@coinbuf said: @Rexford for a non US collector and someone that hates CAC grading you sure do have a bunch of US coins that you clearly cracked out and sent to CAC to grade.
PS. I have not seen anything in your photos or video that would prove that CACG got it wrong when grading on a technical basis.
Maybe you have trouble differentiating wear and strike then?
@coinbuf said: @Rexford for a non US collector and someone that hates CAC grading you sure do have a bunch of US coins that you clearly cracked out and sent to CAC to grade.
These aren’t my coins.
Not your coins but you can provide photos and videos instantly of these coins, right.
@coinbuf said: @Rexford for a non US collector and someone that hates CAC grading you sure do have a bunch of US coins that you clearly cracked out and sent to CAC to grade.
PS. I have not seen anything in your photos or video that would prove that CACG got it wrong when grading on a technical basis.
Maybe you have trouble differentiating wear and strike then?
That sure could be true, however, a former grader did see what I saw so maybe it is you with the bias and inability to discern the difference.
Because I can grade well enough to tell the difference between a 58 and a 65. And PCGS is not misgrading WLHs that much. They’re not that difficult to grade. I don’t have pics of it in the PCGS holder, but here:
It seems that it’s harder to grade coins when they’re not already in the holders.
@coinbuf said: @Rexford for a non US collector and someone that hates CAC grading you sure do have a bunch of US coins that you clearly cracked out and sent to CAC to grade.
These aren’t my coins.
Not your coins but you can provide photos and videos instantly of these coins, right.
Correct and correct. What makes that difficult to believe?
@coinbuf said: @Rexford for a non US collector and someone that hates CAC grading you sure do have a bunch of US coins that you clearly cracked out and sent to CAC to grade.
PS. I have not seen anything in your photos or video that would prove that CACG got it wrong when grading on a technical basis.
Maybe you have trouble differentiating wear and strike then?
That sure could be true, however, a former grader did see what I saw so maybe it is you with the bias and inability to discern the difference.
@coinbuf said: @Rexford for a non US collector and someone that hates CAC grading you sure do have a bunch of US coins that you clearly cracked out and sent to CAC to grade.
PS. I have not seen anything in your photos or video that would prove that CACG got it wrong when grading on a technical basis.
Maybe you have trouble differentiating wear and strike then?
That sure could be true, however, a former grader did see what I saw so maybe it is you with the bias and inability to discern the difference.
Because I can grade well enough to tell the difference between a 58 and a 65. And PCGS is not misgrading WLHs that much. They’re not that difficult to grade. I don’t have pics of it in the PCGS holder, but here:
It seems that it’s harder to grade coins when they’re not already in the holders.
Er, I see rub, 65's don't have rub, so???????????
Check the other images. Scans throw shadows and obscure luster.
@Rexford said:
Because I can grade well enough to tell the difference between a 58 and a 65. And PCGS is not misgrading WLHs that much. They’re not that difficult to grade. I don’t have pics of it in the PCGS holder, but here:
It seems that it’s harder to grade coins when they’re not already in the holders.
From the photo I see a touch of rub on the left (viewers right) breast, looks like CACG got it right if you are grading on a technical level and just the type of coin that the market grading firms place into MS holders.
It seems that many are so accustomed to market grading that they may have forgotten how to grade.
No one is forgetting how to grade. It’s very weird that CACG is commanding any sort of respect on this forum when it isn’t in any of the other circles I’ve come across, specifically from the people who are actually seeing and dealing with these coins. How many of those supporting CACG in this thread have actually seen CACG coins in hand, and how many are simply blindly following them in support of what they perceive to be “technical grading”?
I’ve seen many CACG coins in hand, and I’ve rarely disagreed with them so far. I’m not sure what “circles” you are referring to, but I belong to quite a few and this forum is the gold standard by far. I belong to several different forums and a myriad of Facebook groups, and a great many opinions I’ve heard there about CACG standards are…well…misguided.
Your walker looks like a nice coin, and I’d really need to see it in hand to determine if I agree that there is wear, but I don’t endorse the “market grading” philosophy, especially with 20th century high population coins. If there is any wear, the coin doesn’t belong in an MS holder and that’s that. I don’t need a grading company to determine that the coins overall appearance should merit gem grade, despite a small amount of wear. That would’t be fair to the coins at that grade level that are actually uncirculated.
@coinbuf said: @Rexford for a non US collector and someone that hates CAC grading you sure do have a bunch of US coins that you clearly cracked out and sent to CAC to grade.
PS. I have not seen anything in your photos or video that would prove that CACG got it wrong when grading on a technical basis.
Maybe you have trouble differentiating wear and strike then?
That sure could be true, however, a former grader did see what I saw so maybe it is you with the bias and inability to discern the difference.
I am a former grader.
Market grader I have to assume.
Undoubtedly the same sort of grader as that other “former grader,” if they exist.
@Rexford said:
Because I can grade well enough to tell the difference between a 58 and a 65. And PCGS is not misgrading WLHs that much. They’re not that difficult to grade. I don’t have pics of it in the PCGS holder, but here:
It seems that it’s harder to grade coins when they’re not already in the holders.
From the photo I see a touch of rub on the left (viewers right) breast, looks like CACG got it right if you are grading on a technical level and just the type of coin that the market grading firms place into MS holders.
It seems that many are so accustomed to market grading that they may have forgotten how to grade.
No one is forgetting how to grade. It’s very weird that CACG is commanding any sort of respect on this forum when it isn’t in any of the other circles I’ve come across, specifically from the people who are actually seeing and dealing with these coins. How many of those supporting CACG in this thread have actually seen CACG coins in hand, and how many are simply blindly following them in support of what they perceive to be “technical grading”?
I’ve seen many CACG coins in hand, and I’ve rarely disagreed with them so far. I’m not sure what “circles” you are referring to, but I belong to quite a few and this forum is the gold standard by far. I belong to several different forums and a myriad of Facebook groups, and a great many opinions I’ve heard there about CACG standards are…well…misguided.
Your walker looks like a nice coin, and I’d really need to see it in hand to determine if I agree that there is wear, but I don’t endorse the “market grading” philosophy, especially with 20th century high population coins. If there is any wear, the coin doesn’t belong in an MS holder and that’s that. I don’t need a grading company to determine that the coins overall appearance should merit gem grade, despite a small amount of wear. That would’t be fair to the coins at that grade level that are actually uncirculated.
That’s interesting. I find this forum to be a constant source of misgrading and frustrating misinformation. I do not find it to be the gold standard, and if it is, it’s only because other forums are even worse. The average GTG thread here is all over the place.
@Rexford said:
Undoubtedly the same sort of grader as that other “former grader,” if they exist.
If you are being serious then you know that nobody, not even you, can accurately grade from photos, and since you insist these are not your coins then you have not seen them in hand. Yet you are the only one that "knows" these are now incorrectly graded even though many others are saying otherwise You clearly have an axe to grind and are willing to impugn your integrity and insist that you know when we all know that you don't.
And if you really were a grader all I can say is we all know who to blame for gradeflation.
@Rexford said:
Undoubtedly the same sort of grader as that other “former grader,” if they exist.
If you are being serious then you know that nobody, not even you, can accurately grade from photos, and since you insist these are not your coins then you have not seen them in hand. Yet you are the only one that "knows" these are now incorrectly graded even though many others are saying otherwise You clearly have an axe to grind and are willing to impugn your integrity and insist that you know when we all know that you don't.
And if you really were a grader all I can say is we all know who to blame for gradeflation.
There’s a difference between not being able to grade from photos to a fine degree, and to tell the difference between a 58 and a 64/65 - especially with the nicer photos and the video that I provided. That’s a movement from a worn coin to a gem coin. If someone who has worked as a grader were unable to make that distinction based on those particular pics and videos, that would be a huge problem.
And I’m not the only one who knows and feels this way about these coins. They’ve been pretty widely disseminated on other platforms.
What a big MV loss. How u gonna make money going that way?
Unacceptable - as is buyers wb looking get it at AU money, upgrade elsewhere, bank real good.
I would be furious with that kind of downgrade. Wb last time they got my money . Contact / Send back to NGC and see if can get the 64 grade back. Or submit to our hosts see what they say. In future specify minimum grade. Run thru Anacs?
@Rexford said:
Here’s another one. NGC 64 to CACG 58+.
If this another Technical Grading result, it seems like they are living up to their word and this is to be expected.
It clearly isn’t based on the video. Anyway, who ever said CACG was grading “technically”? That seems to be something made up in this thread. Their grading standards are supposed to imitate CAC standards. CAC never claimed to grade “technically”, and certainly isn’t following the ridiculous standards seen here.
@Rexford said:
Here’s another one. NGC 64 to CACG 58+.
If this another Technical Grading result, it seems like they are living up to their word and this is to be expected.
It clearly isn’t based on the video. Anyway, who ever said CACG was grading “technically”? That seems to be something made up in this thread. Their grading standards are supposed to imitate CAC standards. CAC never claimed to grade “technically”, and certainly isn’t following the ridiculous standards seen here.
Yes, as a matter of fact they did. There’s a reason that the walker and SLQ you’ve just shown weren't stickered to begin with. Many a coin have come back from New Jersey with a little yellow sticker with the word “friction” on them.
@spacehayduke said:
First, let's talk about the misconception. As I have said dozens of times here, PCGS=NGC for grading strictness, and this is based on 100s of raw coins submitted both ways. Both of their 'strictness' has ebbed and flowed over time and sometimes at different times - looser, stricter, etc. and within different series. What PCGS has done better is marketing their Brand for classic US coins so many are under the belief that somehow that makes PCGS holdered coins better. And, because of that, many have crossed the best coins in NGC holders over. But that is independent of their grading strictness between the two TPG's.
Sorry, but this has got to be unique to your small sample of submissions. There is a stronger likelihood that an NGC coin will downgrade on a cross to pcgs versus crossing at the same grade.
@Rexford said:
Here’s another one. NGC 64 to CACG 58+.
If this another Technical Grading result, it seems like they are living up to their word and this is to be expected.
It clearly isn’t based on the video. Anyway, who ever said CACG was grading “technically”? That seems to be something made up in this thread. Their grading standards are supposed to imitate CAC standards. CAC never claimed to grade “technically”, and certainly isn’t following the ridiculous standards seen here.
Yes, as a matter of fact they did. There’s a reason that the walker and SLQ you’ve just shown weren't stickered to begin with. Many a coin have come back from New Jersey with a little yellow sticker with the word “friction” on them.
That’s not something that has ever been claimed by CAC to my knowledge. They may find some coins frictiony for their standards, but that doesn’t make them purely technical graders. There are plenty of CAC stickered MS coins out there with light friction. In fact, there’s a CACG MS67 WLH on eBay right now that looks to have what some in this thread would likely deem rub and a technical 58.
There are different types of friction, and we wouldn’t really be able to discern between the two from images as we’re already pushing the boundaries of grading from pictures. “Stacking” friction and wear are two different things, the latter making the area dull, whereas stacking friction retains its luster.
We are at an impasse without being able to physically evaluate the coins, so we can just agree to disagree here.
I found the video of the SLQ to be useless, but the larger CAC images make it look like a coin that I would never buy as an MS64. Other folks might, but I wouldn't. Right click to open the image in a new tab to get the larger version-
@Rexford said:
Here’s another one. NGC 64 to CACG 58+.
If this another Technical Grading result, it seems like they are living up to their word and this is to be expected.
It clearly isn’t based on the video. Anyway, who ever said CACG was grading “technically”? That seems to be something made up in this thread. Their grading standards are supposed to imitate CAC standards. CAC never claimed to grade “technically”, and certainly isn’t following the ridiculous standards seen here.
Yes, as a matter of fact they did. There’s a reason that the walker and SLQ you’ve just shown weren't stickered to begin with. Many a coin have come back from New Jersey with a little yellow sticker with the word “friction” on them.
That’s not something that has ever been claimed by CAC to my knowledge.
I recall it being mentioned by CAC staff on the CAC forums.
But…PCGS 64 CAC on what appears to be a very similar coin in terms of “friction” and indeed overall appearance.
It may be that I am out of date regarding CAC’s supposed “technical” approach - I am not monitoring their forums - but regardless, those apparent standards do not seem to me to be expressed in a reliable or consistent manner. Yes, we are just looking at photos, but to my eye the CACG 67 in my earlier comment does not look justifiable as a 67 at all, and certainly not if “technically” graded - it looks technically worse than the ex-P65 “58+”. And if the approach is attempting to be purely technical, the 58 grade becomes extremely broad. Think about the difference between the average PCGS 58 WLH and the PCGS 65 WLH that I posted earlier. Huge. A 58 has legitimate dullness and “color change” on the high points, and that 65 does not (and has booming luster and clean fields to boot). On the CACG scale (assuming consistency), a nice PCGS 58 would be graded 58, and that 65 would be graded 58+. Those would be massively different coins, and at that point the scale becomes somewhat useless.
Also, I would just like to point out that technical grading has never been a standard in the past. If CAC is currently trying to attempt this, they are carving new ground. This isn’t to say that that’s a terrible thing, but statements like “market grading has made people forget how to grade” are inaccurate. Grading has always has been “market grading” (although I don’t use that term). The old standards of grading of 20 or 30 or 50 years ago were not technical. The original ANA standards were not technical. They were actually pretty much the opposite; they ignored strike in favor of detail - circulated grades were determined by how much of “LIBERTY” or how much feather detail, etc, was present, and not by how much actual wear was present. Whether grading has loosened over time is another question, but the standards were never technical. This is in part, I believe, because people couldn’t actually have done it if they tried; it took a some time for the strike/wear distinction to be fully developed and understood.
Technical grading attempts to base itself around the objective amount of wear on a coin. The current grading systems in place at the two major TPGs are far more technical in this sense than they ever were in the past, as they have slowly moved away from the ANA standards and towards a measurement of wear that takes strike into account instead of focusing on apparent detail. This is perhaps most visible with world coins - when world coins started being graded in large quantities, the graders were of course ex-US graders. The result was a lot of apparent confusion about strike and wear, and a lot of undergrading of weakly struck hammered coins, which has since been essentially resolved. In fact, the most common complaint about grading from collectors of hammered coins is that it is too technical, and focuses on wear instead of strike.
The other thing that technical grading must attempt to do, if it is to be truly technical, is to treat all series of coins equally. I do not find this to be a realistic or useful task. A large portion of the population of early large cents would end up in details holders for environmental damage, if they were graded like modern cents. Early gold would largely end up in cleaned holders. Saints would be almost universally dropped from MS to AU grades due to superficial high point friction (even from grades as high as 66). Any high-relief type would be pretty much screwed. I think that would do a disservice to the collectors of those series, who understand that those issues are to be expected, and would lump lots of coins of very different quality into the same grades. I don’t think CAC is really going to attempt to do this though, which means they aren’t really using technical grading, regardless of what they might claim - just some far more stringent form of market grading.
That 1945 in the above post has chatter going on all over the place and weakness in the eagle breast feathers. If you think that is comparable in condition to the very nice 1916 D you also posted, please do your homework. The reverse fingerprint, corrosion on the rim by the date, and that shiny gray borderline questionable color doesn’t help the 1945 either.
The coin was in a coffin holder, and whoever submitted that to cacg had no clue what they were doing.
@Rexford said:
Here’s another one. NGC 64 to CACG 58+.
The coin appears to have rub from the top to the bottom of Liberty’s left-facing leg- quite a bit more than on most coins of that type in mint state holders.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I believe the first mistake with all of these examples being shown was to cross them in the first place.
Why bother?
It's been said almost since inception that CACG is pretty tight with grading.
These examples shown should have been left in their holders because there was nothing to gain.
This is how I feel about my own coins. I paid 65 money for a 65 graded coin and I am not going to make the mistake of trying to cross or even think I can upgrade.
I've learned this much through my own mistakes.
We pay for opinions and my feelings have always been that on any given day a coin can move up or down a grade.
To see a 65 move down to a 58+ proves my point.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
@Rexford said:
Just because grading is tight doesn’t mean it’s correct.
No worries for you then, just keep your coins in whatever holders they are in now and everything will be fine.
Ok . . . I don’t collect US coins, so it doesn’t affect me. I’ve seen multiple ridiculously graded CACG coins at this point though. It isn’t “brutally honest” to drop a PCGS MS65 Walking Liberty to an AU58 - it’s just inaccurate. And my point stands in general - tight doesn’t mean right. Tight means tight. Consistency is more important than being tight or loose anyway, and there isn’t enough data to show that CACG has been consistent.
Your statement assumes a great bit, why do you assume that PCGS got it correct? Maybe CACG did get it correct.
Because I can grade well enough to tell the difference between a 58 and a 65. And PCGS is not misgrading WLHs that much. They’re not that difficult to grade. I don’t have pics of it in the PCGS holder, but here:
It seems that it’s harder to grade coins when they’re not already in the holders.
It does look like it might have a little rub on the breast
@Rexford said:
Because I can grade well enough to tell the difference between a 58 and a 65. And PCGS is not misgrading WLHs that much. They’re not that difficult to grade. I don’t have pics of it in the PCGS holder, but here:
It seems that it’s harder to grade coins when they’re not already in the holders.
From the photo I see a touch of rub on the left (viewers right) breast, looks like CACG got it right if you are grading on a technical level and just the type of coin that the market grading firms place into MS holders.
It seems that many are so accustomed to market grading that they may have forgotten how to grade.
>
When I go to CoinFacts and pull up a MS65, I see booming luster that I fully expect to see. I’m sorry, I don’t see nothing like the kind of luster with this coin.
The issue would not be luster. Luster might drop it from 65 to 64. The issue would be slight rub. The drop from 65 to 58 isn't that far. All it takes is little rub and even a 66 or 67 is now a 58.
It will be interesting to see some of these CACG coins at FUN next week.
Also interesting to see how they are priced.
I anticipate it’s going to be like EAC grading and pricing.
@Rexford said:
Just because grading is tight doesn’t mean it’s correct.
No worries for you then, just keep your coins in whatever holders they are in now and everything will be fine.
Ok . . . I don’t collect US coins, so it doesn’t affect me. I’ve seen multiple ridiculously graded CACG coins at this point though. It isn’t “brutally honest” to drop a PCGS MS65 Walking Liberty to an AU58 - it’s just inaccurate. And my point stands in general - tight doesn’t mean right. Tight means tight. Consistency is more important than being tight or loose anyway, and there isn’t enough data to show that CACG has been consistent.
Your statement assumes a great bit, why do you assume that PCGS got it correct? Maybe CACG did get it correct.
Because I can grade well enough to tell the difference between a 58 and a 65. And PCGS is not misgrading WLHs that much. They’re not that difficult to grade. I don’t have pics of it in the PCGS holder, but here:
It seems that it’s harder to grade coins when they’re not already in the holders.
It does look like it might have a little rub on the breast
Liberty’s breast and the eagle’s, as well as areas of her skirt and the eagle’s legs and wing.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Rexford said:
Because I can grade well enough to tell the difference between a 58 and a 65. And PCGS is not misgrading WLHs that much. They’re not that difficult to grade. I don’t have pics of it in the PCGS holder, but here:
It seems that it’s harder to grade coins when they’re not already in the holders.
From the photo I see a touch of rub on the left (viewers right) breast, looks like CACG got it right if you are grading on a technical level and just the type of coin that the market grading firms place into MS holders.
It seems that many are so accustomed to market grading that they may have forgotten how to grade.
>
When I go to CoinFacts and pull up a MS65, I see booming luster that I fully expect to see. I’m sorry, I don’t see nothing like the kind of luster with this coin.
The issue would not be luster. Luster might drop it from 65 to 64. The issue would be slight rub. The drop from 65 to 58 isn't that far. All it takes is little rub and even a 66 or 67 is now a 58.
Capped Bust halves, in particular, are frequently seen examples of that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Rexford said:
Because I can grade well enough to tell the difference between a 58 and a 65. And PCGS is not misgrading WLHs that much. They’re not that difficult to grade. I don’t have pics of it in the PCGS holder, but here:
It seems that it’s harder to grade coins when they’re not already in the holders.
From the photo I see a touch of rub on the left (viewers right) breast, looks like CACG got it right if you are grading on a technical level and just the type of coin that the market grading firms place into MS holders.
It seems that many are so accustomed to market grading that they may have forgotten how to grade.
>
When I go to CoinFacts and pull up a MS65, I see booming luster that I fully expect to see. I’m sorry, I don’t see nothing like the kind of luster with this coin.
The issue would not be luster. Luster might drop it from 65 to 64. The issue would be slight rub. The drop from 65 to 58 isn't that far. All it takes is little rub and even a 66 or 67 is now a 58.
Capped Bust halves, in particular, are frequently seen examples of that.
That's also a series, like early copper, where a lot has been overlooked in grading. I would be interested to see where CACG is on those series.
IF IF IF - I haven't seen enough to know - CACG is stricter, it's not a bad thing. But it might confuse the market a bit. In the end, the coin is the coin. But if a CACG 58 sells for what a PCGS/NGC 64 sells for, it will confuse people who are slaves to the price guides.
But…PCGS 64 CAC on what appears to be a very similar coin in terms of “friction” and indeed overall appearance.
It may be that I am out of date regarding CAC’s supposed “technical” approach - I am not monitoring their forums - but regardless, those apparent standards do not seem to me to be expressed in a reliable or consistent manner. Yes, we are just looking at photos, but to my eye the CACG 67 in my earlier comment does not look justifiable as a 67 at all, and certainly not if “technically” graded - it looks technically worse than the ex-P65 “58+”. And if the approach is attempting to be purely technical, the 58 grade becomes extremely broad. Think about the difference between the average PCGS 58 WLH and the PCGS 65 WLH that I posted earlier. Huge. A 58 has legitimate dullness and “color change” on the high points, and that 65 does not (and has booming luster and clean fields to boot). On the CACG scale (assuming consistency), a nice PCGS 58 would be graded 58, and that 65 would be graded 58+. Those would be massively different coins, and at that point the scale becomes somewhat useless.
Also, I would just like to point out that technical grading has never been a standard in the past. If CAC is currently trying to attempt this, they are carving new ground. This isn’t to say that that’s a terrible thing, but statements like “market grading has made people forget how to grade” are inaccurate. Grading has always has been “market grading” (although I don’t use that term). The old standards of grading of 20 or 30 or 50 years ago were not technical. The original ANA standards were not technical. They were actually pretty much the opposite; they ignored strike in favor of detail - circulated grades were determined by how much of “LIBERTY” or how much feather detail, etc, was present, and not by how much actual wear was present. Whether grading has loosened over time is another question, but the standards were never technical. This is in part, I believe, because people couldn’t actually have done it if they tried; it took a some time for the strike/wear distinction to be fully developed and understood.
Technical grading attempts to base itself around the objective amount of wear on a coin. The current grading systems in place at the two major TPGs are far more technical in this sense than they ever were in the past, as they have slowly moved away from the ANA standards and towards a measurement of wear that takes strike into account instead of focusing on apparent detail. This is perhaps most visible with world coins - when world coins started being graded in large quantities, the graders were of course ex-US graders. The result was a lot of apparent confusion about strike and wear, and a lot of undergrading of weakly struck hammered coins, which has since been essentially resolved. In fact, the most common complaint about grading from collectors of hammered coins is that it is too technical, and focuses on wear instead of strike.
The other thing that technical grading must attempt to do, if it is to be truly technical, is to treat all series of coins equally. I do not find this to be a realistic or useful task. A large portion of the population of early large cents would end up in details holders for environmental damage, if they were graded like modern cents. Early gold would largely end up in cleaned holders. Saints would be almost universally dropped from MS to AU grades due to superficial high point friction (even from grades as high as 66). Any high-relief type would be pretty much screwed. I think that would do a disservice to the collectors of those series, who understand that those issues are to be expected, and would lump lots of coins of very different quality into the same grades. I don’t think CAC is really going to attempt to do this though, which means they aren’t really using technical grading, regardless of what they might claim - just some far more stringent form of market grading.
I am confused, if you are truly an ex-grader for a TPG then:
You must know the challenges of trying to grade a coin from a photo - especially in the 58 to 64 range. Isn't that why expert/professional graders like you sit in a dark room with a light on the coin in HAND?
Is it not true that how the luster rotates through under the light is important for the grade in that range. Images rarely can show you that on most coins. Some lighting (and consequent images) might show apparent luster over the whole surface while some other lighting or directions relative to the lighting, may not.........
I am encouraged that CACG appears to be weeding out heavily overgraded coins and putting them in the correct grade. People whom have benefited financially from overgrading may not like it though, but can't wait to get great 58's in CACG holders...............
@cameonut2011 said:
It will be interesting to see if CACG will maintain its standards or acquiesce in mainstream TPG standards to survive financially.
It will be interesting to see how big of a market there is for technical grading given posted interest for it on these forums. Either way, it will be great to see what happens.
Without a doubt, CAC/CACG is far more strict or, at least consistent so far.
Since J/A plans to be around for another 9 years I don't expect that to change during that period of time and likely beyond.
The SLQ clearly appears to have rub from the top to the bottom of Liberty’s left-facing leg.
@Morgan13 said:
I believe the first mistake with all of these examples being shown was to cross them in the first place.
Why bother?
It's been said almost since inception that CACG is pretty tight with grading.
These examples shown should have been left in their holders because there was nothing to gain.
This is how I feel about my own coins. I paid 65 money for a 65 graded coin and I am not going to make the mistake of trying to cross or even think I can upgrade.
I've learned this much through my own mistakes.
We pay for opinions and my feelings have always been that on any given day a coin can move up or down a grade.
To see a 65 move down to a 58+ proves my point.
Your confusing the grade with the price. A "65" does not always sell for 65 money. If a 63 CACG sells for more than a PCGS 65, hypothetically, why wouldn't you cross?
If that 65 really is a 58, it will likely sell for far less than 65 money.
But…PCGS 64 CAC on what appears to be a very similar coin in terms of “friction” and indeed overall appearance.
It may be that I am out of date regarding CAC’s supposed “technical” approach - I am not monitoring their forums - but regardless, those apparent standards do not seem to me to be expressed in a reliable or consistent manner. Yes, we are just looking at photos, but to my eye the CACG 67 in my earlier comment does not look justifiable as a 67 at all, and certainly not if “technically” graded - it looks technically worse than the ex-P65 “58+”. And if the approach is attempting to be purely technical, the 58 grade becomes extremely broad. Think about the difference between the average PCGS 58 WLH and the PCGS 65 WLH that I posted earlier. Huge. A 58 has legitimate dullness and “color change” on the high points, and that 65 does not (and has booming luster and clean fields to boot). On the CACG scale (assuming consistency), a nice PCGS 58 would be graded 58, and that 65 would be graded 58+. Those would be massively different coins, and at that point the scale becomes somewhat useless.
Also, I would just like to point out that technical grading has never been a standard in the past. If CAC is currently trying to attempt this, they are carving new ground. This isn’t to say that that’s a terrible thing, but statements like “market grading has made people forget how to grade” are inaccurate. Grading has always has been “market grading” (although I don’t use that term). The old standards of grading of 20 or 30 or 50 years ago were not technical. The original ANA standards were not technical. They were actually pretty much the opposite; they ignored strike in favor of detail - circulated grades were determined by how much of “LIBERTY” or how much feather detail, etc, was present, and not by how much actual wear was present. Whether grading has loosened over time is another question, but the standards were never technical. This is in part, I believe, because people couldn’t actually have done it if they tried; it took a some time for the strike/wear distinction to be fully developed and understood.
Technical grading attempts to base itself around the objective amount of wear on a coin. The current grading systems in place at the two major TPGs are far more technical in this sense than they ever were in the past, as they have slowly moved away from the ANA standards and towards a measurement of wear that takes strike into account instead of focusing on apparent detail. This is perhaps most visible with world coins - when world coins started being graded in large quantities, the graders were of course ex-US graders. The result was a lot of apparent confusion about strike and wear, and a lot of undergrading of weakly struck hammered coins, which has since been essentially resolved. In fact, the most common complaint about grading from collectors of hammered coins is that it is too technical, and focuses on wear instead of strike.
The other thing that technical grading must attempt to do, if it is to be truly technical, is to treat all series of coins equally. I do not find this to be a realistic or useful task. A large portion of the population of early large cents would end up in details holders for environmental damage, if they were graded like modern cents. Early gold would largely end up in cleaned holders. Saints would be almost universally dropped from MS to AU grades due to superficial high point friction (even from grades as high as 66). Any high-relief type would be pretty much screwed. I think that would do a disservice to the collectors of those series, who understand that those issues are to be expected, and would lump lots of coins of very different quality into the same grades. I don’t think CAC is really going to attempt to do this though, which means they aren’t really using technical grading, regardless of what they might claim - just some far more stringent form of market grading.
Your mistake is not understanding the issue here. There is a small group of coins with booming luster and clean fields with a touch of very slight friction in perhaps only 1 or 2 high points. Most are net graded by the TPG companies. I once saw a SLQ net graded MS 64 that had only a tiny rub on the knee drop to 58+ from CACG. You should be grateful CAC and CACG are weeding out these coins that are NOT TRULY UNCIRCULATED.
But…PCGS 64 CAC on what appears to be a very similar coin in terms of “friction” and indeed overall appearance.
It may be that I am out of date regarding CAC’s supposed “technical” approach - I am not monitoring their forums - but regardless, those apparent standards do not seem to me to be expressed in a reliable or consistent manner. Yes, we are just looking at photos, but to my eye the CACG 67 in my earlier comment does not look justifiable as a 67 at all, and certainly not if “technically” graded - it looks technically worse than the ex-P65 “58+”. And if the approach is attempting to be purely technical, the 58 grade becomes extremely broad. Think about the difference between the average PCGS 58 WLH and the PCGS 65 WLH that I posted earlier. Huge. A 58 has legitimate dullness and “color change” on the high points, and that 65 does not (and has booming luster and clean fields to boot). On the CACG scale (assuming consistency), a nice PCGS 58 would be graded 58, and that 65 would be graded 58+. Those would be massively different coins, and at that point the scale becomes somewhat useless.
Also, I would just like to point out that technical grading has never been a standard in the past. If CAC is currently trying to attempt this, they are carving new ground. This isn’t to say that that’s a terrible thing, but statements like “market grading has made people forget how to grade” are inaccurate. Grading has always has been “market grading” (although I don’t use that term). The old standards of grading of 20 or 30 or 50 years ago were not technical. The original ANA standards were not technical. They were actually pretty much the opposite; they ignored strike in favor of detail - circulated grades were determined by how much of “LIBERTY” or how much feather detail, etc, was present, and not by how much actual wear was present. Whether grading has loosened over time is another question, but the standards were never technical. This is in part, I believe, because people couldn’t actually have done it if they tried; it took a some time for the strike/wear distinction to be fully developed and understood.
Technical grading attempts to base itself around the objective amount of wear on a coin. The current grading systems in place at the two major TPGs are far more technical in this sense than they ever were in the past, as they have slowly moved away from the ANA standards and towards a measurement of wear that takes strike into account instead of focusing on apparent detail. This is perhaps most visible with world coins - when world coins started being graded in large quantities, the graders were of course ex-US graders. The result was a lot of apparent confusion about strike and wear, and a lot of undergrading of weakly struck hammered coins, which has since been essentially resolved. In fact, the most common complaint about grading from collectors of hammered coins is that it is too technical, and focuses on wear instead of strike.
The other thing that technical grading must attempt to do, if it is to be truly technical, is to treat all series of coins equally. I do not find this to be a realistic or useful task. A large portion of the population of early large cents would end up in details holders for environmental damage, if they were graded like modern cents. Early gold would largely end up in cleaned holders. Saints would be almost universally dropped from MS to AU grades due to superficial high point friction (even from grades as high as 66). Any high-relief type would be pretty much screwed. I think that would do a disservice to the collectors of those series, who understand that those issues are to be expected, and would lump lots of coins of very different quality into the same grades. I don’t think CAC is really going to attempt to do this though, which means they aren’t really using technical grading, regardless of what they might claim - just some far more stringent form of market grading.
. …I once saw a SLQ net graded MS 64 that had only a tiny rub on the knee drop to 58+ from CACG.
One such Standing Liberty Quarter has already been posted to this thread.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Good god, reading comprehension is not this forum’s strong suit.
I fully understand what is being suggested that CAC is doing, but there is clearly some major confusion about these coins in this thread. These coins display superficial stacking friction, if anything. They do not have high-point luster breaks and dullness to a degree that has or would have ever merited a 58. They likely never circulated. These coins are far better quality than the average “true 58” that does have significant high-point luster loss. They are not coins that that PCGS or NGC accidentally called 63/64/65 instead of 58. They are not coins that ever would have been considered 58 by a leading TPG - not now, not 30 years ago. Therefore these coins that are being dropped from gem/near-gem to 58+ were not “overgraded”, and they are not now being “correctly graded”, because they are being adjusted to a scale that has never actually existed on the marketplace. If CAC wants to attempt to make a new “technical” scale in this regard, they may have at it - but, as I noted in my very long comment above - that would seem to be a wholly useless endeavor. If collectors have to distinguish for themselves the “65” quality coin from the “63” quality coin from the “58” quality coin within the 58 grade, grading no longer serves a purpose, and, to repeat myself from MUCH earlier in this thread, we may as well then go back to collecting raw coins.
And the inconsistencies in CACG grading are clear in this thread - some coins with stacking friction are getting dropped to 58, and some are being granted nice MS grades. I have stated my professional opinion that that inconsistency is apparent. You all are free to take that or leave it, that’s up to you.
With that, I exit this discussion. I’ve pretty clearly spelled this out at this point, and there’s not much more I can do here.
@Rexford said:
Good god, reading comprehension is not this forum’s strong suit.
I fully understand what is being suggested that CAC is doing, but there is clearly some major confusion about these coins in this thread. These coins display superficial stacking friction, if anything. They do not have high-point luster breaks and dullness to a degree that has or would have ever merited a 58. They probably never really circulated. These coins are far better quality than the average “true 58” that does have significant high-point luster loss. They are not coins that that PCGS or NGC accidentally called 63/64/65 instead of 58. They are not coins that ever would have been considered 58 by a leading TPG - not now, not 30 years ago. Therefore these coins that are being dropped from gem/near-gem are not “overgraded”, and they are not now being “correctly graded”, because they are being adjusted to a scale that has never actually existed on the marketplace. If CAC wants to attempt to make a new “technical” scale in this regard, they may have at it - but, as I noted in my very long comment above - that would seem to be a wholly useless endeavor. If collectors have to distinguish for themselves the “65” quality coin from the “63” quality coin from the “58” quality coin within the 58 grade, grading no longer serves a purpose, and, to repeat myself from MUCH earlier in this thread, we may as well then go back to collecting raw coins.
And the inconsistencies in CACG grading are clear in this thread - some coins with stacking friction are getting dropped to 58, and some are being granted nice MS grades.
With that, I exit this discussion. I’ve pretty clearly spelled this out, at this point, and there’s not much more I can do here.
Yes, you’ve clearly “spelled this out”. It’s just that, based on coins some of us have seen in hand, and images posted here, not everyone agrees with your opinions. And it’s been an interesting discussion.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Rexford said:
Good god, reading comprehension is not this forum’s strong suit.
I fully understand what is being suggested that CAC is doing, but there is clearly some major confusion about these coins in this thread. These coins display superficial stacking friction, if anything. They do not have high-point luster breaks and dullness to a degree that has or would have ever merited a 58. They likely never circulated. These coins are far better quality than the average “true 58” that does have significant high-point luster loss. They are not coins that that PCGS or NGC accidentally called 63/64/65 instead of 58. They are not coins that ever would have been considered 58 by a leading TPG - not now, not 30 years ago. Therefore these coins that are being dropped from gem/near-gem to 58+ were not “overgraded”, and they are not now being “correctly graded”, because they are being adjusted to a scale that has never actually existed on the marketplace. If CAC wants to attempt to make a new “technical” scale in this regard, they may have at it - but, as I noted in my very long comment above - that would seem to be a wholly useless endeavor. If collectors have to distinguish for themselves the “65” quality coin from the “63” quality coin from the “58” quality coin within the 58 grade, grading no longer serves a purpose, and, to repeat myself from MUCH earlier in this thread, we may as well then go back to collecting raw coins.
And the inconsistencies in CACG grading are clear in this thread - some coins with stacking friction are getting dropped to 58, and some are being granted nice MS grades. I have stated my professional opinion that that inconsistency is apparent. You all are free to take that or leave it, that’s up to you.
With that, I exit this discussion. I’ve pretty clearly spelled this out at this point, and there’s not much more I can do here.
Just because they consistently ignored problems does NOT mean that they have not been overgraded or that they should be ignored.
Please show us the grading standard that claims that high point friction can be ignored in grades of 63 or higher.
@Rexford said:
Good god, reading comprehension is not this forum’s strong suit.
I fully understand what is being suggested that CAC is doing, but there is clearly some major confusion about these coins in this thread. These coins display superficial stacking friction, if anything. They do not have high-point luster breaks and dullness to a degree that has or would have ever merited a 58. They probably never really circulated. These coins are far better quality than the average “true 58” that does have significant high-point luster loss. They are not coins that that PCGS or NGC accidentally called 63/64/65 instead of 58. They are not coins that ever would have been considered 58 by a leading TPG - not now, not 30 years ago. Therefore these coins that are being dropped from gem/near-gem are not “overgraded”, and they are not now being “correctly graded”, because they are being adjusted to a scale that has never actually existed on the marketplace. If CAC wants to attempt to make a new “technical” scale in this regard, they may have at it - but, as I noted in my very long comment above - that would seem to be a wholly useless endeavor. If collectors have to distinguish for themselves the “65” quality coin from the “63” quality coin from the “58” quality coin within the 58 grade, grading no longer serves a purpose, and, to repeat myself from MUCH earlier in this thread, we may as well then go back to collecting raw coins.
And the inconsistencies in CACG grading are clear in this thread - some coins with stacking friction are getting dropped to 58, and some are being granted nice MS grades.
With that, I exit this discussion. I’ve pretty clearly spelled this out, at this point, and there’s not much more I can do here.
Yes, you’ve clearly “spelled this out”. It’s just that, based on coins some of us have seen in hand, and images posted here, not everyone agrees with your opinions. And it’s been an interesting discussion.
Of course, all are welcome to agree or disagree with my opinions and with those of the graders who originally graded these coins. And since everyone in this thread is a professional grader, we can just move on from TPGs! I don’t personally need them, so I’m very excited that we’ve all gotten to this point. This will be fun 😁
@Rexford said:
Good god, reading comprehension is not this forum’s strong suit.
I fully understand what is being suggested that CAC is doing, but there is clearly some major confusion about these coins in this thread. These coins display superficial stacking friction, if anything. They do not have high-point luster breaks and dullness to a degree that has or would have ever merited a 58. They probably never really circulated. These coins are far better quality than the average “true 58” that does have significant high-point luster loss. They are not coins that that PCGS or NGC accidentally called 63/64/65 instead of 58. They are not coins that ever would have been considered 58 by a leading TPG - not now, not 30 years ago. Therefore these coins that are being dropped from gem/near-gem are not “overgraded”, and they are not now being “correctly graded”, because they are being adjusted to a scale that has never actually existed on the marketplace. If CAC wants to attempt to make a new “technical” scale in this regard, they may have at it - but, as I noted in my very long comment above - that would seem to be a wholly useless endeavor. If collectors have to distinguish for themselves the “65” quality coin from the “63” quality coin from the “58” quality coin within the 58 grade, grading no longer serves a purpose, and, to repeat myself from MUCH earlier in this thread, we may as well then go back to collecting raw coins.
And the inconsistencies in CACG grading are clear in this thread - some coins with stacking friction are getting dropped to 58, and some are being granted nice MS grades.
With that, I exit this discussion. I’ve pretty clearly spelled this out, at this point, and there’s not much more I can do here.
Yes, you’ve clearly “spelled this out”. It’s just that, based on coins some of us have seen in hand, and images posted here, not everyone agrees with your opinions. And it’s been an interesting discussion.
Of course, all are welcome to agree or disagree with my opinions and with those of the graders who originally graded these coins. And since everyone in this thread is a professional grader, we can just move on from TPGs! I don’t personally need them, so I’m very excited that we’ve all gotten to this point. This will be fun 😁
Comments
Maybe you have trouble differentiating wear and strike then?
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Not your coins but you can provide photos and videos instantly of these coins, right.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
That sure could be true, however, a former grader did see what I saw so maybe it is you with the bias and inability to discern the difference.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Er, I see rub, 65's don't have rub, so???????????
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
Correct and correct. What makes that difficult to believe?
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
I am a former grader.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Market grader I have to assume.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Check the other images. Scans throw shadows and obscure luster.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
I’ve seen many CACG coins in hand, and I’ve rarely disagreed with them so far. I’m not sure what “circles” you are referring to, but I belong to quite a few and this forum is the gold standard by far. I belong to several different forums and a myriad of Facebook groups, and a great many opinions I’ve heard there about CACG standards are…well…misguided.
Your walker looks like a nice coin, and I’d really need to see it in hand to determine if I agree that there is wear, but I don’t endorse the “market grading” philosophy, especially with 20th century high population coins. If there is any wear, the coin doesn’t belong in an MS holder and that’s that. I don’t need a grading company to determine that the coins overall appearance should merit gem grade, despite a small amount of wear. That would’t be fair to the coins at that grade level that are actually uncirculated.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Undoubtedly the same sort of grader as that other “former grader,” if they exist.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
That’s interesting. I find this forum to be a constant source of misgrading and frustrating misinformation. I do not find it to be the gold standard, and if it is, it’s only because other forums are even worse. The average GTG thread here is all over the place.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
If you are being serious then you know that nobody, not even you, can accurately grade from photos, and since you insist these are not your coins then you have not seen them in hand. Yet you are the only one that "knows" these are now incorrectly graded even though many others are saying otherwise You clearly have an axe to grind and are willing to impugn your integrity and insist that you know when we all know that you don't.
And if you really were a grader all I can say is we all know who to blame for gradeflation.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
There’s a difference between not being able to grade from photos to a fine degree, and to tell the difference between a 58 and a 64/65 - especially with the nicer photos and the video that I provided. That’s a movement from a worn coin to a gem coin. If someone who has worked as a grader were unable to make that distinction based on those particular pics and videos, that would be a huge problem.
And I’m not the only one who knows and feels this way about these coins. They’ve been pretty widely disseminated on other platforms.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
If this another Technical Grading result, it seems like they are living up to their word and this is to be expected.
What a big MV loss. How u gonna make money going that way?
Unacceptable - as is buyers wb looking get it at AU money, upgrade elsewhere, bank real good.
I would be furious with that kind of downgrade. Wb last time they got my money . Contact / Send back to NGC and see if can get the 64 grade back. Or submit to our hosts see what they say. In future specify minimum grade. Run thru Anacs?
Play to win not lose.
Stacking rub in roll is not wear IMO.
It clearly isn’t based on the video. Anyway, who ever said CACG was grading “technically”? That seems to be something made up in this thread. Their grading standards are supposed to imitate CAC standards. CAC never claimed to grade “technically”, and certainly isn’t following the ridiculous standards seen here.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Yes, as a matter of fact they did. There’s a reason that the walker and SLQ you’ve just shown weren't stickered to begin with. Many a coin have come back from New Jersey with a little yellow sticker with the word “friction” on them.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Sorry, but this has got to be unique to your small sample of submissions. There is a stronger likelihood that an NGC coin will downgrade on a cross to pcgs versus crossing at the same grade.
I think it’s silly to make generalizations about TPG’s.
That’s not something that has ever been claimed by CAC to my knowledge. They may find some coins frictiony for their standards, but that doesn’t make them purely technical graders. There are plenty of CAC stickered MS coins out there with light friction. In fact, there’s a CACG MS67 WLH on eBay right now that looks to have what some in this thread would likely deem rub and a technical 58.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/196124375029?
or perhaps this other 67
https://www.ebay.com/itm/196124345929?
or this 63 https://www.ebay.com/itm/115966139231?
or this 65
https://www.ebay.com/itm/186219862491?
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
There are different types of friction, and we wouldn’t really be able to discern between the two from images as we’re already pushing the boundaries of grading from pictures. “Stacking” friction and wear are two different things, the latter making the area dull, whereas stacking friction retains its luster.
We are at an impasse without being able to physically evaluate the coins, so we can just agree to disagree here.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I found the video of the SLQ to be useless, but the larger CAC images make it look like a coin that I would never buy as an MS64. Other folks might, but I wouldn't. Right click to open the image in a new tab to get the larger version-
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I recall it being mentioned by CAC staff on the CAC forums.
NGC 63 to CACG 58+
But…PCGS 64 CAC on what appears to be a very similar coin in terms of “friction” and indeed overall appearance.
It may be that I am out of date regarding CAC’s supposed “technical” approach - I am not monitoring their forums - but regardless, those apparent standards do not seem to me to be expressed in a reliable or consistent manner. Yes, we are just looking at photos, but to my eye the CACG 67 in my earlier comment does not look justifiable as a 67 at all, and certainly not if “technically” graded - it looks technically worse than the ex-P65 “58+”. And if the approach is attempting to be purely technical, the 58 grade becomes extremely broad. Think about the difference between the average PCGS 58 WLH and the PCGS 65 WLH that I posted earlier. Huge. A 58 has legitimate dullness and “color change” on the high points, and that 65 does not (and has booming luster and clean fields to boot). On the CACG scale (assuming consistency), a nice PCGS 58 would be graded 58, and that 65 would be graded 58+. Those would be massively different coins, and at that point the scale becomes somewhat useless.
Also, I would just like to point out that technical grading has never been a standard in the past. If CAC is currently trying to attempt this, they are carving new ground. This isn’t to say that that’s a terrible thing, but statements like “market grading has made people forget how to grade” are inaccurate. Grading has always has been “market grading” (although I don’t use that term). The old standards of grading of 20 or 30 or 50 years ago were not technical. The original ANA standards were not technical. They were actually pretty much the opposite; they ignored strike in favor of detail - circulated grades were determined by how much of “LIBERTY” or how much feather detail, etc, was present, and not by how much actual wear was present. Whether grading has loosened over time is another question, but the standards were never technical. This is in part, I believe, because people couldn’t actually have done it if they tried; it took a some time for the strike/wear distinction to be fully developed and understood.
Technical grading attempts to base itself around the objective amount of wear on a coin. The current grading systems in place at the two major TPGs are far more technical in this sense than they ever were in the past, as they have slowly moved away from the ANA standards and towards a measurement of wear that takes strike into account instead of focusing on apparent detail. This is perhaps most visible with world coins - when world coins started being graded in large quantities, the graders were of course ex-US graders. The result was a lot of apparent confusion about strike and wear, and a lot of undergrading of weakly struck hammered coins, which has since been essentially resolved. In fact, the most common complaint about grading from collectors of hammered coins is that it is too technical, and focuses on wear instead of strike.
The other thing that technical grading must attempt to do, if it is to be truly technical, is to treat all series of coins equally. I do not find this to be a realistic or useful task. A large portion of the population of early large cents would end up in details holders for environmental damage, if they were graded like modern cents. Early gold would largely end up in cleaned holders. Saints would be almost universally dropped from MS to AU grades due to superficial high point friction (even from grades as high as 66). Any high-relief type would be pretty much screwed. I think that would do a disservice to the collectors of those series, who understand that those issues are to be expected, and would lump lots of coins of very different quality into the same grades. I don’t think CAC is really going to attempt to do this though, which means they aren’t really using technical grading, regardless of what they might claim - just some far more stringent form of market grading.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
That 1945 in the above post has chatter going on all over the place and weakness in the eagle breast feathers. If you think that is comparable in condition to the very nice 1916 D you also posted, please do your homework. The reverse fingerprint, corrosion on the rim by the date, and that shiny gray borderline questionable color doesn’t help the 1945 either.
The coin was in a coffin holder, and whoever submitted that to cacg had no clue what they were doing.
The coin appears to have rub from the top to the bottom of Liberty’s left-facing leg- quite a bit more than on most coins of that type in mint state holders.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I believe the first mistake with all of these examples being shown was to cross them in the first place.
Why bother?
It's been said almost since inception that CACG is pretty tight with grading.
These examples shown should have been left in their holders because there was nothing to gain.
This is how I feel about my own coins. I paid 65 money for a 65 graded coin and I am not going to make the mistake of trying to cross or even think I can upgrade.
I've learned this much through my own mistakes.
We pay for opinions and my feelings have always been that on any given day a coin can move up or down a grade.
To see a 65 move down to a 58+ proves my point.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
It does look like it might have a little rub on the breast
The issue would not be luster. Luster might drop it from 65 to 64. The issue would be slight rub. The drop from 65 to 58 isn't that far. All it takes is little rub and even a 66 or 67 is now a 58.
It will be interesting to see some of these CACG coins at FUN next week.
Also interesting to see how they are priced.
I anticipate it’s going to be like EAC grading and pricing.
Liberty’s breast and the eagle’s, as well as areas of her skirt and the eagle’s legs and wing.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Capped Bust halves, in particular, are frequently seen examples of that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That's also a series, like early copper, where a lot has been overlooked in grading. I would be interested to see where CACG is on those series.
IF IF IF - I haven't seen enough to know - CACG is stricter, it's not a bad thing. But it might confuse the market a bit. In the end, the coin is the coin. But if a CACG 58 sells for what a PCGS/NGC 64 sells for, it will confuse people who are slaves to the price guides.
I am confused, if you are truly an ex-grader for a TPG then:
I am encouraged that CACG appears to be weeding out heavily overgraded coins and putting them in the correct grade. People whom have benefited financially from overgrading may not like it though, but can't wait to get great 58's in CACG holders...............
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
It will be interesting to see if CACG will maintain its standards or acquiesce in mainstream TPG standards to survive financially.
It will be interesting to see how big of a market there is for technical grading given posted interest for it on these forums. Either way, it will be great to see what happens.
Without a doubt, CAC/CACG is far more strict or, at least consistent so far.
Since J/A plans to be around for another 9 years I don't expect that to change during that period of time and likely beyond.
The SLQ clearly appears to have rub from the top to the bottom of Liberty’s left-facing leg.
Your confusing the grade with the price. A "65" does not always sell for 65 money. If a 63 CACG sells for more than a PCGS 65, hypothetically, why wouldn't you cross?
If that 65 really is a 58, it will likely sell for far less than 65 money.
Your mistake is not understanding the issue here. There is a small group of coins with booming luster and clean fields with a touch of very slight friction in perhaps only 1 or 2 high points. Most are net graded by the TPG companies. I once saw a SLQ net graded MS 64 that had only a tiny rub on the knee drop to 58+ from CACG. You should be grateful CAC and CACG are weeding out these coins that are NOT TRULY UNCIRCULATED.
So, for now it is the opportunity to buy CACG and cross for upgrades!
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
One such Standing Liberty Quarter has already been posted to this thread.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Good god, reading comprehension is not this forum’s strong suit.
I fully understand what is being suggested that CAC is doing, but there is clearly some major confusion about these coins in this thread. These coins display superficial stacking friction, if anything. They do not have high-point luster breaks and dullness to a degree that has or would have ever merited a 58. They likely never circulated. These coins are far better quality than the average “true 58” that does have significant high-point luster loss. They are not coins that that PCGS or NGC accidentally called 63/64/65 instead of 58. They are not coins that ever would have been considered 58 by a leading TPG - not now, not 30 years ago. Therefore these coins that are being dropped from gem/near-gem to 58+ were not “overgraded”, and they are not now being “correctly graded”, because they are being adjusted to a scale that has never actually existed on the marketplace. If CAC wants to attempt to make a new “technical” scale in this regard, they may have at it - but, as I noted in my very long comment above - that would seem to be a wholly useless endeavor. If collectors have to distinguish for themselves the “65” quality coin from the “63” quality coin from the “58” quality coin within the 58 grade, grading no longer serves a purpose, and, to repeat myself from MUCH earlier in this thread, we may as well then go back to collecting raw coins.
And the inconsistencies in CACG grading are clear in this thread - some coins with stacking friction are getting dropped to 58, and some are being granted nice MS grades. I have stated my professional opinion that that inconsistency is apparent. You all are free to take that or leave it, that’s up to you.
With that, I exit this discussion. I’ve pretty clearly spelled this out at this point, and there’s not much more I can do here.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Say it aint so. How much to grade one vs a bulk submission?
Yes, you’ve clearly “spelled this out”. It’s just that, based on coins some of us have seen in hand, and images posted here, not everyone agrees with your opinions. And it’s been an interesting discussion.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Just because they consistently ignored problems does NOT mean that they have not been overgraded or that they should be ignored.
Please show us the grading standard that claims that high point friction can be ignored in grades of 63 or higher.
Of course, all are welcome to agree or disagree with my opinions and with those of the graders who originally graded these coins. And since everyone in this thread is a professional grader, we can just move on from TPGs! I don’t personally need them, so I’m very excited that we’ve all gotten to this point. This will be fun 😁
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Welcome back
Don’t be a stranger!
There is light wear on the breast on front and some on the eagle.