CACG coins will eliminate need for CAC review. CAC review has been available for PCGS & NGC coins. So investors will be able skip a step with CACG coins.
@cameonut2011 said:
By that logic, what was the point of CAC purportedly segregating out "A" and "B" that are allegedly a little nicer than the rest? In the old days, we just let the market sort out those things and sent a dealer to lot view.
I'm sure that you are aware of why CAC exists, the stickers were a way for JA to prescreen coins and identify those coins that he would like to buy when, or if, those coins came to auction or were offered for direct sale. It started as a mechanism for JA to buy and sell those coins he felt fit into the top of pile. The market for CAC beans then grew (much more so that anyone might have expected) into something larger as other collectors realized that it could be important.
I don't believe this is the true origins but I could be wrong or maybe a combination of this and what I seem to recall.
Laura Sperber was a true advocate on starting a service to rid the community of coin doctors and thus put together a team to combat against the bad seeds in the industry.
I'm sure we all know she had a lot to do with the birth of cac.
Can you explain in detail just how CAC has combatted coin doctoring, I have seen no legal battles between CAC and any alleged coin doctors. Nor have I seen CAC make any press releases on any doctored coins that they have reviewed or doctors that have been shut down because of no sticker. In order for that to be true CAC would have to identify those coins that they review which are doctored and then link those coins to a person or group, have you seen any evidence of that. CAC doesn't provide a list of failed coins regardless of the reason.
I do believe that you are correct that Legend was an investor in CAC, just as Legend is an investor in CACG, but I see no correlation to that and combating coin doctoring.
You can do some research here to very old threads about discussions on combatting coin doctors.
I'm certainly not going to spend extra time looking.
Got it, you are making a statement to support a position you want to believe but cannot provide any facts to support that. I've been a member here about the same amount of time you have, I've read many of those old threads in past years and do not recall any such link between CAC and battling coin doctors. I have no plans to do any research for you to support such a wild claim.
I think you're being too literal about the combat. The "battle" was more about separating the "original" coins with a sticker reward. They didn't ever go after individual doctors.
I really cannot say that I agree with this, but even if we agree that what you wrote is correct, that is more of a collateral effect and not part of the "mission" or reason that CAC was created as gtstang alluded to when he said that Laura was a part of the financial backing of CAC. After all JA can only sticker (or not sticker) the coins that are sent to him, what about all those doctored coins that have never been sent in for review, how has CAC had any impact on all those coins still out in the market.
That is the argument they made about "doctored coins". Again, as I said, combatting the problem consisted of elevating the original. That is/was a major purpose of the stickers.
You might want them to have done more or different. However that doesn't change what they have been doing.
I really think the CAC getting into a grading service is a mistake, and is unnecessary, except possibly for the people who are building sets of the most expensive 1-2% of U.S. coins that are out there.
I don't have an issue with someone getting another professional opinion on whether a coin is nice for the grade. But as someone else mentioned, the more you slice and dice grading, the more arbitrary it can get.
Over the last thirty years, the emphasis in our hobby has shifted more and more to the plastic and de-emphasized the coin. With different people grading coins, I have noticed changes in the opinions of graders over the years as well. The whole concept of "market acceptability," different standards for pre 1815 coins than more recent coinage, I can go on.
If money is no object, have at it. But if you want a nice coin for a specific grade, if you bought it 25 years ago, you should probably send it in for a regrade before selling it.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
@cameonut2011 said:
Also it will probably baffle most of you to learn that I am not anti-CACG either. I posted years ago that I wished JA would stop with the arbitrary "A" and "B" labels because collectors were using them improperly as a grading service, resulting in a number of accurately graded coins being treated as presumptive problem coins/numismatic lepers. At that time, I expressed my wish that he would start a conservative grading service that would hold the line against grade inflation. My frustration is that this ""A" and "B" coins only concept" is being carried over and it ignores the reality that actively graded C coins do exist and CACG, if it does what was suggested earlier in this thread, would intentionally under grade those coins resulting in even more ambiguity in grades and confuse the market even more so.
Bottom line, I wish he would drop the gimmick and have a normal grading service. He could identify C coins with a minus if he wishes but it makes no sense to under grade a coin any more than it does to over grade a coin. If JA would simply create a grading service that would apply traditional standards with a conservative approach and would hold the line against grade inflation, I would be a huge fan. Instead, it appears for now that we are still stuck with an insane system where a 65C is treated as worse or same as a 64 B coin which doesn't make much sense (assuming eye appeal and all other factors are equal). Put another way, it makes far more sense to have a system like {64-, 64, 64+, 65-, 65, 65+} that provides more information to the consumer than one where 64 through 65- are all labeled as 64s. The latter opens up the possibility of yet another sticker to separate 64++(65-) from 64+ and 64 coins.
There is logic to what you are saying. And I do agree with your 64- 64 64+. But aren’t the 64- coins going to be devalued in the collectors eye rightfully or wrongfully and be difficult to sell?
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
A 65C is not treated worse than a 64B is the 65C gets a 64+. I don't know where you're getting the idea that a 65C ends up lower than a 64B. It would not.
“Mr. Market” as you love to call it in other threads. The reality is you can take a 65C coin and downgrade it to 64 and get a CAC sticker and routinely and easily sell it for more than the same coin in a 65 holder. This is the basis of the reverse crack out game.
@cameonut2011 said:
Also it will probably baffle most of you to learn that I am not anti-CACG either. I posted years ago that I wished JA would stop with the arbitrary "A" and "B" labels because collectors were using them improperly as a grading service, resulting in a number of accurately graded coins being treated as presumptive problem coins/numismatic lepers. At that time, I expressed my wish that he would start a conservative grading service that would hold the line against grade inflation. My frustration is that this ""A" and "B" coins only concept" is being carried over and it ignores the reality that actively graded C coins do exist and CACG, if it does what was suggested earlier in this thread, would intentionally under grade those coins resulting in even more ambiguity in grades and confuse the market even more so.
Bottom line, I wish he would drop the gimmick and have a normal grading service. He could identify C coins with a minus if he wishes but it makes no sense to under grade a coin any more than it does to over grade a coin. If JA would simply create a grading service that would apply traditional standards with a conservative approach and would hold the line against grade inflation, I would be a huge fan. Instead, it appears for now that we are still stuck with an insane system where a 65C is treated as worse or same as a 64 B coin which doesn't make much sense (assuming eye appeal and all other factors are equal). Put another way, it makes far more sense to have a system like {64-, 64, 64+, 65-, 65, 65+} that provides more information to the consumer than one where 64 through 65- are all labeled as 64s. The latter opens up the possibility of yet another sticker to separate 64++(65-) from 64+ and 64 coins.
There is logic to what you are saying. And I do agree with your 64- 64 64+. But aren’t the 64- coins going to be devalued in the collectors eye rightfully or wrongfully and be difficult to sell?
64- coins should indeed sell for less than 64 or 64+ coins. They should not sell for less or be less liquid than 63 or 63+, but that is the reality.
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
A 65C is not treated worse than a 64B is the 65C gets a 64+. I don't know where you're getting the idea that a 65C ends up lower than a 64B. It would not.
“Mr. Market” as you love to call it in other threads. The reality is you can take a 65C coin and downgrade it to 64 and get a CAC sticker and routinely and easily sell it for more than the same coin in a 65 holder. This is the basis of the reverse crack out game.
A C coin is properly graded by the current more liberal standard. You wanted more conservative. That moves the line.
You are conflating a CACG coin with a pCGS/CAC coin. They are not necessarily the same thing in Mr. Market. That is yet to be determined. But your reverse crackout does not refute my point. If CACG turns a 65 C into a 64+ that is still a higher grade than a 64B not a lower grade. Sticker or no sticker.
@DeplorableDan said:
First batch of coins hitting the market. Grades look tight, in a good way. Some of those details coins don’t look like traditional details coins.
That is a lot of details grades. Almost looks like blast white = cleaned, which might have some truth to it. I wonder if any of these were in graded holders before sending them in?
Thanks for posting that @DeplorableDan I never go to DL coins. Interesting to see what is coming out and will be even more interesting to see what prices are paid. If people will pay $200-300 for a sample slab what will they pay for these?
I'm curious whether coins that cac rejects for too much chatter for grade, or other issues that are not straight grade killers would grade by them straight at a lower grade? And are those coins now showing up in their new holders? Grading services are making tough decisions all the time.
@pcgscacgold said:
Thanks for posting that @DeplorableDan I never go to DL coins. Interesting to see what is coming out and will be even more interesting to see what prices are paid. If people will pay $200-300 for a sample slab what will they pay for these?
in combination of being a limited group of coins with the registry grade on the holder, and the fact that some of them look like they will straight grade elsewhere, I surmise that some of those might set details coin records.
I agree @DeplorableDan There are a number of collectors out there that buy the holder, not the coin and they have done extremely well over the last 20 years. They have built amazing collections.
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
I think it’s quite possible that CAC has been “polite”. Just like Rick Snow with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal, both he and CAC may actually believe in their opinions that 65C coins aren’t correctly graded, but should properly have been graded at 64 (or in some cases 64+). Maybe I’m wrong, but I think I may be right!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
I think it’s quite possible that CAC has been “polite”. Just like Rick Snow with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal, both he and CAC may actually believe in their opinions that 65C coins aren’t correctly graded, but should properly have been graded at 64 (or in some cases 64+). Maybe I’m wrong, but I think I may be right!
Steve
Some of the 65C coins are certainly "problem" coins. JA has said as much. But since some of the 65C coins are not, they are careful to not demean them all.
It's really not that complicated. I'm not sure why people are trying to make it so complicated.
@Goldminers said: "That is a lot of details grades. Almost looks like blast white = cleaned, which might have some truth to it. I wonder if any of these were in graded holders before sending them in?"
The white MS details commens are interesting. They look like dipped out coins that would have straight graded as something like MS61 at PCGS.
I'm relatively sure cac has removed cac stickered coins from the market. It's great that they are professional enough to buy back mistakes. C coins and details coins have been and will end up with cac approval from time to time.
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
A 65C is not treated worse than a 64B is the 65C gets a 64+. I don't know where you're getting the idea that a 65C ends up lower than a 64B. It would not.
“Mr. Market” as you love to call it in other threads. The reality is you can take a 65C coin and downgrade it to 64 and get a CAC sticker and routinely and easily sell it for more than the same coin in a 65 holder. This is the basis of the reverse crack out game.
A C coin is properly graded by the current more liberal standard. You wanted more conservative. That moves the line.
You are conflating a CACG coin with a pCGS/CAC coin. They are not necessarily the same thing in Mr. Market. That is yet to be determined. But your reverse crackout does not refute my point. If CACG turns a 65 C into a 64+ that is still a higher grade than a 64B not a lower grade. Sticker or no sticker.
Redefining 65 C as a 64 is a wholesale redefining of that grade interval. That will only exacerbate confusion in the market.
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
I think it’s quite possible that CAC has been “polite”. Just like Rick Snow with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal, both he and CAC may actually believe in their opinions that 65C coins aren’t correctly graded, but should properly have been graded at 64 (or in some cases 64+). Maybe I’m wrong, but I think I may be right!
Steve
Some of the 65C coins are certainly "problem" coins. JA has said as much. But since some of the 65C coins are not, they are careful to not demean them all.
It's really not that complicated. I'm not sure why people are trying to make it so complicated.
Wrong. JA has defined “C” coins as accurately graded but low end for the interval. This is different than a problem coin.
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
I think it’s quite possible that CAC has been “polite”. Just like Rick Snow with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal, both he and CAC may actually believe in their opinions that 65C coins aren’t correctly graded, but should properly have been graded at 64 (or in some cases 64+). Maybe I’m wrong, but I think I may be right!
Steve
Some of the 65C coins are certainly "problem" coins. JA has said as much. But since some of the 65C coins are not, they are careful to not demean them all.
It's really not that complicated. I'm not sure why people are trying to make it so complicated.
Wrong. JA has defined “C” coins as accurately graded but low end for the interval. This is different than a problem coin.
I still think you're overcomplicating things, taking comments JA has said in interviews to be gospel when it might have been an on the fly answer when he's put on the spot. Im still of the belief that "ABC" was a delicate euphemism to avoid telling collectors that their coins are overgraded or cleaned. Of the coins that don't sticker, a large portion have surface issues and will be put in details holders. Many could be straight up over graded by a full point (We've seen plenty of those on the market), and that leaves a small percentage of "liners" that could probably go either way. I don't know about you, but I can't definitively identify a 63 "C". Those are coins that some gtg as 62 and other people would guess 63. I hardly believe that theres some conspiracy where they are intentionally under grading C coins, it's just semantics.
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
I think it’s quite possible that CAC has been “polite”. Just like Rick Snow with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal, both he and CAC may actually believe in their opinions that 65C coins aren’t correctly graded, but should properly have been graded at 64 (or in some cases 64+). Maybe I’m wrong, but I think I may be right!
Steve
Some of the 65C coins are certainly "problem" coins. JA has said as much. But since some of the 65C coins are not, they are careful to not demean them all.
It's really not that complicated. I'm not sure why people are trying to make it so complicated.
Wrong. JA has defined “C” coins as accurately graded but low end for the interval. This is different than a problem coin.
I fully agree defect-free C coins are VERY different from coins CAC defines as problem coins (which presumably CACG will place in Details holders). However:
I don’t believe that JA has said that ALL defect-free C coins are properly graded.
As I shared my opinion above, JA may just be trying to be polite, as I believe (just MY opinion) that JA likely feels that the vast majority of defect-free C coins SHOULD be graded lower, and that’s why when TPG holders that failed to CAC due to being defect-free C coins, if submitted for crossing, they’ll very likely be graded lower than the grade on the TPG holder!!!!!
Those that submit coins without stickers to CACG to cross at the same grade, using coins that have likely been previously submitted to CAC ($1,000 and above, with cert numbers not very recently graded). I truly believe VERY few of those will cross at the same grade!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
I will say, however, that based on what I seeing from the David Lawrence auction thread, I am liking the grading thus far. I am not seeing anything I would call undergraded but it does look a lot like the standards I learned to use in the 1990s before mega grade inflation.
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
A 65C is not treated worse than a 64B is the 65C gets a 64+. I don't know where you're getting the idea that a 65C ends up lower than a 64B. It would not.
“Mr. Market” as you love to call it in other threads. The reality is you can take a 65C coin and downgrade it to 64 and get a CAC sticker and routinely and easily sell it for more than the same coin in a 65 holder. This is the basis of the reverse crack out game.
A C coin is properly graded by the current more liberal standard. You wanted more conservative. That moves the line.
You are conflating a CACG coin with a pCGS/CAC coin. They are not necessarily the same thing in Mr. Market. That is yet to be determined. But your reverse crackout does not refute my point. If CACG turns a 65 C into a 64+ that is still a higher grade than a 64B not a lower grade. Sticker or no sticker.
Redefining 65 C as a 64 is a wholesale redefining of that grade interval. That will only exacerbate confusion in the market.
Then what do you mean by "conservative". If you want CACG to apply the PCGS standard they cannot be more conservative?????
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
I think it’s quite possible that CAC has been “polite”. Just like Rick Snow with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal, both he and CAC may actually believe in their opinions that 65C coins aren’t correctly graded, but should properly have been graded at 64 (or in some cases 64+). Maybe I’m wrong, but I think I may be right!
Steve
Some of the 65C coins are certainly "problem" coins. JA has said as much. But since some of the 65C coins are not, they are careful to not demean them all.
It's really not that complicated. I'm not sure why people are trying to make it so complicated.
Wrong. JA has defined “C” coins as accurately graded but low end for the interval. This is different than a problem coin.
This is deceptive if not outright false. There are defect free coins that don't sticker because they are "C" coins but still graded correctly. There are also non-CAC coins that are overgrades. And then there are problem coins. If you don't want to call them "C" coins that's fine.
I'm not sure why you are making this so complicated. Solid 65s will still be 65s. Marginal 65s may end up as 64+. Problem coins will end up in detail holders.
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
I think it’s quite possible that CAC has been “polite”. Just like Rick Snow with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal, both he and CAC may actually believe in their opinions that 65C coins aren’t correctly graded, but should properly have been graded at 64 (or in some cases 64+). Maybe I’m wrong, but I think I may be right!
Steve
Some of the 65C coins are certainly "problem" coins. JA has said as much. But since some of the 65C coins are not, they are careful to not demean them all.
It's really not that complicated. I'm not sure why people are trying to make it so complicated.
Wrong. JA has defined “C” coins as accurately graded but low end for the interval. This is different than a problem coin.
This is deceptive if not outright false. There are defect free coins that don't sticker because they are "C" coins but still graded correctly. There are also non-CAC coins that are overgrades. And then there are problem coins. If you don't want to call them "C" coins that's fine.
I'm not sure why you are making this so complicated. Solid 65s will still be 65s. Marginal 65s may end up as 64+. Problem coins will end up in detail holders.
The market is so erratic and complex that fractions of a point are translating into large differences in value percentage wise. It is not inconsequential.
"It's really not that complicated. I'm not sure why people are trying to make it so complicated."
"The coin is the same, only the subjective view of the grade on the label is different."
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
I think it’s quite possible that CAC has been “polite”. Just like Rick Snow with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal, both he and CAC may actually believe in their opinions that 65C coins aren’t correctly graded, but should properly have been graded at 64 (or in some cases 64+). Maybe I’m wrong, but I think I may be right!
Steve
Some of the 65C coins are certainly "problem" coins. JA has said as much. But since some of the 65C coins are not, they are careful to not demean them all.
It's really not that complicated. I'm not sure why people are trying to make it so complicated.
Wrong. JA has defined “C” coins as accurately graded but low end for the interval. This is different than a problem coin.
This is deceptive if not outright false. There are defect free coins that don't sticker because they are "C" coins but still graded correctly. There are also non-CAC coins that are overgrades. And then there are problem coins. If you don't want to call them "C" coins that's fine.
I'm not sure why you are making this so complicated. Solid 65s will still be 65s. Marginal 65s may end up as 64+. Problem coins will end up in detail holders.
Of course there are overgraded coins and problem coins. I never implied anything to the contrary. That’s your straw man argument. There are coins that would likely never sticker at any grade. There are also over graded coins. These make up only a portion of CAC rejects. JA has stated roughly 40% of submitted couns sticker. I also believe he has commented in interviews that about 10-15% of coins are overgraded or had problems. You do the math.
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
I think it’s quite possible that CAC has been “polite”. Just like Rick Snow with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal, both he and CAC may actually believe in their opinions that 65C coins aren’t correctly graded, but should properly have been graded at 64 (or in some cases 64+). Maybe I’m wrong, but I think I may be right!
Steve
Some of the 65C coins are certainly "problem" coins. JA has said as much. But since some of the 65C coins are not, they are careful to not demean them all.
It's really not that complicated. I'm not sure why people are trying to make it so complicated.
Wrong. JA has defined “C” coins as accurately graded but low end for the interval. This is different than a problem coin.
This is deceptive if not outright false. There are defect free coins that don't sticker because they are "C" coins but still graded correctly. There are also non-CAC coins that are overgrades. And then there are problem coins. If you don't want to call them "C" coins that's fine.
I'm not sure why you are making this so complicated. Solid 65s will still be 65s. Marginal 65s may end up as 64+. Problem coins will end up in detail holders.
Of course there are overgraded coins and problem coins. I never implied anything to the contrary. That’s your straw man argument. There are coins that would likely never sticker at any grade. There are also over graded coins. These make up only a portion of CAC rejects. JA has stated roughly 40% of submitted couns sticker. I also believe he has commented in interviews that about 10-15% of coins are overgraded or had problems. You do the math.
10-15% sounds entirely too low if we combine the problem coins AND the over graded coins. I think it's difficult for JA to accurately generalize those stats. Early Gold? I bet 2/3 that fail are because of surface manipulation or cleaning. (At least)
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
I think it’s quite possible that CAC has been “polite”. Just like Rick Snow with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal, both he and CAC may actually believe in their opinions that 65C coins aren’t correctly graded, but should properly have been graded at 64 (or in some cases 64+). Maybe I’m wrong, but I think I may be right!
Steve
Some of the 65C coins are certainly "problem" coins. JA has said as much. But since some of the 65C coins are not, they are careful to not demean them all.
It's really not that complicated. I'm not sure why people are trying to make it so complicated.
Wrong. JA has defined “C” coins as accurately graded but low end for the interval. This is different than a problem coin.
This is deceptive if not outright false. There are defect free coins that don't sticker because they are "C" coins but still graded correctly. There are also non-CAC coins that are overgrades. And then there are problem coins. If you don't want to call them "C" coins that's fine.
I'm not sure why you are making this so complicated. Solid 65s will still be 65s. Marginal 65s may end up as 64+. Problem coins will end up in detail holders.
Of course there are overgraded coins and problem coins. I never implied anything to the contrary. That’s your straw man argument. There are coins that would likely never sticker at any grade. There are also over graded coins. These make up only a portion of CAC rejects. JA has stated roughly 40% of submitted couns sticker. I also believe he has commented in interviews that about 10-15% of coins are overgraded or had problems. You do the math.
You might want to research what a straw man argument is. That isn't one.
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
I think it’s quite possible that CAC has been “polite”. Just like Rick Snow with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal, both he and CAC may actually believe in their opinions that 65C coins aren’t correctly graded, but should properly have been graded at 64 (or in some cases 64+). Maybe I’m wrong, but I think I may be right!
Steve
Some of the 65C coins are certainly "problem" coins. JA has said as much. But since some of the 65C coins are not, they are careful to not demean them all.
It's really not that complicated. I'm not sure why people are trying to make it so complicated.
Wrong. JA has defined “C” coins as accurately graded but low end for the interval. This is different than a problem coin.
This is deceptive if not outright false. There are defect free coins that don't sticker because they are "C" coins but still graded correctly. There are also non-CAC coins that are overgrades. And then there are problem coins. If you don't want to call them "C" coins that's fine.
I'm not sure why you are making this so complicated. Solid 65s will still be 65s. Marginal 65s may end up as 64+. Problem coins will end up in detail holders.
The market is so erratic and complex that fractions of a point are translating into large differences in value percentage wise. It is not inconsequential.
It's irrelevant. An NGC 66 often sells differently than a PCGS 66 and an ANACS 66. So, regardless of the specific number on the holder, the market will figure out how to value the coin.
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
I think it’s quite possible that CAC has been “polite”. Just like Rick Snow with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal, both he and CAC may actually believe in their opinions that 65C coins aren’t correctly graded, but should properly have been graded at 64 (or in some cases 64+). Maybe I’m wrong, but I think I may be right!
Steve
Some of the 65C coins are certainly "problem" coins. JA has said as much. But since some of the 65C coins are not, they are careful to not demean them all.
It's really not that complicated. I'm not sure why people are trying to make it so complicated.
Wrong. JA has defined “C” coins as accurately graded but low end for the interval. This is different than a problem coin.
This is deceptive if not outright false. There are defect free coins that don't sticker because they are "C" coins but still graded correctly. There are also non-CAC coins that are overgrades. And then there are problem coins. If you don't want to call them "C" coins that's fine.
I'm not sure why you are making this so complicated. Solid 65s will still be 65s. Marginal 65s may end up as 64+. Problem coins will end up in detail holders.
Of course there are overgraded coins and problem coins. I never implied anything to the contrary. That’s your straw man argument. There are coins that would likely never sticker at any grade. There are also over graded coins. These make up only a portion of CAC rejects. JA has stated roughly 40% of submitted couns sticker. I also believe he has commented in interviews that about 10-15% of coins are overgraded or had problems. You do the math.
10-15% sounds entirely too low if we combine the problem coins AND the over graded coins. I think it's difficult for JA to accurately generalize those stats. Early Gold? I bet 2/3 that fail are because of surface manipulation or cleaning. (At least)
I bet that 1/3 of the 2/3 of early gold coins that don’t sticker aside from JA and a few others nobody really knows why.
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
I think it’s quite possible that CAC has been “polite”. Just like Rick Snow with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal, both he and CAC may actually believe in their opinions that 65C coins aren’t correctly graded, but should properly have been graded at 64 (or in some cases 64+). Maybe I’m wrong, but I think I may be right!
Steve
Some of the 65C coins are certainly "problem" coins. JA has said as much. But since some of the 65C coins are not, they are careful to not demean them all.
It's really not that complicated. I'm not sure why people are trying to make it so complicated.
Wrong. JA has defined “C” coins as accurately graded but low end for the interval. This is different than a problem coin.
This is deceptive if not outright false. There are defect free coins that don't sticker because they are "C" coins but still graded correctly. There are also non-CAC coins that are overgrades. And then there are problem coins. If you don't want to call them "C" coins that's fine.
I'm not sure why you are making this so complicated. Solid 65s will still be 65s. Marginal 65s may end up as 64+. Problem coins will end up in detail holders.
Of course there are overgraded coins and problem coins. I never implied anything to the contrary. That’s your straw man argument. There are coins that would likely never sticker at any grade. There are also over graded coins. These make up only a portion of CAC rejects. JA has stated roughly 40% of submitted couns sticker. I also believe he has commented in interviews that about 10-15% of coins are overgraded or had problems. You do the math.
10-15% sounds entirely too low if we combine the problem coins AND the over graded coins. I think it's difficult for JA to accurately generalize those stats. Early Gold? I bet 2/3 that fail are because of surface manipulation or cleaning. (At least)
If 30% fail, 2/3 of 30% is 20% of all coins. I think you're talking about 2 different percentages: percent of all coins vs percentage of failures.
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
I think it’s quite possible that CAC has been “polite”. Just like Rick Snow with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal, both he and CAC may actually believe in their opinions that 65C coins aren’t correctly graded, but should properly have been graded at 64 (or in some cases 64+). Maybe I’m wrong, but I think I may be right!
Steve
Some of the 65C coins are certainly "problem" coins. JA has said as much. But since some of the 65C coins are not, they are careful to not demean them all.
It's really not that complicated. I'm not sure why people are trying to make it so complicated.
Wrong. JA has defined “C” coins as accurately graded but low end for the interval. This is different than a problem coin.
This is deceptive if not outright false. There are defect free coins that don't sticker because they are "C" coins but still graded correctly. There are also non-CAC coins that are overgrades. And then there are problem coins. If you don't want to call them "C" coins that's fine.
I'm not sure why you are making this so complicated. Solid 65s will still be 65s. Marginal 65s may end up as 64+. Problem coins will end up in detail holders.
Of course there are overgraded coins and problem coins. I never implied anything to the contrary. That’s your straw man argument. There are coins that would likely never sticker at any grade. There are also over graded coins. These make up only a portion of CAC rejects. JA has stated roughly 40% of submitted couns sticker. I also believe he has commented in interviews that about 10-15% of coins are overgraded or had problems. You do the math.
10-15% sounds entirely too low if we combine the problem coins AND the over graded coins. I think it's difficult for JA to accurately generalize those stats. Early Gold? I bet 2/3 that fail are because of surface manipulation or cleaning. (At least)
If 30% fail, 2/3 of 30% is 20% of all coins. I think you're talking about 2 different percentages: percent of all coins vs percentage of failures.
I meant percentage of failed coins. And we said 40% of coins pass, so that leaves 60% of total coins that don't pass. I would not at all be surprised 2/3 of that 60% are because of cleaning or surfaces when talking about early gold. The other 1/3? Who the heck knows.
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
I think it’s quite possible that CAC has been “polite”. Just like Rick Snow with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal, both he and CAC may actually believe in their opinions that 65C coins aren’t correctly graded, but should properly have been graded at 64 (or in some cases 64+). Maybe I’m wrong, but I think I may be right!
Steve
Some of the 65C coins are certainly "problem" coins. JA has said as much. But since some of the 65C coins are not, they are careful to not demean them all.
It's really not that complicated. I'm not sure why people are trying to make it so complicated.
Wrong. JA has defined “C” coins as accurately graded but low end for the interval. This is different than a problem coin.
This is deceptive if not outright false. There are defect free coins that don't sticker because they are "C" coins but still graded correctly. There are also non-CAC coins that are overgrades. And then there are problem coins. If you don't want to call them "C" coins that's fine.
I'm not sure why you are making this so complicated. Solid 65s will still be 65s. Marginal 65s may end up as 64+. Problem coins will end up in detail holders.
Of course there are overgraded coins and problem coins. I never implied anything to the contrary. That’s your straw man argument. There are coins that would likely never sticker at any grade. There are also over graded coins. These make up only a portion of CAC rejects. JA has stated roughly 40% of submitted couns sticker. I also believe he has commented in interviews that about 10-15% of coins are overgraded or had problems. You do the math.
10-15% sounds entirely too low if we combine the problem coins AND the over graded coins. I think it's difficult for JA to accurately generalize those stats. Early Gold? I bet 2/3 that fail are because of surface manipulation or cleaning. (At least)
If 30% fail, 2/3 of 30% is 20% of all coins. I think you're talking about 2 different percentages: percent of all coins vs percentage of failures.
I meant percentage of failed coins.
I know. But I believe his 10-15% referred to all coins submitted.
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
I think it’s quite possible that CAC has been “polite”. Just like Rick Snow with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal, both he and CAC may actually believe in their opinions that 65C coins aren’t correctly graded, but should properly have been graded at 64 (or in some cases 64+). Maybe I’m wrong, but I think I may be right!
Steve
Some of the 65C coins are certainly "problem" coins. JA has said as much. But since some of the 65C coins are not, they are careful to not demean them all.
It's really not that complicated. I'm not sure why people are trying to make it so complicated.
Wrong. JA has defined “C” coins as accurately graded but low end for the interval. This is different than a problem coin.
This is deceptive if not outright false. There are defect free coins that don't sticker because they are "C" coins but still graded correctly. There are also non-CAC coins that are overgrades. And then there are problem coins. If you don't want to call them "C" coins that's fine.
I'm not sure why you are making this so complicated. Solid 65s will still be 65s. Marginal 65s may end up as 64+. Problem coins will end up in detail holders.
Of course there are overgraded coins and problem coins. I never implied anything to the contrary. That’s your straw man argument. There are coins that would likely never sticker at any grade. There are also over graded coins. These make up only a portion of CAC rejects. JA has stated roughly 40% of submitted couns sticker. I also believe he has commented in interviews that about 10-15% of coins are overgraded or had problems. You do the math.
10-15% sounds entirely too low if we combine the problem coins AND the over graded coins. I think it's difficult for JA to accurately generalize those stats. Early Gold? I bet 2/3 that fail are because of surface manipulation or cleaning. (At least)
If 30% fail, 2/3 of 30% is 20% of all coins. I think you're talking about 2 different percentages: percent of all coins vs percentage of failures.
I meant percentage of failed coins.
I know. But I believe his 10-15% referred to all coins submitted.
Ok ok, sure. But the way I interpreted it was he was saying that 40% of coins pass, and only 10-15% have surface problems or are overgraded? Leaving 45-50% of all coins as "accurately graded c coins"? I don't buy that.
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
I think it’s quite possible that CAC has been “polite”. Just like Rick Snow with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal, both he and CAC may actually believe in their opinions that 65C coins aren’t correctly graded, but should properly have been graded at 64 (or in some cases 64+). Maybe I’m wrong, but I think I may be right!
Steve
Some of the 65C coins are certainly "problem" coins. JA has said as much. But since some of the 65C coins are not, they are careful to not demean them all.
It's really not that complicated. I'm not sure why people are trying to make it so complicated.
Wrong. JA has defined “C” coins as accurately graded but low end for the interval. This is different than a problem coin.
This is deceptive if not outright false. There are defect free coins that don't sticker because they are "C" coins but still graded correctly. There are also non-CAC coins that are overgrades. And then there are problem coins. If you don't want to call them "C" coins that's fine.
I'm not sure why you are making this so complicated. Solid 65s will still be 65s. Marginal 65s may end up as 64+. Problem coins will end up in detail holders.
Of course there are overgraded coins and problem coins. I never implied anything to the contrary. That’s your straw man argument. There are coins that would likely never sticker at any grade. There are also over graded coins. These make up only a portion of CAC rejects. JA has stated roughly 40% of submitted couns sticker. I also believe he has commented in interviews that about 10-15% of coins are overgraded or had problems. You do the math.
10-15% sounds entirely too low if we combine the problem coins AND the over graded coins. I think it's difficult for JA to accurately generalize those stats. Early Gold? I bet 2/3 that fail are because of surface manipulation or cleaning. (At least)
I bet that 1/3 of the 2/3 of early gold coins that don’t sticker aside from JA and a few others nobody really knows why.
But just because I don’t have the skills to know why, as a buyer I’m still just as concerned that the coin failed. I’m convinced there’s a legitimate reason in the opinion of CAC (or CACG) for that failure. I don’t believe they fail coins for no legitimate reason.
If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody hears it, does that mean it didn’t fall? I believe it did fall!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
I think it’s quite possible that CAC has been “polite”. Just like Rick Snow with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal, both he and CAC may actually believe in their opinions that 65C coins aren’t correctly graded, but should properly have been graded at 64 (or in some cases 64+). Maybe I’m wrong, but I think I may be right!
Steve
Some of the 65C coins are certainly "problem" coins. JA has said as much. But since some of the 65C coins are not, they are careful to not demean them all.
It's really not that complicated. I'm not sure why people are trying to make it so complicated.
Wrong. JA has defined “C” coins as accurately graded but low end for the interval. This is different than a problem coin.
This is deceptive if not outright false. There are defect free coins that don't sticker because they are "C" coins but still graded correctly. There are also non-CAC coins that are overgrades. And then there are problem coins. If you don't want to call them "C" coins that's fine.
I'm not sure why you are making this so complicated. Solid 65s will still be 65s. Marginal 65s may end up as 64+. Problem coins will end up in detail holders.
Of course there are overgraded coins and problem coins. I never implied anything to the contrary. That’s your straw man argument. There are coins that would likely never sticker at any grade. There are also over graded coins. These make up only a portion of CAC rejects. JA has stated roughly 40% of submitted couns sticker. I also believe he has commented in interviews that about 10-15% of coins are overgraded or had problems. You do the math.
10-15% sounds entirely too low if we combine the problem coins AND the over graded coins. I think it's difficult for JA to accurately generalize those stats. Early Gold? I bet 2/3 that fail are because of surface manipulation or cleaning. (At least)
I bet that 1/3 of the 2/3 of early gold coins that don’t sticker aside from JA and a few others nobody really knows why.
But just because I don’t have the skills to know why, as a buyer I’m still just as concerned that the coin failed. I’m convinced there’s a legitimate reason in the opinion of CAC (or CACG) for that failure. I don’t believe they fail coins for no legitimate reason.
If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody hears it, does that mean it didn’t fall? I believe it did fall!
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
I think it’s quite possible that CAC has been “polite”. Just like Rick Snow with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal, both he and CAC may actually believe in their opinions that 65C coins aren’t correctly graded, but should properly have been graded at 64 (or in some cases 64+). Maybe I’m wrong, but I think I may be right!
Steve
Some of the 65C coins are certainly "problem" coins. JA has said as much. But since some of the 65C coins are not, they are careful to not demean them all.
It's really not that complicated. I'm not sure why people are trying to make it so complicated.
Wrong. JA has defined “C” coins as accurately graded but low end for the interval. This is different than a problem coin.
This is deceptive if not outright false. There are defect free coins that don't sticker because they are "C" coins but still graded correctly. There are also non-CAC coins that are overgrades. And then there are problem coins. If you don't want to call them "C" coins that's fine.
I'm not sure why you are making this so complicated. Solid 65s will still be 65s. Marginal 65s may end up as 64+. Problem coins will end up in detail holders.
Of course there are overgraded coins and problem coins. I never implied anything to the contrary. That’s your straw man argument. There are coins that would likely never sticker at any grade. There are also over graded coins. These make up only a portion of CAC rejects. JA has stated roughly 40% of submitted couns sticker. I also believe he has commented in interviews that about 10-15% of coins are overgraded or had problems. You do the math.
10-15% sounds entirely too low if we combine the problem coins AND the over graded coins. I think it's difficult for JA to accurately generalize those stats. Early Gold? I bet 2/3 that fail are because of surface manipulation or cleaning. (At least)
If 30% fail, 2/3 of 30% is 20% of all coins. I think you're talking about 2 different percentages: percent of all coins vs percentage of failures.
I meant percentage of failed coins.
I know. But I believe his 10-15% referred to all coins submitted.
Ok ok, sure. But the way I interpreted it was he was saying that 40% of coins pass, and only 10-15% have surface problems or are overgraded? Leaving 45-50% of all coins as "accurately graded c coins"? I don't buy that.
No. The math will be skewed because coins submitted represent a skewed sample and necessarily a representation of the larger pool of coins. My point was that not all of the 60% of CAC are problem coins. The data points suggest there are indeed a good number of low end but accurate for the grade coins that fail. At CAC, these were rejected and people would then throw out the baby with the bath water. With CACG these are now called 64s and are magically now desirable and worth more than when accurately graded as 65. This makes no sense. 🤔
No. The math will be skewed because coins submitted represent a skewed sample and necessarily a representation of the larger pool of coins. My point was that not all of the 60% of CAC are problem coins. The data points suggest there are indeed a good number of low end but accurate for the grade coins that fail. At CAC, these were rejected and people would then throw out the baby with the bath water.
Agree mostly, but I believe the percentage of "problem" coins (Cleaned, Artificially colored, puttied, tooled, scratched, pvc) is much higher than you originally suggested. Also as I said earlier, I think JA was being coy when he said that so many coins are "accurately graded". I believe his actual opinion differs.
With CACG these are now called 64s and are magically now desirable and worth more than when accurately graded as 65. This makes no sense. 🤔
Conjecture for now. Let's revisit in a month or two.
As noted earlier, our point is that the defect-free 65C coins that failed to sticker at CAC could very likely be coins that CAC silently believes were NOT accurately graded. Obviously, we disagree on that very important key point!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
As noted earlier, our point is that the defect-free 65C coins that failed to sticker at CAC could very likely be coins that CAC silently believes were NOT accurately graded. Obviously, we disagree on that very important key point!
Steve
JA as much as stated on the old CAC website that there are many accurately graded (his words) coins that fail to sticker because they are low end. To call them all over graded might be what some wish to think, but it doesn’t represent reality of CAC’s own statements.
The reality could indeed be he was being polite. Unlike Rick Snow, who comes right out and says (in his opinion) that over grading of Flying Eagle and Indian Cents is a rampant problem, JA is more diplomatic.
You and I will each believe as we choose. I choose to believe that JA feels that defect-free coins that didn’t sticker were due to him feeling they did not merit the grade on the label, which is EXACTLY how Rick Snow feels about the coins in his specialty. This belief of JA is backed up by the fact that now that JA has to actually have those C coins graded at CACG, they’ll mostly be getting graded not at the grade on the holder, but lower!
I recognize you choose to believe that JA believes that the majority of defect-free C coins are properly graded (although at the lower end). Since there are always going to be lower end coins for every grading system, how do you explain the action CACG will be taking if what you say about JA’s belief is actually true?
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@nexlevelnmx said:
So confused on why we need CACG since it will take time for a market to grow around them since PCGS has that on top and will, they are the best
You see we have this thing called Capitalism. It allows any number of grading companies to operate if they can make money. In order for them to make money they need to earn your trust. Too much trust in PCGS and NGC has allowed this to come about. I've long thought we have needed an adjustment especially when PCGS has employed some major dealers as expert advisors over the years causing IMO a conflict of interest.
@jmlanzaf said:
If you wanted a more conservative grading company, they would have to relegate PCGS/NGC "C coins" to a lower grade or they AREN'T more conservative. More conservative grading means the standard for a 65 has to be higher.
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
I think it’s quite possible that CAC has been “polite”. Just like Rick Snow with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal, both he and CAC may actually believe in their opinions that 65C coins aren’t correctly graded, but should properly have been graded at 64 (or in some cases 64+). Maybe I’m wrong, but I think I may be right!
Steve
Some of the 65C coins are certainly "problem" coins. JA has said as much. But since some of the 65C coins are not, they are careful to not demean them all.
It's really not that complicated. I'm not sure why people are trying to make it so complicated.
Wrong. JA has defined “C” coins as accurately graded but low end for the interval. This is different than a problem coin.
This is deceptive if not outright false. There are defect free coins that don't sticker because they are "C" coins but still graded correctly. There are also non-CAC coins that are overgrades. And then there are problem coins. If you don't want to call them "C" coins that's fine.
I'm not sure why you are making this so complicated. Solid 65s will still be 65s. Marginal 65s may end up as 64+. Problem coins will end up in detail holders.
Of course there are overgraded coins and problem coins. I never implied anything to the contrary. That’s your straw man argument. There are coins that would likely never sticker at any grade. There are also over graded coins. These make up only a portion of CAC rejects. JA has stated roughly 40% of submitted couns sticker. I also believe he has commented in interviews that about 10-15% of coins are overgraded or had problems. You do the math.
10-15% sounds entirely too low if we combine the problem coins AND the over graded coins. I think it's difficult for JA to accurately generalize those stats. Early Gold? I bet 2/3 that fail are because of surface manipulation or cleaning. (At least)
If 30% fail, 2/3 of 30% is 20% of all coins. I think you're talking about 2 different percentages: percent of all coins vs percentage of failures.
I meant percentage of failed coins.
I know. But I believe his 10-15% referred to all coins submitted.
Ok ok, sure. But the way I interpreted it was he was saying that 40% of coins pass, and only 10-15% have surface problems or are overgraded? Leaving 45-50% of all coins as "accurately graded c coins"? I don't buy that.
No. The math will be skewed because coins submitted represent a skewed sample and necessarily a representation of the larger pool of coins. My point was that not all of the 60% of CAC are problem coins. The data points suggest there are indeed a good number of low end but accurate for the grade coins that fail. At CAC, these were rejected and people would then throw out the baby with the bath water. With CACG these are now called 64s and are magically now desirable and worth more than when accurately graded as 65. This makes no sense. 🤔
You have less than zero evidence that the former 65 that is now a CACG 64 will be worth more.
And a CACG 64 is NOT a PCGS 64 CAC. You appear to be conflating the grading company with the sticker.
@nexlevelnmx said:
So confused on why we need CACG since it will take time for a market to grow around them since PCGS has that on top and will, they are the best
Perhaps because CACG feels they can be more consistent, and also possibly slightly more conservative?
Unlike PCGS and NGC, CACG is spending millions of dollars putting grading sets together to help maintain that consistency. That should help, and lacking those sets MIGHT be one of the reasons for the lack of consistency over time at the other TPG’s? Those sets will at some point be brought to large shows for collectors and dealers to see, and learn. I think that’s good!
Why is a grading set more useful or valuable than PCGS photovision? Both define a standard equally, just one is physical and one is virtual. Although I would argue that Photovision is much more accessible and useful than the CAC grading set that someone would have to get up out of their chair and physically stand in front of to make any use of.
@Cougar1978 said:
No CACG coins will eliminate need for CAC review. CAC review has been available for PCGS & NGC coins. So investors will be able skip a step with CACG coins.
Not really. Investors/Collectors are back to just getting one opinion instead of two if they choose CACG. I do expect PCGS and/or NGC to get into the review/sticker game. Might as well.
It would be interesting if CAC or CACG labeled coins that didn’t pass but are just overgraded with no issues with a C sticker rather than body bag them. Than you would have A coins as plus B as solid and C coins, making needless dropping them a grade, unless very over graded
@nexlevelnmx said:
So confused on why we need CACG since it will take time for a market to grow around them since PCGS has that on top and will, they are the best
Perhaps because CACG feels they can be more consistent, and also possibly slightly more conservative?
Unlike PCGS and NGC, CACG is spending millions of dollars putting grading sets together to help maintain that consistency. That should help, and lacking those sets MIGHT be one of the reasons for the lack of consistency over time at the other TPG’s? Those sets will at some point be brought to large shows for collectors and dealers to see, and learn. I think that’s good!
Why is a grading set more useful or valuable than PCGS photovision? Both define a standard equally, just one is physical and one is virtual. Although I would argue that Photovision is much more accessible and useful than the CAC grading set that someone would have to get up out of their chair and physically stand in front of to make any use of.
For one, if photovision has worked so well, then why does there seem to be a general consensus that PCGS grading is more liberal now than in the past? Please explain.
Secondly, I believe most in our industry believe that despite todays high resolution photos, having a coin in hand is superior for examination. Do you disagree?
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
Comments
There is no reason why they should.
CACG coins will eliminate need for CAC review. CAC review has been available for PCGS & NGC coins. So investors will be able skip a step with CACG coins.
That is the argument they made about "doctored coins". Again, as I said, combatting the problem consisted of elevating the original. That is/was a major purpose of the stickers.
You might want them to have done more or different. However that doesn't change what they have been doing.
I really think the CAC getting into a grading service is a mistake, and is unnecessary, except possibly for the people who are building sets of the most expensive 1-2% of U.S. coins that are out there.
I don't have an issue with someone getting another professional opinion on whether a coin is nice for the grade. But as someone else mentioned, the more you slice and dice grading, the more arbitrary it can get.
Over the last thirty years, the emphasis in our hobby has shifted more and more to the plastic and de-emphasized the coin. With different people grading coins, I have noticed changes in the opinions of graders over the years as well. The whole concept of "market acceptability," different standards for pre 1815 coins than more recent coinage, I can go on.
If money is no object, have at it. But if you want a nice coin for a specific grade, if you bought it 25 years ago, you should probably send it in for a regrade before selling it.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
There is logic to what you are saying. And I do agree with your 64- 64 64+. But aren’t the 64- coins going to be devalued in the collectors eye rightfully or wrongfully and be difficult to sell?
No a C coin is properly graded as is but is on the lower end of the spectrum. There are also over graded and problem coins (which I’ll call D and F quality coins). Look at how badly the standards have slipped on keydate coins since the 1990s. Also friction on mint state coins and problem coins are increasingly common place.
“Mr. Market” as you love to call it in other threads. The reality is you can take a 65C coin and downgrade it to 64 and get a CAC sticker and routinely and easily sell it for more than the same coin in a 65 holder. This is the basis of the reverse crack out game.
Splitting hairs. The coin is the same, only the subjective view of the grade on the label is different.
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
64- coins should indeed sell for less than 64 or 64+ coins. They should not sell for less or be less liquid than 63 or 63+, but that is the reality.
A C coin is properly graded by the current more liberal standard. You wanted more conservative. That moves the line.
You are conflating a CACG coin with a pCGS/CAC coin. They are not necessarily the same thing in Mr. Market. That is yet to be determined. But your reverse crackout does not refute my point. If CACG turns a 65 C into a 64+ that is still a higher grade than a 64B not a lower grade. Sticker or no sticker.
First batch of coins hitting the market. Grades look tight, in a good way. Some of those details coins don’t look like traditional details coins.
https://www.davidlawrence.com/search/CACG
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
That is a lot of details grades. Almost looks like blast white = cleaned, which might have some truth to it. I wonder if any of these were in graded holders before sending them in?
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
Thanks for posting that @DeplorableDan I never go to DL coins. Interesting to see what is coming out and will be even more interesting to see what prices are paid. If people will pay $200-300 for a sample slab what will they pay for these?
Successful BST with drddm, BustDMs, Pnies20, lkeigwin, pursuitofliberty, Bullsitter, felinfoel, SPalladino
$5 Type Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/type-sets/half-eagle-type-set-circulation-strikes-1795-1929/album/344192
CBH Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/everyman-collections/everyman-half-dollars/everyman-capped-bust-half-dollars-1807-1839/album/345572
I'm curious whether coins that cac rejects for too much chatter for grade, or other issues that are not straight grade killers would grade by them straight at a lower grade? And are those coins now showing up in their new holders? Grading services are making tough decisions all the time.
in combination of being a limited group of coins with the registry grade on the holder, and the fact that some of them look like they will straight grade elsewhere, I surmise that some of those might set details coin records.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I agree @DeplorableDan There are a number of collectors out there that buy the holder, not the coin and they have done extremely well over the last 20 years. They have built amazing collections.
Successful BST with drddm, BustDMs, Pnies20, lkeigwin, pursuitofliberty, Bullsitter, felinfoel, SPalladino
$5 Type Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/type-sets/half-eagle-type-set-circulation-strikes-1795-1929/album/344192
CBH Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/everyman-collections/everyman-half-dollars/everyman-capped-bust-half-dollars-1807-1839/album/345572
I think it’s quite possible that CAC has been “polite”. Just like Rick Snow with his Eagle Eye Photo Seal, both he and CAC may actually believe in their opinions that 65C coins aren’t correctly graded, but should properly have been graded at 64 (or in some cases 64+). Maybe I’m wrong, but I think I may be right!
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
Some of the 65C coins are certainly "problem" coins. JA has said as much. But since some of the 65C coins are not, they are careful to not demean them all.
It's really not that complicated. I'm not sure why people are trying to make it so complicated.
@Goldminers said: "That is a lot of details grades. Almost looks like blast white = cleaned, which might have some truth to it. I wonder if any of these were in graded holders before sending them in?"
The white MS details commens are interesting. They look like dipped out coins that would have straight graded as something like MS61 at PCGS.
I'm relatively sure cac has removed cac stickered coins from the market. It's great that they are professional enough to buy back mistakes. C coins and details coins have been and will end up with cac approval from time to time.
Redefining 65 C as a 64 is a wholesale redefining of that grade interval. That will only exacerbate confusion in the market.
Wrong. JA has defined “C” coins as accurately graded but low end for the interval. This is different than a problem coin.
I still think you're overcomplicating things, taking comments JA has said in interviews to be gospel when it might have been an on the fly answer when he's put on the spot. Im still of the belief that "ABC" was a delicate euphemism to avoid telling collectors that their coins are overgraded or cleaned. Of the coins that don't sticker, a large portion have surface issues and will be put in details holders. Many could be straight up over graded by a full point (We've seen plenty of those on the market), and that leaves a small percentage of "liners" that could probably go either way. I don't know about you, but I can't definitively identify a 63 "C". Those are coins that some gtg as 62 and other people would guess 63. I hardly believe that theres some conspiracy where they are intentionally under grading C coins, it's just semantics.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I fully agree defect-free C coins are VERY different from coins CAC defines as problem coins (which presumably CACG will place in Details holders). However:
Those that submit coins without stickers to CACG to cross at the same grade, using coins that have likely been previously submitted to CAC ($1,000 and above, with cert numbers not very recently graded). I truly believe VERY few of those will cross at the same grade!
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
I will say, however, that based on what I seeing from the David Lawrence auction thread, I am liking the grading thus far. I am not seeing anything I would call undergraded but it does look a lot like the standards I learned to use in the 1990s before mega grade inflation.
Then what do you mean by "conservative". If you want CACG to apply the PCGS standard they cannot be more conservative?????
This is deceptive if not outright false. There are defect free coins that don't sticker because they are "C" coins but still graded correctly. There are also non-CAC coins that are overgrades. And then there are problem coins. If you don't want to call them "C" coins that's fine.
I'm not sure why you are making this so complicated. Solid 65s will still be 65s. Marginal 65s may end up as 64+. Problem coins will end up in detail holders.
The market is so erratic and complex that fractions of a point are translating into large differences in value percentage wise. It is not inconsequential.
"It's really not that complicated. I'm not sure why people are trying to make it so complicated."
"The coin is the same, only the subjective view of the grade on the label is different."
Of course there are overgraded coins and problem coins. I never implied anything to the contrary. That’s your straw man argument. There are coins that would likely never sticker at any grade. There are also over graded coins. These make up only a portion of CAC rejects. JA has stated roughly 40% of submitted couns sticker. I also believe he has commented in interviews that about 10-15% of coins are overgraded or had problems. You do the math.
10-15% sounds entirely too low if we combine the problem coins AND the over graded coins. I think it's difficult for JA to accurately generalize those stats. Early Gold? I bet 2/3 that fail are because of surface manipulation or cleaning. (At least)
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
You might want to research what a straw man argument is. That isn't one.
It's irrelevant. An NGC 66 often sells differently than a PCGS 66 and an ANACS 66. So, regardless of the specific number on the holder, the market will figure out how to value the coin.
I bet that 1/3 of the 2/3 of early gold coins that don’t sticker aside from JA and a few others nobody really knows why.
If 30% fail, 2/3 of 30% is 20% of all coins. I think you're talking about 2 different percentages: percent of all coins vs percentage of failures.
I meant percentage of failed coins. And we said 40% of coins pass, so that leaves 60% of total coins that don't pass. I would not at all be surprised 2/3 of that 60% are because of cleaning or surfaces when talking about early gold. The other 1/3? Who the heck knows.
My point was that 10-15% sounded too low.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I know. But I believe his 10-15% referred to all coins submitted.
Ok ok, sure. But the way I interpreted it was he was saying that 40% of coins pass, and only 10-15% have surface problems or are overgraded? Leaving 45-50% of all coins as "accurately graded c coins"? I don't buy that.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
But just because I don’t have the skills to know why, as a buyer I’m still just as concerned that the coin failed. I’m convinced there’s a legitimate reason in the opinion of CAC (or CACG) for that failure. I don’t believe they fail coins for no legitimate reason.
If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody hears it, does that mean it didn’t fall? I believe it did fall!
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
I agree with you. I was trying to be sarcastic.
No. The math will be skewed because coins submitted represent a skewed sample and necessarily a representation of the larger pool of coins. My point was that not all of the 60% of CAC are problem coins. The data points suggest there are indeed a good number of low end but accurate for the grade coins that fail. At CAC, these were rejected and people would then throw out the baby with the bath water. With CACG these are now called 64s and are magically now desirable and worth more than when accurately graded as 65. This makes no sense. 🤔
Agree mostly, but I believe the percentage of "problem" coins (Cleaned, Artificially colored, puttied, tooled, scratched, pvc) is much higher than you originally suggested. Also as I said earlier, I think JA was being coy when he said that so many coins are "accurately graded". I believe his actual opinion differs.
Conjecture for now. Let's revisit in a month or two.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
As noted earlier, our point is that the defect-free 65C coins that failed to sticker at CAC could very likely be coins that CAC silently believes were NOT accurately graded. Obviously, we disagree on that very important key point!
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
JA as much as stated on the old CAC website that there are many accurately graded (his words) coins that fail to sticker because they are low end. To call them all over graded might be what some wish to think, but it doesn’t represent reality of CAC’s own statements.
The reality could indeed be he was being polite. Unlike Rick Snow, who comes right out and says (in his opinion) that over grading of Flying Eagle and Indian Cents is a rampant problem, JA is more diplomatic.
You and I will each believe as we choose. I choose to believe that JA feels that defect-free coins that didn’t sticker were due to him feeling they did not merit the grade on the label, which is EXACTLY how Rick Snow feels about the coins in his specialty. This belief of JA is backed up by the fact that now that JA has to actually have those C coins graded at CACG, they’ll mostly be getting graded not at the grade on the holder, but lower!
I recognize you choose to believe that JA believes that the majority of defect-free C coins are properly graded (although at the lower end). Since there are always going to be lower end coins for every grading system, how do you explain the action CACG will be taking if what you say about JA’s belief is actually true?
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
You see we have this thing called Capitalism. It allows any number of grading companies to operate if they can make money. In order for them to make money they need to earn your trust. Too much trust in PCGS and NGC has allowed this to come about. I've long thought we have needed an adjustment especially when PCGS has employed some major dealers as expert advisors over the years causing IMO a conflict of interest.
You have less than zero evidence that the former 65 that is now a CACG 64 will be worth more.
And a CACG 64 is NOT a PCGS 64 CAC. You appear to be conflating the grading company with the sticker.
If I procured a CACG coin why would I need CAC to review it? Their TPG CACG graded it - works for me.
All my stickered coins have been sold in the flow of business. Any CAC material I might buy in future will be all CACG.
Why is a grading set more useful or valuable than PCGS photovision? Both define a standard equally, just one is physical and one is virtual. Although I would argue that Photovision is much more accessible and useful than the CAC grading set that someone would have to get up out of their chair and physically stand in front of to make any use of.
http://ProofCollection.Net
Not really. Investors/Collectors are back to just getting one opinion instead of two if they choose CACG. I do expect PCGS and/or NGC to get into the review/sticker game. Might as well.
http://ProofCollection.Net
It would be interesting if CAC or CACG labeled coins that didn’t pass but are just overgraded with no issues with a C sticker rather than body bag them. Than you would have A coins as plus B as solid and C coins, making needless dropping them a grade, unless very over graded
For one, if photovision has worked so well, then why does there seem to be a general consensus that PCGS grading is more liberal now than in the past? Please explain.
Secondly, I believe most in our industry believe that despite todays high resolution photos, having a coin in hand is superior for examination. Do you disagree?
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