CACG slabs ~ picture thread ~

asheland

Well, I finally bit the bullet and bought a couple of coins in these new slabs. I haven’t gotten them in hand yet. I’m hoping I like them, I’ve seen one so far in person and they seem to be nice looking, durable holders.

Anyone that has one, post it here!

And, how do you feel? Do you like the type of holder? This is purely just aesthetics of the holder, nothing about the grading.

And, are there boxes for these yet?

PerryHall

I want to see a CACG slab with a CMQ sticker covering the green bean.

Cougar1978

Bid on some - put in some real high bids. If they win they wb buried….

skier07

Manifest_Destiny

Not mine but pops up in my search results - at more than 3x retail. They even come with CACview apparently.

jmlanzaf

@PerryHall said:
I want to see a CACG slab with a CMQ sticker covering the green bean.

How about a PCGS/CAC with the griffin on top of the actual sticker?

Manifest_Destiny

@jmlanzaf said:

@PerryHall said:
I want to see a CACG slab with a CMQ sticker covering the green bean.

How about a PCGS/CAC with the griffin on top of the actual sticker?

Ok, that's funny.

BStrauss3

Lor' for the 97th time that is not a green bean. It's the CAC logo, just like PCGS puts their logo on their slabs.

CAC doesn't sticker CACG coins.

Now if you want to accept that only A and B coins get the grade and C coins are As for the next lower grade and claim a CACG grade is equivalent to another TPGs grade + a CAC bean, I can't argue THAT.

Manifest_Destiny

@BStrauss3 said:
Lor' for the 97th time that is not a green bean. It's the CAC logo, just like PCGS puts their logo on their slabs.

CAC doesn't sticker CACG coins.

Now if you want to accept that only A and B coins get the grade and C coins are As for the next lower grade and claim a CACG grade is equivalent to another TPGs grade + a CAC bean, I can't argue THAT.

It's a built in bean.

Cougar1978

The 1854 25c XF45 really nice but at multx of Mkt retail leave that acquisition to somebody else.

Should they be classed as the end user or a Premium Quality (A) Investor? Hey I know what a custom T shirt for each class of investors A, B, C.

spyglassdesign

Are those cac pictures? If so, so far I like their photography better than pcgs lately. A lot of so called Tru view don't look realistic to in hand. The ones in this thread so far, I'd expect it to be pretty realistic to in hand, especially when compared to the slab pics.

Wahoo554

@skier07 said:

Great pickup.

asheland

I love that 1865 $20!

SIowhand

@skier07 said:

So, you beat me to that. Congrats, I guess

Floridafacelifter

A nice little Civil War $5

winesteven

WOW!!!!

Steve

asheland

@Floridafacelifter said:
A nice little Civil War $5

Spectacular!

SIowhand

@Floridafacelifter said:
A nice little Civil War $5

That qualifies as ‘nice’.

Moparmonster

Moparmonster

Cougar1978

Super group of coins!

DarkStar

asheland

Nice coins everybody! 👍

P0CKETCHANGE

Does the + grade at CAC indicate an “A” coin?

logger7

coinbuf

@P0CKETCHANGE said:
Does the + grade at CAC indicate an “A” coin?

It indicates that it is a "+" graded coin, just as it does at PCGS or NGC.

skier07

Does anyone know what the lowest numerical grade CACG will give a + designation to? I believe with PCGS it’s 45.

jayPem

Wondering why cacg is giving out +grades when my understanding is that cac doesn't consider it when stickering coins?
(and I realize it's two different entities with their own mo's) but still...
🤔

winesteven

@jayPem said:
Wondering why cacg is giving out +grades when my understanding is that cac doesn't consider it when stickering coins?
(and I realize it's two different entities with their own mo's) but still...
🤔

CACG made it very clear in their initial announcement that due to the realities of market demand, CACG will indeed use a plus on coins it grades and crosses in cases where they feel the coin merits the plus for the grade. At that time they also said the CAC stickering service in NJ will continue as in the past, in ignoring pluses.

If coins with CAC stickers in PCGS and NGC holders have a plus, and are submitted to cross, they may or MAY NOT cross with a plus. As such, it’s critical on a crossover submission to be VERY CLEAR with the specs you list for a cross to be allowed to occur.

Finally, if you submit a defect-free coin to cross that was not able to sticker and are willing to let it cross at a lower grade, you might get a plus at that next lower grade (like a 65 crossing to a 64+).

Steve

asheland

OK! The moment has arrived!

I finally got my first CACG holder!
After really looking this thing over I like the way it’s made, it’s very durable, It’s super super clear, it’s a great looking holder and another thing that’s cool is the edges are flat so you can stand it up on its end. 👍

https://youtube.com/shorts/SowNBtmfqQE?si=09o8RTpQu-OI_DAx

asheland

I have the BU version of the 2023 Peace in the mail. It’ll be a cool little matched set. 👍

coinbuf

Congrats @asheland I only have the sample slab that CACG sent to me, but no photos of it. I have a few coins I want to submit once it is open to current members, hopefully soon.

DollarAfterDollar

I just sent off an 11 coin economy submission to NGC. Still waiting for CAC to open for collectors like me. Can't wait.

winesteven

Tied for RB Top Pop at PCGS and CACG. CAC has stickered only two of these at 66RB, none at 67. PCGS Pop at 66 is 8, and their pop at 66+ is just 1, none at 67. CACG says this one merits the plus, as it’s 66+ (Legacy, as it originated as a PCGS 66 with a CAC sticker). Rick Snow says it’s 95% Red.

While the CACG True View is good (but it shows NONEof the coins luster), these slab photos are very disappointing compared to the coin in hand.

Steve

lilolme

@winesteven said:

While the CACG True View is good (but it shows NONEof the coins luster), these slab photos are very disappointing compared to the coin in hand.

Steve

.
Looking at the pictures in this thread, I am taking a guess at this. The slab photos appear to be taken such that there is almost no glare or hot spots on the slab (lights move out or something) and a good photo of the slab. The CACG True View (as you called it - old habits... ) could have the lights moved and glare on the holder, but it is cropped out, giving a better coin image. Again guessing.

I am not initially liking the large somewhat opaque ring holding the coins as it is detracting from the coin. Sort of like the coin is framed in something. It is more apparent the smaller the diameter of the coins. The short prongs increase this also. Might get used to it.

I am seeing light scratches or scuffs already in some holders. Take care of these as I am wondering how this might look years later after some auction lot viewing and stuff.

PeakRarities

@lilolme said:

@winesteven said:

While the CACG True View is good (but it shows NONEof the coins luster), these slab photos are very disappointing compared to the coin in hand.

Steve

.
Looking at the pictures in this thread, I am taking a guess at this. The slab photos appear to be taken such that there is almost no glare or hot spots on the slab (lights move out or something) and a good photo of the slab. The CACG True View (as you called it - old habits... ) could have the lights moved and glare on the holder, but it is cropped out, giving a better coin image. Again guessing.

I am not initially liking the large somewhat opaque ring holding the coins as it is detracting from the coin. Sort of like the coin is framed in something. It is more apparent the smaller the diameter of the coins. The short prongs increase this also. Might get used to it.

I am seeing light scratches or scuffs already in some holders. Take care of these as I am wondering how this might look years later after some auction lot viewing and stuff.

Imo, that slab image is weaksauce, reminiscent of NGC photos. In the other active cacg thread, Steve posted the slab photo by Rick snow and the coin looks glorious.

lilolme

@DeplorableDan said:

@lilolme said:

@winesteven said:

While the CACG True View is good (but it shows NONEof the coins luster), these slab photos are very disappointing compared to the coin in hand.

Steve

.
Looking at the pictures in this thread, I am taking a guess at this. The slab photos appear to be taken such that there is almost no glare or hot spots on the slab (lights move out or something) and a good photo of the slab. The CACG True View (as you called it - old habits... ) could have the lights moved and glare on the holder, but it is cropped out, giving a better coin image. Again guessing.

I am not initially liking the large somewhat opaque ring holding the coins as it is detracting from the coin. Sort of like the coin is framed in something. It is more apparent the smaller the diameter of the coins. The short prongs increase this also. Might get used to it.

I am seeing light scratches or scuffs already in some holders. Take care of these as I am wondering how this might look years later after some auction lot viewing and stuff.

Imo, that slab image is weaksauce, reminiscent of NGC photos. In the other active cacg thread, Steve posted the slab photo >by Rick snow and the coin looks glorious.

.
I don't know anything about weak sauces, I am mainly a hot sauce person. I did look at the other thread and if talking about the pcgs slab photo, then I am seeing what I mentioned above. The cacg slab photo (of the slab not the coin) appears very even. Going around the perimeter of the slab, the label border and from one side to another the lighting appears very even. As if it is a photo of the slab. Some minor brighter spots around the large ring.

The pcgs slab photo (of the slab) has bright spots across the top of the slab and label and a couple other spots around the perimeter. The slab is not the same brightness from left side to right side.

To be clear the pcgs slab photo appears fine to me and I generally look at the coin. However, I was just, as previously mentioned, taking a guess that the cacg slab photo had the lighting arranged to give a more even appearance of the slab. This is not 'my thing' or anything and I would prefer a slab shot more focused on the coin like the pcgs slab photo.

winesteven

@lilolme said:

@DeplorableDan said:

@lilolme said:

@winesteven said:

While the CACG True View is good (but it shows NONEof the coins luster), these slab photos are very disappointing compared to the coin in hand.

Steve

.
Looking at the pictures in this thread, I am taking a guess at this. The slab photos appear to be taken such that there is almost no glare or hot spots on the slab (lights move out or something) and a good photo of the slab. The CACG True View (as you called it - old habits... ) could have the lights moved and glare on the holder, but it is cropped out, giving a better coin image. Again guessing.

I am not initially liking the large somewhat opaque ring holding the coins as it is detracting from the coin. Sort of like the coin is framed in something. It is more apparent the smaller the diameter of the coins. The short prongs increase this also. Might get used to it.

I am seeing light scratches or scuffs already in some holders. Take care of these as I am wondering how this might look years later after some auction lot viewing and stuff.

Imo, that slab image is weaksauce, reminiscent of NGC photos. In the other active cacg thread, Steve posted the slab photo >by Rick snow and the coin looks glorious.

.
I don't know anything about weak sauces, I am mainly a hot sauce person. I did look at the other thread and if talking about the pcgs slab photo, then I am seeing what I mentioned above. The cacg slab photo (of the slab not the coin) appears very even. Going around the perimeter of the slab, the label border and from one side to another the lighting appears very even. As if it is a photo of the slab. Some minor brighter spots around the large ring.

The pcgs slab photo (of the slab) has bright spots across the top of the slab and label and a couple other spots around the perimeter. The slab is not the same brightness from left side to right side.

To be clear the pcgs slab photo appears fine to me and I generally look at the coin. However, I was just, as previously mentioned, taking a guess that the cacg slab photo had the lighting arranged to give a more even appearance of the slab. This is not 'my thing' or anything and I would prefer a slab shot more focused on the coin like the pcgs slab photo.

OK, you indicate you’ve seen the photos from the other thread, but here they are. The slab photo by Rick Snow is VERY close to the appearance of the coin in hand. IMO the difference in quality of what a collector wants from a photo whether as a buyer or seller, is night and day in favor of the second photo.

As I said in the other thread, I believe CACG will be making adjustments quickly in how they take slab shots
to “fix” this issue.

Steve

lilolme

@winesteven said:

@lilolme said:

@DeplorableDan said:

@lilolme said:

@winesteven said:

While the CACG True View is good (but it shows NONEof the coins luster), these slab photos are very disappointing compared to the coin in hand.

Steve

.
Looking at the pictures in this thread, I am taking a guess at this. The slab photos appear to be taken such that there is almost no glare or hot spots on the slab (lights move out or something) and a good photo of the slab. The CACG True View (as you called it - old habits... ) could have the lights moved and glare on the holder, but it is cropped out, giving a better coin image. Again guessing.

I am not initially liking the large somewhat opaque ring holding the coins as it is detracting from the coin. Sort of like the coin is framed in something. It is more apparent the smaller the diameter of the coins. The short prongs increase this also. Might get used to it.

I am seeing light scratches or scuffs already in some holders. Take care of these as I am wondering how this might look years later after some auction lot viewing and stuff.

Imo, that slab image is weaksauce, reminiscent of NGC photos. In the other active cacg thread, Steve posted the slab photo >by Rick snow and the coin looks glorious.

.
I don't know anything about weak sauces, I am mainly a hot sauce person. I did look at the other thread and if talking about the pcgs slab photo, then I am seeing what I mentioned above. The cacg slab photo (of the slab not the coin) appears very even. Going around the perimeter of the slab, the label border and from one side to another the lighting appears very even. As if it is a photo of the slab. Some minor brighter spots around the large ring.

The pcgs slab photo (of the slab) has bright spots across the top of the slab and label and a couple other spots around the perimeter. The slab is not the same brightness from left side to right side.

To be clear the pcgs slab photo appears fine to me and I generally look at the coin. However, I was just, as previously mentioned, taking a guess that the cacg slab photo had the lighting arranged to give a more even appearance of the slab. This is not 'my thing' or anything and I would prefer a slab shot more focused on the coin like the pcgs slab photo.

OK, you indicate you’ve seen the photos from the other thread, but here they are. The slab photo by Rick Snow is VERY close to the appearance of the coin in hand. IMO the difference in quality of what a collector wants from a photo whether as a buyer or seller, is night and day in favor of the second photo.

As I said in the other thread, I believe CACG will be making adjustments quickly in how they take slab shots
to “fix” this issue.

Steve

.
Yes, that is the one I looked at and I stand by what I was guessing.

First as I stated I prefer the pcgs slab photo that is focused on the coin shot.

The cacg slab photo is a more even photo of the slab (not the coin), than the pcgs slab photo is of the slab (not the coin). The lighting is very even across the cacg slab (not the coin) but is not across the pcgs slab (not the coin). So the cacg slab photo appears to be more of a slab photo (and not the coin).

I would also think that cacg would want to alter that slab photo to be more focused on the coin.

TheMayor

The CACG images leave a lot to be desired.

asheland

@winesteven said:
Tied for RB Top Pop at PCGS and CACG. CAC has stickered only two of these at 66RB, none at 67. PCGS Pop at 66 is 8, and their pop at 66+ is just 1, none at 67. CACG says this one merits the plus, as it’s 66+ (Legacy, as it originated as a PCGS 66 with a CAC sticker). Rick Snow says it’s 95% Red.

While the CACG True View is good (but it shows NONEof the coins luster), these slab photos are very disappointing compared to the coin in hand.

Steve

I assume you got that one?
Are you going to turn your Coins over to that grading service? Or is this just an example of their holder?

My favorite combination is still PCGS with their sticker. Eagle Eye also of course.

asheland

I will add their holders into my collection just like PCGS and NGC and just have all three types. I like the variety.

asheland

Does anyone know if they are making boxes for their holders?

I got my other Peace Dollar:

PeakRarities

@asheland said:
Does anyone know if they are making boxes for their holders?

I got my other Peace Dollar:

Yes, we were told they were in production.

asheland

@DeplorableDan cool! Thanks. 👍

PeakRarities

@asheland said:

@winesteven said:
Tied for RB Top Pop at PCGS and CACG. CAC has stickered only two of these at 66RB, none at 67. PCGS Pop at 66 is 8, and their pop at 66+ is just 1, none at 67. CACG says this one merits the plus, as it’s 66+ (Legacy, as it originated as a PCGS 66 with a CAC sticker). Rick Snow says it’s 95% Red.

While the CACG True View is good (but it shows NONEof the coins luster), these slab photos are very disappointing compared to the coin in hand.

Steve

I assume you got that one?
Are you going to turn your Coins over to that grading service? Or is this just an example of their holder?

My favorite combination is still PCGS with their sticker. Eagle Eye also of course.

IIRC, Steve is only sending duplicates and specifying that they need to upgrade at + grades only, he wants to continue to utilize the pcgs registry for his primary sets. He can correct me if I’m wrong but Im fairly certain that’s his answer that I’ve heard before.

winesteven

@asheland , I'm NOT changing my coins over from PCGS/CAC to CACG, as I love the PCGS Registry. The coin you see is a dupe that crossed over (with an upgrade).

asheland

@winesteven said:
@asheland , I'm NOT changing my coins over from PCGS/CAC to CACG, as I love the PCGS Registry. The coin you see is a dupe that crossed over (with an upgrade).

Just a few days ago, I downloaded the PCGS set registry app, so I’m starting to play with it and it is cool!

I like what you have done, and I would keep it the same as well!

Avocet

DisneyFan

@winesteven said:
@asheland The coin you see is a dupe that crossed over (with an upgrade).

A duplicate? You must be in heaven, Steve!

winesteven

@DisneyFan said:

@winesteven said:
@asheland The coin you see is a dupe that crossed over (with an upgrade).

A duplicate? You must be in heaven, Steve!

The one in my set is 66+RD.

Steve