@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.
What’s your rough estimate as to when that will happen? Thanks.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@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.
What’s your rough estimate as to when that will happen? Thanks.
Steve
I would estimate between forever and the end of time.
I don't think stickering is profitable enough for them to bother.
@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
Now you're talking about the application of the grading standard, not the standards themselves. PCGS's standard is documented on Photovision, CACG's standard is (or will be) documented as an actual grading set. Unless there is a claim that PCGS has swapped out some photos, the standard hasn't changed. Any standard means nothing if it's not adhered to. PCGS photovision gets the job done for me for the most part but any documented standard will always fall short for grading coins when the characteristics are out of balance, such as a coin with exceptional surface preservation but severely lacking luster and strike. No documented standard will have coins like that but they exist.
Now practically speaking, an online standard is going to be far more practical and useful. I have no idea what the grading facilities are like in either company, and if the grading set remains readily accessible during normal operations, but the time it would probably take for a grader to get up and go to wherever the set(s) are stored and reference the coins he's interested in is probably going to be prohibitive to make it useful in a business where volume is how the money is made. I'm just not sure a grader will be able to take the 5-10 minutes to go to the vault to look at the set whenever they have questions vs pulling it up on a screen. In person is always preferred but it's pretty impractical.
As far as perceptions of PCGS grading changing over time, the answer probably lies in two factors:
1. PCGS has a long history and things like photovision didn't exist back then. I would suspect PCGS processes, equipment, setups, and business volume have changed dramatically over the decades. That can't be ignored.
2. I suspect there's some kind of perception bias because it's near impossible to assess this subjective conclusion in any objective way over any statistically relevant sample size. I see more "old holdered" PCGS and NGC coins that are over-graded than under-graded. This is not unlike weather talk. People are biased to think that the most recent summer or winter was the hottest/coldest/most severe ever but if we had accurate weather history going back thousands of years or longer instead of just the past 100 years or so we'd probably see that today's weather easily falls within a normal statistical distribution.
@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.
What’s your rough estimate as to when that will happen? Thanks.
Steve
I would estimate between forever and the end of time.
I don't think stickering is profitable enough for them to bother.
How can it not be? PCGS could charge the same amount to put a sticker on as to holder a coin and it's far less overhead. Coins arrive already identified and authenticated, no guarantees, no supplies other than stickers, no machines, and all the grader has to do is agree or disagree with what's on the label.
I'd think they're silly not to consider it. It's a pretty easy service to add on to what PCGS and NGC already do.
CACG could also take high resolution photos of their grading sets to put online for everyone to check. So it can be the best of both worlds. So I would say having a physical grading set is strictly better than image only grading set.
@Mr_Spud said:
Just a comment about the a,b,c level coins. Not that it matters, but if you remove the c level ones there will still be some b level ones that are slightly better than other b level coins and those will now become the equivalent of c level coins.
It reminds me of the old biologist argument where the lumpers wanted to combine things and have fewer distinct species whereas the splitters wanted to separate things more and have more named distinct species. The lumpers and splitters could never agree but were willing to discuss the matter, trying to convince the others that their way was obviously the correct choice. It’s actually a common thing in many areas, not just biologists or coin graders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters
We're talking coins and Lumpers vs Splitters?!
As both a biologist researching 'indicator species' and as a coin collector interested in die marriages, I'm a hardcore "splitter." Accurate splitting unlocks a bounty of information that lumping obscures - ask if you want some references.
Problem here is that species usually have objectively well-defined character states to enable proper species identification whereas grading coins is more complex and subjective. I have more problems interpreting coin grading standards than I do identifying the so-called "difficult" bugs I work with to species.
@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.
What’s your rough estimate as to when that will happen? Thanks.
Steve
I would estimate between forever and the end of time.
I don't think stickering is profitable enough for them to bother.
How can it not be? PCGS could charge the same amount to put a sticker on as to holder a coin and it's far less overhead. Coins arrive already identified and authenticated, no guarantees, no supplies other than stickers, no machines, and all the grader has to do is agree or disagree with what's on the label.
I'd think they're silly not to consider it. It's a pretty easy service to add on to what PCGS and NGC already do.
People won't pay it. CAC had free review of coins for collectors. At $35 per coin, you would only get the expensive coins submitted which decreases the volume considerably. So your revenue ends up being minor.
Then you have to weigh the revenue increase against brand impairment. Especially if you are charging the same, you would prefer the coin crossover and reside in PCGS plastic. If you are stickering NGC plastic, you have the possibility that the preference becomes NGC/PCGS sticker in which case all the higher end coins are now in NGC (or CACG) plastic.
It is worth noting that the profitability of both NGC and PCGS is tied to modern coins not high end classics. There is shot not enough business at the high end to be profitable because the number of coin submissions after 30 years is too small to sustain the operation. That's why CACG does moderns and why CAC is talking about sunsetting their sticker operation. That really should be all the proof you need.
"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."
Wow! I strongly disagree.
Grading a coin in hand is far superior to grading from an image. Both do not define a standard equally. Important characteristics like luster, hairlines, and toning can be very difficult to judge from an image.
Accessibility is not a high priority when in the grading room. Accurate and consistent grading should be the goal. Many of the images on PCGS photovision show coins that do not have original surfaces. Therefore, for many reasons it's not a good tool to use as a grading standard.
Your statement regarding having to standing up to view a graded coin is really sad.
If your priority is making money then yes it's faster to view an image. However, if your priority is maintaining accurate and consistent grading by recalibrating your graders on a regular basis then I'm convinced it's well worth the cost, time, and effort required to build and utilize a grading set. This method is not new and it's worked very well.
Here’s a math question for my granddaughter:
I had a 1942 NGC PF 67 quarter.
I had a 1942 PCGS PF 66 quarter.
I had a 1942 PCGS PF 66 quarter go to CAC and get a gold sticker.
I have a 1942 CACG PF 67 quarter.
How many 1942 proof quarters do I own? 🤔
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
I think the review / sticker game is like taking a car going thru the mod shop getting respray, engine upgrade, new wheels (chrome), high end tires, and various other performance and body upgrades. It might be fine for a welloff collector and their high end cars but as being in the biz those extra expenses would sink my ship. Furthermore I know how to grade and pick coins & currency. Looking at a bundle of 100 gem cu world banknotes bought for $28 years ago current value $20 each enjoy that. If you don’t even know how to grade why buy the big ticket stuff anyway. There are people who will never be satisfied.
@PhillyJoe said:
Here’s a math question for my granddaughter:
I had a 1942 NGC PF 67 quarter.
I had a 1942 PCGS PF 66 quarter.
I had a 1942 PCGS PF 66 quarter go to CAC and get a gold sticker.
I have a 1942 CACG PF 67 quarter.
I think the review / sticker game is like taking a car going thru the mod shop getting respray, engine upgrade, new wheels (chrome), high end tires, and various other performance and body upgrades. It might be fine for a welloff collector and their high end cars but as being in the biz those extra expenses would sink my ship. Furthermore I know how to grade and pick coins & currency. Looking at a bundle of 100 gem cu world banknotes bought for $28 years ago current value $20 each like that more. If you don’t even know how to grade why buy it anyway.
To say that your analogy was a poor one would be a gross understatement.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@shish said:
"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."
Wow! I strongly disagree.
Grading a coin in hand is far superior to grading from an image. Both do not define a standard equally. Important characteristics like luster, hairlines, and toning can be very difficult to judge from an image.
Accessibility is not a high priority when in the grading room. Accurate and consistent grading should be the goal. Many of the images on PCGS photovision show coins that do not have original surfaces. Therefore, for many reasons it's not a good tool to use as a grading standard.
Your statement regarding having to standing up to view a graded coin is really sad.
If your priority is making money then yes it's faster to view an image. However, if your priority is maintaining accurate and consistent grading by recalibrating your graders on a regular basis then I'm convinced it's well worth the cost, time, and effort required to build and utilize a grading set. This method is not new and it's worked very well.
There's the ideal world and then there's the real world. You can't tell me that it's going to be acceptable for graders to make constant trips to the vault to reference grading sets, each trip probably taking 5-10 minutes, which will really stifle a grader's output for the day. For the customers, of course accuracy is paramount. But for the workers and the operation, I'm pretty sure you don't want to be the guy with the low numbers because you're always getting up to go visit the vault.
BTW, a reference set shouldn't need to be consulted to evaluate whether the surfaces are original or not.
It’s a complex issue whatever from seen here there are people who are never going to be satisfied.
If defining C coins as the bottom third that needs to be rooted out - the answer may be a numerical grade added (0-100) like MS64.85 (A) vs MS64.15 (C). Then valuation allocated accordingly. Maybe in the future AI will be executing that. All done in an inexpensive smart self grading holder picked up at Walmart.
@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.
It’s true that the jury is still out on CACG. It is well known that a low end 65 graded coin is downgraded, it is frequently worth much more in a 64+ with CAC sticker. Many big dealers play the reverse crack out game. If you choose to live with a bag on your head, that is your choice. The practice has frequently been discussed in past threads here.
Edited: The underlying assumption here is that CACG is effectively the new CAC.
@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.
What’s your rough estimate as to when that will happen? Thanks.
Steve
I would estimate between forever and the end of time.
I don't think stickering is profitable enough for them to bother.
How can it not be? PCGS could charge the same amount to put a sticker on as to holder a coin and it's far less overhead. Coins arrive already identified and authenticated, no guarantees, no supplies other than stickers, no machines, and all the grader has to do is agree or disagree with what's on the label.
I'd think they're silly not to consider it. It's a pretty easy service to add on to what PCGS and NGC already do.
People won't pay it. CAC had free review of coins for collectors. At $35 per coin, you would only get the expensive coins submitted which decreases the volume considerably. So your revenue ends up being minor.
Then you have to weigh the revenue increase against brand impairment. Especially if you are charging the same, you would prefer the coin crossover and reside in PCGS plastic. If you are stickering NGC plastic, you have the possibility that the preference becomes NGC/PCGS sticker in which case all the higher end coins are now in NGC (or CACG) plastic.
It is worth noting that the profitability of both NGC and PCGS is tied to modern coins not high end classics. There is shot not enough business at the high end to be profitable because the number of coin submissions after 30 years is too small to sustain the operation. That's why CACG does moderns and why CAC is talking about sunsetting their sticker operation. That really should be all the proof you need.
You make some good points but there are some additional points to consider the other way.
If a PCGS sticker meant allowing a coin to be added to a PCGS registry set, that would provide some incentive.
If a PCGS sticker on a CAC coin enhanced value like the reverse does, that would provide incentive.
PCGS could charge less than the full slabbing fee. Perhaps $25 instead of $35, and still make the same amount they do slabbing a coin, which would help.
In my conjecture, PCGS doesn't have to do any kind of volume to offer a sticker service. It's really a low barrier to entry for them and a low overhead to offer the service when you sell the grader's time and a sticker for the same or similar price as you charge for a grader's time, a piece of plastic, an encapsulator's time, and a guarantee. The only expense getting into the sticker business is the sticker design (minimal), rolls of stickers (minimal), a few hours of training (minimal), and writing up some procedures and press releases (minimal).
If by offering the sticker service, PCGS could demonstrate that not all CACG coins are graded accurately (in PCGS's opinion), this would bolster the PCGS brand and reputation and offer a counter-narrative to the prevailing sentiment/expectation that CACG grading is stricter and superior.
Another thing to consider about why a PCGS sticker on a CACG coin or NGC coin would be different is that CAC made a market in stickered coins. It wasn't neccessarily part of the value of the CAC approval to collectors, but having active bids on CAC coins helped support the acceptance of stickered coins. I doubt PCGS or NGC would start making a market in thier brand stickers, and that might doom the idea.
@bigjpst said:
Another thing to consider about why a PCGS sticker on a CACG coin or NGC coin would be different is that CAC made a market in stickered coins. It wasn't neccessarily part of the value of the CAC approval to collectors, but having active bids on CAC coins helped support the acceptance of stickered coins. I doubt PCGS or NGC would start making a market in thier brand stickers, and that might doom the idea.
I beg to differ, at least for ME. I bought CAC stickered coins having NOTHING to do with CAC making a market. I bought them because of what it represented - coins solid for grade, and no negative surface treatments in THEIR opinion. I bought them for obtaining THEIR opinion!
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)
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.
It’s true that the jury is still out on CACG. It is well known that a low end 65 graded coin is downgraded, it is frequently worth much more in a 64+ with CAC sticker. Many big dealers play the reverse crack out game. If you choose to live with a bag on your head, that is your choice. The practice has frequently been discussed in past threads here.
Edited: The underlying assumption here is that CACG is effectively the new CAC.
As a percentage of the graded-coin population, the number of coins that are intentionally downgraded is likely extremely small. You sound as if you're significantly over estimating its significance in the marketplace.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@ProofCollection said:
There's the ideal world and then there's the real world. You can't tell me that it's going to be acceptable for graders to make constant trips to the vault to reference grading sets, each trip probably taking 5-10 minutes, which will really stifle a grader's output for the day. For the customers, of course accuracy is paramount. But for the workers and the operation, I'm pretty sure you don't want to be the guy with the low numbers because you're always getting up to go visit the vault.
BTW, a reference set shouldn't need to be consulted to evaluate whether the surfaces are original or not.
I believe JA has already said that graders can review the grading sets periodically to recalibrate as needed. Maybe they come back from vacation and need to do a recalibration. For professional graders, there's no need to make constant trips to reference grading sets for each coin. If they really need to, they can always check pictures of the grading sets, which is no worse than what PCGS/NGC is currently doing. So I really don't see what your issue is with CACG's physical grading set.
@cameonut2011 said:
Wow. I go to bed and awake to 34 notifications. I didn’t mean to start a CAC/CACG debate thread.
🤨 Are you sure? The thread title alone would suggest otherwise. Lol.
Yes. It was a valid question in light of the logical contradiction of claiming you only grade “A” and “B” coins while also offering details grading. Apparently the consensus appears to be that details coins are sui generis.
@bigjpst said:
Another thing to consider about why a PCGS sticker on a CACG coin or NGC coin would be different is that CAC made a market in stickered coins. It wasn't neccessarily part of the value of the CAC approval to collectors, but having active bids on CAC coins helped support the acceptance of stickered coins. I doubt PCGS or NGC would start making a market in thier brand stickers, and that might doom the idea.
I beg to differ, at least for ME. I bought CAC stickered coins having NOTHING to do with CAC making a market. I bought them because of what it represented - coins solid for grade, and no negative surface treatments in THEIR opinion. I bought them for obtaining THEIR opinion!
Steve
Exactly what I said. For collectors, that wasn’t necessarily part of the value. But for dealers who buy and sell coins, their acceptance likely included having a posted bid so they could make buying decisions and there was always a two way market. This definitely helped to boost the market perception of added value to having a sticker.
CAC bids were stronger for CAC coins than they are for non CAC coins. Because JA was buying his previously approved coins. If nobody was posting increased bids for CaC coins we can only speculate whether or not CAC coins would sell for more consistently for generic coins.
The bottom line is the success of cacg will not be determined by how well they can grade coins but by how well they can continue to get the consumer to send them coins to be graded by them.
They absolutely will have to grade a lot of moderns and compete with pcgs, ngc, and anacs for the business.
How many people are willing to send in their pcgs cac to cacg? Probably not many so that eliminates a lot of business if all of the quality coins have already been to the bean factory.
Is there going to be a grading war to compete for business? It seems ngc has already eliminated cac bonus points from what I've read here. Pcgs may be next to eliminate their cac registry section and it really wouldn't surprise me if they did.
I believe a lot of NGC holdered coins with CAC stickers will be submitted to CACG for crossover, since that should be an automatic cross at the current grade (or better). That would rid those coins of the supposed “stigma”, even though imo the stigma is not warranted. Yes, CACG will get some moderns, and I believe some coins without stickers that got cracked out to submit raw to holder, but only with a certain minimum grade.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
I believe a lot of NGC holdered coins with CAC stickers will be submitted to CACG for crossover, since that should be an automatic cross at the current grade (or better). That would rid those coins of the supposed “stigma”, even though imo the stigma is not warranted. Yes, CACG will get some moderns, and I believe some coins without stickers that got cracked out to submit raw to holder, but only with a certain minimum grade.
Steve
Is it guaranteed to cross? If so, I may very well cross my NGC PF67 cameo CACed Mercury Dime.
@winesteven said:
I believe a lot of NGC holdered coins with CAC stickers will be submitted to CACG for crossover, since that should be an automatic cross at the current grade (or better). That would rid those coins of the supposed “stigma”, even though imo the stigma is not warranted. Yes, CACG will get some moderns, and I believe some coins without stickers that got cracked out to submit raw to holder, but only with a certain minimum grade.
Steve
Is it guaranteed to cross? If so, I may very well cross my NGC PF67 cameo CACed Mercury Dime.
@winesteven said:
I believe a lot of NGC holdered coins with CAC stickers will be submitted to CACG for crossover, since that should be an automatic cross at the current grade (or better). That would rid those coins of the supposed “stigma”, even though imo the stigma is not warranted. Yes, CACG will get some moderns, and I believe some coins without stickers that got cracked out to submit raw to holder, but only with a certain minimum grade.
Steve
Is it guaranteed to cross? If so, I may very well cross my NGC PF67 cameo CACed Mercury Dime.
Guaranteed cross since it was stickered before the cutoff date. That said, I imagine there might be a 1/1000 chance that a coin might have turned in the holder or a mistake was made and that lucky submitter would probably get a personal call from JA, but I don’t expect that to happen very often at all.
@winesteven said:
I believe a lot of NGC holdered coins with CAC stickers will be submitted to CACG for crossover, since that should be an automatic cross at the current grade (or better). That would rid those coins of the supposed “stigma”, even though imo the stigma is not warranted. Yes, CACG will get some moderns, and I believe some coins without stickers that got cracked out to submit raw to holder, but only with a certain minimum grade.
Steve
Is it guaranteed to cross? If so, I may very well cross my NGC PF67 cameo CACed Mercury Dime.
Smart move. Virtually yes. The official CACG policy is that all CAC coins will cross at the same WHOLE grade or better. In your case, the CAM should be automatic too, but not necessarily color suffixes. I’m guessing there may be some fine print to keep them from crossing at the whole grade what they think is an error of CAC. But my guess is in those rare cases, they’ll look to buy the coin back at the value of the whole grade.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
I believe a lot of NGC holdered coins with CAC stickers will be submitted to CACG for crossover, since that should be an automatic cross at the current grade (or better). That would rid those coins of the supposed “stigma”, even though imo the stigma is not warranted. Yes, CACG will get some moderns, and I believe some coins without stickers that got cracked out to submit raw to holder, but only with a certain minimum grade.
Steve
Is it guaranteed to cross? If so, I may very well cross my NGC PF67 cameo CACed Mercury Dime.
Guaranteed cross since it was stickered before the cutoff date. That said, I imagine there might be a 1/1000 chance that a coin might have turned in the holder or a mistake was made and that lucky submitter would probably get a personal call from JA, but I don’t expect that to happen very often at all.
Dan - My recollection/understanding is that June 5th cutoff date only matters for the “L” (Legacy) cert suffix. I believe ALL CAC stickered coins will cross at the WHOLE grade (or better) of the former holder.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
My understanding as well. I can't imagine JA wouldn't stand behind a stickered coin regardless of when it was stickered unless it was modified or changed after stickering.
@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!
Steve
Was reading my PCGS Official Guide to Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection and PCGS does indeed have a Grading Set. Page 24:
"If the verifier disagrees with the final grade, the coin is tagged and given to the other graders for discussion and possible comparison to examples from the PCGS Grading Set."
Just thought people would find that interesting and want to know since no one has chimed in yet to say that PCGS does indeed have a grading set as well.
@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!
Steve
Was reading my PCGS Official Guide to Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection and PCGS does indeed have a Grading Set. Page 24:
"If the verifier disagrees with the final grade, the coin is tagged and given to the other graders for discussion and possible comparison to examples from the PCGS Grading Set."
Just thought people would find that interesting and want to know since no one has chimed in yet to say that PCGS does indeed have a grading set as well.
They used to have grading sets, those grading sets were sold off years ago
@winesteven said:
I believe a lot of NGC holdered coins with CAC stickers will be submitted to CACG for crossover, since that should be an automatic cross at the current grade (or better). That would rid those coins of the supposed “stigma”, even though imo the stigma is not warranted.
The difficult issue is whether PCGS will eventually accept CACG coins in their Registry Sets. It's a reason for hesitating to send those NGC holdered coins with CAC stickers to CACG.
@winesteven said:
I believe a lot of NGC holdered coins with CAC stickers will be submitted to CACG for crossover, since that should be an automatic cross at the current grade (or better). That would rid those coins of the supposed “stigma”, even though imo the stigma is not warranted.
The difficult issue is whether PCGS will eventually accept CACG coins in their Registry Sets. It's a reason for hesitating to send those NGC holdered coins with CAC stickers to CACG.
PCGS doesn't accept NGC coins in their registry so it's very unlikely they will ever accept CACG coins. I wish some national organization such as the ANA would set up a registry that would allow all coins that have been slabbed by all legitimate grading services (NGC, PCGS, CACG, ICG, and ANACS).
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@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.
@winesteven said:
I believe a lot of NGC holdered coins with CAC stickers will be submitted to CACG for crossover, since that should be an automatic cross at the current grade (or better). That would rid those coins of the supposed “stigma”, even though imo the stigma is not warranted.
The difficult issue is whether PCGS will eventually accept CACG coins in their Registry Sets. It's a reason for hesitating to send those NGC holdered coins with CAC stickers to CACG.
PCGS doesn't accept NGC coins in their registry so it's very unlikely they will ever accept CACG coins. I wish some national organization such as the ANA would set up a registry that would allow all coins that have been slabbed by all legitimate grading services (NGC, PCGS, CACG, ICG, and ANACS).
@winesteven said:
I believe a lot of NGC holdered coins with CAC stickers will be submitted to CACG for crossover, since that should be an automatic cross at the current grade (or better). That would rid those coins of the supposed “stigma”, even though imo the stigma is not warranted.
The difficult issue is whether PCGS will eventually accept CACG coins in their Registry Sets. It's a reason for hesitating to send those NGC holdered coins with CAC stickers to CACG.
PCGS doesn't accept NGC coins in their registry so it's very unlikely they will ever accept CACG coins. I wish some national organization such as the ANA would set up a registry that would allow all coins that have been slabbed by all legitimate grading services (NGC, PCGS, CACG, ICG, and ANACS).
And have my PCGS set get crushed by an overgraded ICG set costing a fraction of mine? No thanks.
I will send a handful of NGC/CAC coins to CACG. I have a few that I was unable to cross at the same grade at PCGS before I sent them to CAC where they stickered.
@skier07 said:
I will send a handful of NGC/CAC coins to CACG. I have a few that I was unable to cross at the same grade at PCGS before I sent them to CAC where they stickered.
Great move. As mentioned above, CACG should cross all of those coins at the same grade, or better. Let us know how you make out!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
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.
Two points
1. A "65-" is a 64+ at CACG; not a 64
2. Currently we have two tier pricing with the PCGS price guide. A straight grade and a plus grade. Neither pricing is infallible as one sees from reading auction results. Even Greysheet pricing is not infallible.
Are you really expecting price guides to have the ability to distinguish the gradations of three tier pricing?
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.
Two points
1. A "65-" is a 64+ at CACG; not a 64
2. Currently we have two tier pricing with the PCGS price guide. A straight grade and a plus grade. Neither pricing is infallible as one sees from reading auction results. Even Greysheet pricing is not infallible.
Are you really expecting price guides to have the ability to distinguish the gradations of three tier pricing?
To be fair, the price guides don't have to be that granular. It's easy enough to look at the price for 64 and price for 65 and then estimate a price between the two.
@winesteven said:
I believe a lot of NGC holdered coins with CAC stickers will be submitted to CACG for crossover, since that should be an automatic cross at the current grade (or better). That would rid those coins of the supposed “stigma”, even though imo the stigma is not warranted.
The difficult issue is whether PCGS will eventually accept CACG coins in their Registry Sets. It's a reason for hesitating to send those NGC holdered coins with CAC stickers to CACG.
PCGS doesn't accept NGC coins in their registry so it's very unlikely they will ever accept CACG coins. I wish some national organization such as the ANA would set up a registry that would allow all coins that have been slabbed by all legitimate grading services (NGC, PCGS, CACG, ICG, and ANACS).
A few years ago NGC was working on a registry system for the ANA that would include TPG's other than NGC and PCGS, however there have been no updates on this and I suspect it was mothballed when NGC was bought by Wall Street.
@MICHAELDIXON said:
This one on the BST boards shows the CAC sticker already affixed.
That is not a sticker just part of the label, have you not been reading this thread?
Edited to add: I'm not being snarky but this was covered in the first five posts of this thread.
Comments
What’s your rough estimate as to when that will happen? Thanks.
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 would estimate between forever and the end of time.
I don't think stickering is profitable enough for them to bother.
Now you're talking about the application of the grading standard, not the standards themselves. PCGS's standard is documented on Photovision, CACG's standard is (or will be) documented as an actual grading set. Unless there is a claim that PCGS has swapped out some photos, the standard hasn't changed. Any standard means nothing if it's not adhered to. PCGS photovision gets the job done for me for the most part but any documented standard will always fall short for grading coins when the characteristics are out of balance, such as a coin with exceptional surface preservation but severely lacking luster and strike. No documented standard will have coins like that but they exist.
Now practically speaking, an online standard is going to be far more practical and useful. I have no idea what the grading facilities are like in either company, and if the grading set remains readily accessible during normal operations, but the time it would probably take for a grader to get up and go to wherever the set(s) are stored and reference the coins he's interested in is probably going to be prohibitive to make it useful in a business where volume is how the money is made. I'm just not sure a grader will be able to take the 5-10 minutes to go to the vault to look at the set whenever they have questions vs pulling it up on a screen. In person is always preferred but it's pretty impractical.
As far as perceptions of PCGS grading changing over time, the answer probably lies in two factors:
1. PCGS has a long history and things like photovision didn't exist back then. I would suspect PCGS processes, equipment, setups, and business volume have changed dramatically over the decades. That can't be ignored.
2. I suspect there's some kind of perception bias because it's near impossible to assess this subjective conclusion in any objective way over any statistically relevant sample size. I see more "old holdered" PCGS and NGC coins that are over-graded than under-graded. This is not unlike weather talk. People are biased to think that the most recent summer or winter was the hottest/coldest/most severe ever but if we had accurate weather history going back thousands of years or longer instead of just the past 100 years or so we'd probably see that today's weather easily falls within a normal statistical distribution.
http://ProofCollection.Net
How can it not be? PCGS could charge the same amount to put a sticker on as to holder a coin and it's far less overhead. Coins arrive already identified and authenticated, no guarantees, no supplies other than stickers, no machines, and all the grader has to do is agree or disagree with what's on the label.
I'd think they're silly not to consider it. It's a pretty easy service to add on to what PCGS and NGC already do.
http://ProofCollection.Net
CACG could also take high resolution photos of their grading sets to put online for everyone to check. So it can be the best of both worlds. So I would say having a physical grading set is strictly better than image only grading set.
Follow me on MyCollect!
We're talking coins and Lumpers vs Splitters?!
As both a biologist researching 'indicator species' and as a coin collector interested in die marriages, I'm a hardcore "splitter." Accurate splitting unlocks a bounty of information that lumping obscures - ask if you want some references.
Problem here is that species usually have objectively well-defined character states to enable proper species identification whereas grading coins is more complex and subjective. I have more problems interpreting coin grading standards than I do identifying the so-called "difficult" bugs I work with to species.
People won't pay it. CAC had free review of coins for collectors. At $35 per coin, you would only get the expensive coins submitted which decreases the volume considerably. So your revenue ends up being minor.
Then you have to weigh the revenue increase against brand impairment. Especially if you are charging the same, you would prefer the coin crossover and reside in PCGS plastic. If you are stickering NGC plastic, you have the possibility that the preference becomes NGC/PCGS sticker in which case all the higher end coins are now in NGC (or CACG) plastic.
It is worth noting that the profitability of both NGC and PCGS is tied to modern coins not high end classics. There is shot not enough business at the high end to be profitable because the number of coin submissions after 30 years is too small to sustain the operation. That's why CACG does moderns and why CAC is talking about sunsetting their sticker operation. That really should be all the proof you need.
"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."
Wow! I strongly disagree.
Grading a coin in hand is far superior to grading from an image. Both do not define a standard equally. Important characteristics like luster, hairlines, and toning can be very difficult to judge from an image.
Accessibility is not a high priority when in the grading room. Accurate and consistent grading should be the goal. Many of the images on PCGS photovision show coins that do not have original surfaces. Therefore, for many reasons it's not a good tool to use as a grading standard.
Your statement regarding having to standing up to view a graded coin is really sad.
If your priority is making money then yes it's faster to view an image. However, if your priority is maintaining accurate and consistent grading by recalibrating your graders on a regular basis then I'm convinced it's well worth the cost, time, and effort required to build and utilize a grading set. This method is not new and it's worked very well.
Here’s a math question for my granddaughter:
I had a 1942 NGC PF 67 quarter.
I had a 1942 PCGS PF 66 quarter.
I had a 1942 PCGS PF 66 quarter go to CAC and get a gold sticker.
I have a 1942 CACG PF 67 quarter.
How many 1942 proof quarters do I own? 🤔
I think the review / sticker game is like taking a car going thru the mod shop getting respray, engine upgrade, new wheels (chrome), high end tires, and various other performance and body upgrades. It might be fine for a welloff collector and their high end cars but as being in the biz those extra expenses would sink my ship. Furthermore I know how to grade and pick coins & currency. Looking at a bundle of 100 gem cu world banknotes bought for $28 years ago current value $20 each enjoy that. If you don’t even know how to grade why buy the big ticket stuff anyway. There are people who will never be satisfied.
None. It's a mechanical error.
@Cougar1978 said:
To say that your analogy was a poor one would be a gross understatement.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There's the ideal world and then there's the real world. You can't tell me that it's going to be acceptable for graders to make constant trips to the vault to reference grading sets, each trip probably taking 5-10 minutes, which will really stifle a grader's output for the day. For the customers, of course accuracy is paramount. But for the workers and the operation, I'm pretty sure you don't want to be the guy with the low numbers because you're always getting up to go visit the vault.
BTW, a reference set shouldn't need to be consulted to evaluate whether the surfaces are original or not.
http://ProofCollection.Net
It’s a complex issue whatever from seen here there are people who are never going to be satisfied.
If defining C coins as the bottom third that needs to be rooted out - the answer may be a numerical grade added (0-100) like MS64.85 (A) vs MS64.15 (C). Then valuation allocated accordingly. Maybe in the future AI will be executing that. All done in an inexpensive smart self grading holder picked up at Walmart.
It’s true that the jury is still out on CACG. It is well known that a low end 65 graded coin is downgraded, it is frequently worth much more in a 64+ with CAC sticker. Many big dealers play the reverse crack out game. If you choose to live with a bag on your head, that is your choice. The practice has frequently been discussed in past threads here.
Edited: The underlying assumption here is that CACG is effectively the new CAC.
You make some good points but there are some additional points to consider the other way.
http://ProofCollection.Net
Another thing to consider about why a PCGS sticker on a CACG coin or NGC coin would be different is that CAC made a market in stickered coins. It wasn't neccessarily part of the value of the CAC approval to collectors, but having active bids on CAC coins helped support the acceptance of stickered coins. I doubt PCGS or NGC would start making a market in thier brand stickers, and that might doom the idea.
My Ebay Store
I beg to differ, at least for ME. I bought CAC stickered coins having NOTHING to do with CAC making a market. I bought them because of what it represented - coins solid for grade, and no negative surface treatments in THEIR opinion. I bought them for obtaining THEIR opinion!
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
Wow. I go to bed and awake to 34 notifications. I didn’t mean to start a CAC/CACG debate thread.
As a percentage of the graded-coin population, the number of coins that are intentionally downgraded is likely extremely small. You sound as if you're significantly over estimating its significance in the marketplace.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
🤨 Are you sure? The thread title alone would suggest otherwise. Lol.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I believe JA has already said that graders can review the grading sets periodically to recalibrate as needed. Maybe they come back from vacation and need to do a recalibration. For professional graders, there's no need to make constant trips to reference grading sets for each coin. If they really need to, they can always check pictures of the grading sets, which is no worse than what PCGS/NGC is currently doing. So I really don't see what your issue is with CACG's physical grading set.
Follow me on MyCollect!
Lol. Not one but TWO CAC mentions in the title. If he could have worked VaultBox into it, we'd be at 1000 comments.
CAC and CACG are technically distinct legal entities.
Yes. It was a valid question in light of the logical contradiction of claiming you only grade “A” and “B” coins while also offering details grading. Apparently the consensus appears to be that details coins are sui generis.
Exactly what I said. For collectors, that wasn’t necessarily part of the value. But for dealers who buy and sell coins, their acceptance likely included having a posted bid so they could make buying decisions and there was always a two way market. This definitely helped to boost the market perception of added value to having a sticker.
CAC bids were stronger for CAC coins than they are for non CAC coins. Because JA was buying his previously approved coins. If nobody was posting increased bids for CaC coins we can only speculate whether or not CAC coins would sell for more consistently for generic coins.
My Ebay Store
And equally controversial in these parts...
The bottom line is the success of cacg will not be determined by how well they can grade coins but by how well they can continue to get the consumer to send them coins to be graded by them.
They absolutely will have to grade a lot of moderns and compete with pcgs, ngc, and anacs for the business.
How many people are willing to send in their pcgs cac to cacg? Probably not many so that eliminates a lot of business if all of the quality coins have already been to the bean factory.
Is there going to be a grading war to compete for business? It seems ngc has already eliminated cac bonus points from what I've read here. Pcgs may be next to eliminate their cac registry section and it really wouldn't surprise me if they did.
I believe a lot of NGC holdered coins with CAC stickers will be submitted to CACG for crossover, since that should be an automatic cross at the current grade (or better). That would rid those coins of the supposed “stigma”, even though imo the stigma is not warranted. Yes, CACG will get some moderns, and I believe some coins without stickers that got cracked out to submit raw to holder, but only with a certain minimum 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
Is it guaranteed to cross? If so, I may very well cross my NGC PF67 cameo CACed Mercury Dime.
Yep. It's a no-brainer to maximize value.
http://ProofCollection.Net
Guaranteed cross since it was stickered before the cutoff date. That said, I imagine there might be a 1/1000 chance that a coin might have turned in the holder or a mistake was made and that lucky submitter would probably get a personal call from JA, but I don’t expect that to happen very often at all.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Smart move. Virtually yes. The official CACG policy is that all CAC coins will cross at the same WHOLE grade or better. In your case, the CAM should be automatic too, but not necessarily color suffixes. I’m guessing there may be some fine print to keep them from crossing at the whole grade what they think is an error of CAC. But my guess is in those rare cases, they’ll look to buy the coin back at the value of the whole 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
CACG seems like particularly bad news for NGC at least for U.S. classic issues.
Dan - My recollection/understanding is that June 5th cutoff date only matters for the “L” (Legacy) cert suffix. I believe ALL CAC stickered coins will cross at the WHOLE grade (or better) of the former holder.
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
My understanding as well. I can't imagine JA wouldn't stand behind a stickered coin regardless of when it was stickered unless it was modified or changed after stickering.
http://ProofCollection.Net
Was reading my PCGS Official Guide to Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection and PCGS does indeed have a Grading Set. Page 24:
Just thought people would find that interesting and want to know since no one has chimed in yet to say that PCGS does indeed have a grading set as well.
http://ProofCollection.Net
They used to have grading sets, those grading sets were sold off years ago
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
The difficult issue is whether PCGS will eventually accept CACG coins in their Registry Sets. It's a reason for hesitating to send those NGC holdered coins with CAC stickers to CACG.
PCGS doesn't accept NGC coins in their registry so it's very unlikely they will ever accept CACG coins. I wish some national organization such as the ANA would set up a registry that would allow all coins that have been slabbed by all legitimate grading services (NGC, PCGS, CACG, ICG, and ANACS).
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Thank you for this! I couldn't agree more.
Matt Snebold
Have you tried MyCollect?
Follow me on MyCollect!
And have my PCGS set get crushed by an overgraded ICG set costing a fraction of mine? No thanks.
http://ProofCollection.Net
I will send a handful of NGC/CAC coins to CACG. I have a few that I was unable to cross at the same grade at PCGS before I sent them to CAC where they stickered.
Great move. As mentioned above, CACG should cross all of those coins at the same grade, or better. Let us know how you make out!
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
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.
Two points
1. A "65-" is a 64+ at CACG; not a 64
2. Currently we have two tier pricing with the PCGS price guide. A straight grade and a plus grade. Neither pricing is infallible as one sees from reading auction results. Even Greysheet pricing is not infallible.
Are you really expecting price guides to have the ability to distinguish the gradations of three tier pricing?
To be fair, the price guides don't have to be that granular. It's easy enough to look at the price for 64 and price for 65 and then estimate a price between the two.
http://ProofCollection.Net
This one on the BST boards shows the CAC sticker already affixed.
A few years ago NGC was working on a registry system for the ANA that would include TPG's other than NGC and PCGS, however there have been no updates on this and I suspect it was mothballed when NGC was bought by Wall Street.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
That is not a sticker just part of the label, have you not been reading this thread?
Edited to add: I'm not being snarky but this was covered in the first five posts of this thread.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.