing is sticking the number into a database. Now if they are doing a de novo review and not paying attention to any previous decision not to sticker (which is what PCGS claims to do with crossovers), then it would be a different story.
So the expert grader's time and opinion have no value?
http://ProofCollection.Net
Of course it does, which is the reason why PCGS charges for looking at each submission even if it has been submitted before. Does CAC relook at coins that have already been rejected?
I hope so. I had a CAC coin that I had re-holdered. Then sent it back to CAC and it failed to sticker. I plan to send it back to CAC again.
http://ProofCollection.Net
Yes.
Source: https://help.cacgrading.com/support/solutions/articles/151000075970-cac-stickering-frequently-asked-questions