A little arrogance always helps make people want to agree with you...NOT.
I think it’s arrogant to attempt to teach a grader how to grade without having worked that profession.
I think it is arrogant that you think others that have not been professional graders can not grade.Every single coin dealer that can make it is a professional grader. I would submit that all the high end collectors are probably the best graders (for high end shit) I turned down a job at PCGS, 20+ years ago for location and pay reasons. So apparently I can't grade. I will say I have weakness in certain realms.
I’m sorry, but this is simply untrue. I’ve personally seen the difficulty that the TPGs have had with hiring new people, in part
If you are a pro grader for a firm, you have no idea how many coins some of us need to go through before you even get to see them. For moderns I can safely say I have seen more than anyone on a grading line. I once went through a full ballistic bag of 2006-D cents, yep $5K of cents Just to make the perfect top notch cent for my son's birth year. I did that with all the quarters, dimes and nickels. Collectors have passion. I personally have gone through 3000 1968 mint sets. You guys go through the cream of the crop.
Graders look at 500 coins on a bad day. That's 2500 coins a week. And that's "You need to speed up or find a new job" levels of production for a Vintage US grader. They should be around 800 coins a day. If the average grader works 225 days a year (45 weeks a year, which is low), that's 180,000 coins a year.
I don't think Rexford needs it but I'll step in here to vouch for his grading skills and history as a former TPG grader. He knows his stuff in and out, and there's really only a handful of folks I'd trust over his grading and authenticating skills with world coins. If Rexford keeps on his current path, he's one of those guys you'll hear about in 25-30 years as one of the quiet titans of the hobby/business.
Saying pro graders go through the cream of the crop is an absurd statement based on what I've seen inside grading rooms. Collectors are indeed passionate, and a lot are passionate about hot freakin' garbage. When I was doing some grading testing for a major firm, somebody submitted a 25 year run of proof Lincoln Memorial cents, none higher than pr67 in my book. Somebody else submitted a whole submission of damaged pocket change trying to call them errors. A whole run of AT'ed Indian Head Cents. Counterfeit gold galore. Graders see it all, too, dude.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
It's essentially the idea that beginners are extremely confident in their ability to do something well, then as they get more experience, they realize how much they still have to learn. I have a poster of a chart displaying it in my office.
The fact that as a professional grader you cannot see that each of the three Russian coins has virtually the identical amount of friction wear (darkened by old natural toning) on the high point is what is disturbing to me.>
The post @Rexford made showing the difficulties of grading world numismatics is a great point. Many of these types, unless you are familiar with the specific issue, you can easily mistake strike weakness with cabinet friction, rub or light circulation.
From what I have heard the overseas dealers would laugh at that grading.>
Coins are graded differently throughout the world. Not necessarily better or worse, just differently. While you may not agree with the way he is making his points, @rexford is a highly respected numismatist and grader, and his credentials in world grading are unimpeachable
Most professional dealers would mistakenly certify large quantities of transfer die counterfeits and deceptively altered coins.>
I know we have had this debate before, but I do think you remain underappreciative of the knowledge that serious, professional numismatists need to have to be successful at their profession. Sure, a professional grader will absolutely be better and faster at detecting deceptive alterations and die transfers, but its not like all coin dealers who did not work as graders are ignorant to the ability to identify these. (Otherwise, they would not be in business too long)
Happy New Years all!
Thank you. There should be no need to remind any of us that we stand on the shoulders of former numismatists. As a young collector I was also full of myself and thought I knew everything. That's because the long time dealers where I grew up could not tell a cleaned coin and one of them told me that the clash marks that looked like letters under the Indian's nickel's chin was damaged. I could see perfectly shaped letters and had to teach my self how they got there. Fast forward to all the buying mistakes I made the first time around and I woke up to the real world. I believe I have learned enough about coins to debate others here. It took a very long time of study, research, classes, and a very large library. I can state as a fact that anyone who does not reach end stage "Dunning-Kruger" quickly after joining this forum is a fool. The learning never stops.
I never posted about fakes so you may be answering another post. Additionally, I have only questiond a few statements by the professional world class grader. A person can be completely wrong about something as My comments are to him and still respect their position in the hobby. For example, just because the guys at NGC let outside consultants help them slab fake coins, does not mean we should disrespect their authenticators.
All collectors and the dummies who could now become slab coin dealers just by being good business men should be glad PCGS was started in the first place. Unfortunately, over time, much of the grading business appeared to became a scheme of wink, wink, watch the grade go up as the same coin was tossed back and forth between TPGS.
CAC stickers cane about as another layer of opinion. Now CACG appears to be taking a big risk to its future by reining in a runaway grading gravy train.
Finally, let me play like an arrogant professional grader and make it simple: Coins are a physical object. When something happens to a physical object it is changed. Therefore, if you know what the original surface looks like on a physical object made of things like cardboard, porcelain, wood or metal you can tell if it has been changed in any way. This is true for all coin types and all compositions from any, age, made in any way including casting. I should expect every well-known,very knowledgeable numismatist (professional or not) to agree with my statement.
Happy New Year! I think the NYC celebration is being done with out the usual crowd.
@1madman said:
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.
You mean NOW or HISTORICALLY ? Years ago when there was still plenty of low-hanging fruit, crossing at the same grade or getting a CAC sticker from PCGS/NGC was more likely.
As someone who owns a few coins but is a relative novice in collecting I am in awe of all of you.
I must admit that reading this thread left me confused at times? Much too sophisticated given my lack of working knowledge. Would it be possible for someone to recap? Am I missing something?
My question revolves around the entrance of CACG into the hobby relative to NGC / PCGS. Do they grade any differently
considering a standard industry grading system? Meaning I failed to understand how a 64/5 slabbed TPG coin becomes a 58 in another piece of plastic? Is that an outlier?
Are scratches/ toning-Environmental damage - Rub on coin not permitted above a certain grade? Without a vast knowledge should i stay purchasing DE's in the sub $500 premium to gold? Limiting my downside. I was willing to look at higher premiums for rarer coins. now, I'm on hold.
I am beginning to feel a paranoia (perhaps realizing that i can't rely on coin grades? I knew TPG's could differ depending on tightness of grading at any particular point of time but seeing 64/65 fall into an AU state gives me pause.
I can't imagine this works for CACG either. Are many going to send their graded coins to cACG? Did they change the previously accepted industry standards?
I'm not sure how the coin hobby benefits from this dichotomy? Will this pass or will a loss of confidence doom the hobby? Not being a 'pro" I'm sitting back and watching.
@jkrk said:
As someone who owns a few coins but is a relative novice in collecting I am in awe of all of you.
I must admit that reading this thread left me confused at times? Much too sophisticated given my lack of working knowledge. Would it be possible for someone to recap? Am I missing something?
My question revolves around the entrance of CACG into the hobby relative to NGC / PCGS. Do they grade any differently
considering a standard industry grading system? Meaning I failed to understand how a 64/5 slabbed TPG coin becomes a 58 in another piece of plastic? Is that an outlier?
Are scratches/ toning-Environmental damage - Rub on coin not permitted above a certain grade? Without a vast knowledge should i stay purchasing DE's in the sub $500 premium to gold? Limiting my downside. I was willing to look at higher premiums for rarer coins. now, I'm on hold.
I am beginning to feel a paranoia (perhaps realizing that i can't rely on coin grades? I knew TPG's could differ depending on tightness of grading at any particular point of time but seeing 64/65 fall into an AU state gives me pause.
I can't imagine this works for CACG either. Are many going to send their graded coins to cACG? Did they change the previously accepted industry standards?
I'm not sure how the coin hobby benefits from this dichotomy? Will this pass or will a loss of confidence doom the hobby? Not being a 'pro" I'm sitting back and watching.
If CACG doesn't loosen up, they're gonna be a niche grading service. Just my humble opinion. PCGS+CAC Sticker is still king, and will be for quite some time.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
I love the contention in this thread.
The debate is the perfect reminder that all grading is simply an opinion at one point in time, and that learning >to evaluate a coin’s merits according to one’s own standards is a key to this hobby.
But the degree that we are off is more than the traditional GTG Threads about 1-2 grading points up or down. We're revisiting the old debates about net grading, rub, wear, different types of "friction" (and wear), bag marks, etc.
Except we're possibly going to invalidate large numbers of previously graded MS coins into the AU bucket (concern is less with AU's going into the EF bucket).
I can live with good rules or bad rules. But changing the rules in the middle of the game is what concerns me.
@bignubnumismatics1 said:
Here is a Saint that was originally graded 64 by NGC, it is now in a CACG 58.
There’s no wear, only friction from stacking etc. I’m inclined to be close to 4 but it’s a shade too rubby.
The rub is the darker/blacker blotches, correct ? What do you think caused them ?
Question(s):Is the term "Circulated" being misused since most of the AU coins and the debate about MS Uncirculated coins concerns mostly MISHANLDING over time -- none of these coins actually "circulated" in a commercial sense ?
Is "Circulated" and rub/wear/friction coming into play from coins that were simply held in one's hands decades ago before we knew not to do that ?
What about coins that were kept in velvet pouches or jewelry boxes or similar containers and just slid along the material -- could that come off as rub/wear/cleaning ?
@GoldFinger1969 said: Question(s):Is the term "Circulated" being misused since most of the AU coins and the debate about MS Uncirculated coins concerns mostly MISHANLDING over time -- none of these coins actually "circulated" in a commercial sense ?
Is "Circulated" and rub/wear/friction coming into play from coins that were simply held in one's hands decades ago before we knew not to do that ?
What about coins that were kept in velvet pouches or jewelry boxes or similar containers and just slid along the material -- could that come off as rub/wear/cleaning ?
Since we are currently unable to travel back in time we can only speculate whether a coin circulated for a short period of time or shows signs of rub/wear/friction from other sources. Certainly there are some characteristics that help us make judgements but not with 100% certainty.
The TPG's have defined all mint state grades as having no signs of wear. We know this is not accurate. Instead they use an undefined standard that uses the amount of rub/wear/friction a coin displays from being stored in a pouch, box, container, or sliding against some material, to determine a straight, details, or no grade.
I remember a rare date Liberty Seated Dollar with beautiful peripheral toning graded MS-64 that has obvious slide marks often referred to as cabinet friction on Liberty's thigh. The TPG's should modify their grade definitions to accurately reflect the standards (criteria) they use to grade.
@GoldFinger1969 said: Question(s):Is the term "Circulated" being misused since most of the AU coins and the debate about MS Uncirculated coins concerns mostly MISHANLDING over time -- none of these coins actually "circulated" in a commercial sense ?
Is "Circulated" and rub/wear/friction coming into play from coins that were simply held in one's hands decades ago before we knew not to do that ?
What about coins that were kept in velvet pouches or jewelry boxes or similar containers and just slid along the material -- could that come off as rub/wear/cleaning ?
Since we are currently unable to travel back in time we can only speculate whether a coin circulated for a short period of time or shows signs of rub/wear/friction from other sources. Certainly there are some characteristics that help us make judgements but not with 100% certainty.
The TPG's have defined all mint state grades as having no signs of wear. We know this is not accurate. Instead they use an undefined standard that uses the amount of rub/wear/friction a coin displays from being stored in a pouch, box, container, or sliding against some material, to determine a straight, details, or no grade.
I remember a rare date Liberty Seated Dollar with beautiful peripheral toning graded MS-64 that has obvious slide marks often referred to as cabinet friction on Liberty's thigh. The TPG's should modify their grade definitions to accurately reflect the standards (criteria) they use to grade.
This is really the issue. And not just "friction" or light rub. Old copper can straight grade with "mild environmental damage" and old silver can straight grade with "mild or old cleaning". And, of course, there is the fuzzy line between AT and NT ("questionable color"). These are far harder for collectors to navigate than 65 vs 66 and none of them are really discussed in official grading standards.
@GoldFinger1969 said: Question(s):Is the term "Circulated" being misused since most of the AU coins and the debate about MS Uncirculated coins concerns mostly MISHANLDING over time -- none of these coins actually "circulated" in a commercial sense ?
Is "Circulated" and rub/wear/friction coming into play from coins that were simply held in one's hands decades ago before we knew not to do that ?
What about coins that were kept in velvet pouches or jewelry boxes or similar containers and just slid along the material -- could that come off as rub/wear/cleaning ?
"Uncirculated" should never be taken literally. It is a degree of preservation not a history of the coin. It is not being misused but people may be misinterpreting it.
Coins do not develop friction or rub from a single circulation event. You can get MS67 coins in pocket change because the few circulation events the coin endured did not result in any loss of metal.
@jkrk said:
As someone who owns a few coins but is a relative novice in collecting I am in awe of all of you.
I must admit that reading this thread left me confused at times? Much too sophisticated given my lack of working knowledge. Would it be possible for someone to recap? Am I missing something?
My question revolves around the entrance of CACG into the hobby relative to NGC / PCGS. Do they grade any differently
considering a standard industry grading system? Meaning I failed to understand how a 64/5 slabbed TPG coin becomes a 58 in another piece of plastic? Is that an outlier?
Are scratches/ toning-Environmental damage - Rub on coin not permitted above a certain grade? Without a vast knowledge should i stay purchasing DE's in the sub $500 premium to gold? Limiting my downside. I was willing to look at higher premiums for rarer coins. now, I'm on hold.
I am beginning to feel a paranoia (perhaps realizing that i can't rely on coin grades? I knew TPG's could differ depending on tightness of grading at any particular point of time but seeing 64/65 fall into an AU state gives me pause.
I can't imagine this works for CACG either. Are many going to send their graded coins to cACG? Did they change the previously accepted industry standards?
I'm not sure how the coin hobby benefits from this dichotomy? Will this pass or will a loss of confidence doom the hobby? Not being a 'pro" I'm sitting back and watching.
The key to knowledge is knowing what you don't know.
There is a lot to unpack here and must of it is discussed in the thread.
Not all grades correlate to price. For widgets, there is a sight unseen price for slabbed coins but MS65 prices represent a range not a single value and there will be outliers.
The issue over rub, environmental damage etc is complex. Part of that equation , the "rub" is the whole point of this long thread. MOST coins MS60 and above can NOT have rub. But cabinet friction has almost always been tolerated in certain series. Whether it should be is, again, part of the issue here.
Environmental damage is as complex or more.
It is hard to be the strictest grading service. People like higher numbers. If grade inflation exists, that is the reason for it. However, I think that number obsession is simplistic. There are only two things that ever matter: is it pretty? How much is it worth? The answer to those questions is not determined by the number on the slab.
If CACG is truly stricter - I have not seen enough of their coins to be sure- they only survive if the market price or collector demand for their coins is higher than their competitors. It is to soon to know the answer to that question.
@Rexford said:
I want to make another point about “color change”. That refers to a certain distinction between wear and >superficial friction. But if you have a weak strike, there can also be a loss of luster. Think about it this way - what is a >weak strike? Well, it’s when the planchet’s metal does not flow into highest pockets of the die, often because the >>design is high-relief. In other words, that metal does not get struck. Luster is primarily an effect of the texture of >the dies imparted onto the coin. But with a weak strike, the planchet metal does not come into contact with the >highest points of the dies, so the texture on those areas is that of unstruck planchet. Unstruck planchets are >generally rough - so naturally there will be a difference in the luster and texture in those areas than in the >surrounding areas that were impacted by the dies. That’s why there is that slight dullness and rough texture on the >WLH along the length of Liberty - most of those marks are actually the texture of the planchet, not surface hits. On >the Rouble, those weak areas were never lustrous to begin with. And as you can see, the reverse and the rims of the >coin have no wear to speak of.
First, I want to say that I have found this to be one of the best threads I have read in my many years of participating in online forums. I appeciate ALL the comments and ALL the back-and-forth from everybody who took the time to give really in-depth commentary. These weren't 1 or 2 sentence posts that took 15 seconds to type out -- they took some serious effort and time. Thanks !!
Second, Rex....your paragraph above (which I found outstanding)....translate it into a series I am more familiar with, Saints and HR Saints.You are saying that if the coins have a "bad strike" it will/can appear as rub because the high points on the coins (esp. the MCMVII HR's) is NOT being filled/struck 100%...is this correct ? I have also believed that "poor strikes" are largely not mechanical in nature but from overused dies -- again, is this part of what you are saying ?
As for luster, the best description I found was from Roger Burdette's Saint-Gaudens book where he gave a somewhat molecular reason: deformation of the metal under high pressure so that light reflects off of thousands of tiny microscopic ridges and grooves in the metal resulting from stress in the steel dies. The crystals of the die face change imperceptibly with each blow. After a few hundred blows, a brand-new die would no longer produce perfectly smooth fields but microscopic ridges and grooves that reflect light. So some coins are going to be lucky to have "great luster" but others might just have average luster.
@davewesen said:
welcome to the boards Married2Coins
I agree with Rexford in weakly struck coins will also look like they have areas of rub in middle widest area of struck >coin
This is a frequent issue with Walking Liberty halves and Buffalo nickels
Yep, it’s especially common on Buffalo nickels, Jefferson nickels, and Ikes, due to copper-nickel being an extremely > hard metal - that means it is more difficult for it to flow into the highest points of the dies.
Does this mean if a strike is likely to be "weak" because of the die/high point issue....that a grader should/would take this into account in grading ?
@jmlanzaf said:
This is not accurate. CAC indicated that coins that failed to sticker were not NECESSARILY overgraded. They never >said that ALL of them were correctly graded.
I guess you could be right....technically.
But back in 2008 in the interview with Maurice Rosen he did say that "C" coins were still OK for the grade, just not worthy of a CAC sticker like the "A" and "B" coins. The thing is now those same "C" coins are NOT going into the same graded CACG holder.
I think he said that "D" and "F" coins were certainly overgraded though a distinct minority. It was the "C" coins -- which were dominant in dealer inventories (the "A" and "B" coins being held by collectors and investors) which were dominant in inventory and setting/distorting prices which he wanted to separate from the CAC-worthy A's and B's.
@Rexford said:
Yep, it’s especially common on Buffalo nickels, Jefferson nickels, and Ikes, due to copper-nickel being an extremely >hard metal - that means it is more difficult for it to flow into the highest points of the dies.
Why does the hardness/softness of the metal impact how the metal flows into high points ? Why would that matter -- I would think if it was High Relief vs. Normal Relief that might matter but not the composition of the die metal itself.
@Rexford said:
In any case, this has been a much lengthier conversation than I intended, and I truly regret entering it at all. I don’t >have a dog in this fight - I don’t involve myself in US coins, and people can and should collect however they like. I can >sit on the sidelines and rail against what I find to be illogical, but in the end it is of no benefit to me or anyone else, >does very little to change minds, and only fosters negativity.
I disagree 100%. I am glad you took the time to post here, Rex -- and to all the people who offered their opinions, agreeing with or disagreeing with you. How else can those of us with less experience learn ? I can't find this thread in a book.
I have found this thread very informative....I learned alot....no, some fine points are still in a gray area and are not solved but at least now I am armed with more ammunition if I ever look at a raw coins (doubtful for high-end purchases), looking beyond the grade on the TPG holder, etc.
This is why spending hours reading the posts here are worth it. Thanks everybody !
@Rexford said:
Yep, it’s especially common on Buffalo nickels, Jefferson nickels, and Ikes, due to copper-nickel being an extremely >hard metal - that means it is more difficult for it to flow into the highest points of the dies.
Why does the hardness/softness of the metal impact how the metal flows into high points ? Why would that matter -- I would think if it was High Relief vs. Normal Relief that might matter but not the composition of the die metal itself.
All die metals are the same, it is the metal of the coin being punched that has different hardness. Nickel is the hardest of common coinage. It is not just high points, but corresponding high points on both sides of the coin. More pressure is needed to completely fill the die, but that cuts how long the die will survive. When you learn a series, you will notice the parts of the coin that frequently are not completely filled.
@Rexford said:
Yep, it’s especially common on Buffalo nickels, Jefferson nickels, and Ikes, due to copper-nickel being an extremely >hard metal - that means it is more difficult for it to flow into the highest points of the dies.
Why does the hardness/softness of the metal impact how the metal flows into high points ? Why would that matter -- I would think if it was High Relief vs. Normal Relief that might matter but not the composition of the die metal itself.
He's talking about the planchet composition not the die composition. Consider striking butter vs steel.
@jkrk said:
As someone who owns a few coins but is a relative novice in collecting I am in awe of all of you.
I must admit that reading this thread left me confused at times? Much too sophisticated given my lack of working knowledge. Would it be possible for someone to recap? Am I missing something?
My question revolves around the entrance of CACG into the hobby relative to NGC / PCGS. Do they grade any differently
considering a standard industry grading system? Meaning I failed to understand how a 64/5 slabbed TPG coin becomes a 58 in another piece of plastic? Is that an outlier?
Are scratches/ toning-Environmental damage - Rub on coin not permitted above a certain grade? Without a vast knowledge should i stay purchasing DE's in the sub $500 premium to gold? Limiting my downside. I was willing to look at higher premiums for rarer coins. now, I'm on hold.
I am beginning to feel a paranoia (perhaps realizing that i can't rely on coin grades? I knew TPG's could differ depending on tightness of grading at any particular point of time but seeing 64/65 fall into an AU state gives me pause.
I can't imagine this works for CACG either. Are many going to send their graded coins to cACG? Did they change the previously accepted industry standards?
I'm not sure how the coin hobby benefits from this dichotomy? Will this pass or will a loss of confidence doom the hobby? Not being a 'pro" I'm sitting back and watching.
If CACG doesn't loosen up, they're gonna be a niche grading service. Just my humble opinion. PCGS+CAC Sticker is still king, and will be for quite some time.
If the area where the strictness is more than a few points is with sliders, there may be a market for their services.
@jmlanzaf said:
This is not accurate. CAC indicated that coins that failed to sticker were not NECESSARILY overgraded. They never >said that ALL of them were correctly graded.
I guess you could be right....technically.
But back in 2008 in the interview with Maurice Rosen he did say that "C" coins were still OK for the grade, just not worthy of a CAC sticker like the "A" and "B" coins. The thing is now those same "C" coins are NOT going into the same graded CACG holder.
I think "C" coins will get graded in a CACG holder, just as an "A" or "B" in a lower grade.
@jkrk said:
Are scratches/ toning-Environmental damage - Rub on coin not permitted above a certain grade? Without a vast >knowledge should i stay purchasing DE's in the sub $500 premium to gold? Limiting my downside. I was willing to
look at higher premiums for rarer coins. now, I'm on hold.
I wouldn't. I'm more or less in the same boat as you. Most of my Saint purchases save a few have been for the price of bullion give or take 25% (~ $400-$500). I would CERTAINLY be more careful and discerning and have a list of "tells" to examine on a Saint that cost a multiple of the price of gold, like a rare coin or condition...or an MCMVII High Relief. I'd like to think that these more expensive, rarer coins got more than 10-15 seconds being examined, but who knows ? If a coin looks good for the grade and I personally look it over for a few minutes going down my checklist of "watch outs" and "tells"....then I should be OK. And if I get burned on 1 coin out of 20, hey, it's the price we pay for playing in this hobby, right ?
I'm not sure how the coin hobby benefits from this dichotomy? Will this pass or will a loss of confidence doom the > hobby? Not being a 'pro" I'm sitting back and watching.
We all are.In the past, the main risk was gradeflation. Now it seems like we have to worry about Grade Deflation.
The dichotomy between AU-58 and low-MS coins (or even mid-60's coins) is one particular focus of this debate but we had that before with PCGS and NGC. But not as much for coins that were MS-65 (or higher !). It's a bit of a culture shock which is why this thread has attracted so many posts -- but it DOES contain some great information.
If we could nail down definitions of "wear" and "rub" and "friction" that would probably be a good start. We're still having back-and-forths about dies being filled, cabinet friction, stacking friction/rub, etc. If what APPEARS to be rub or wear or friction is in fact something dating to the original striking of the coin, that would help us nail down some coins that do NOT need to be downgraded from MS to AU even under strict technical grading standards.
@Zoins said:
I think "C" coins will get graded in a CACG holder, just as an "A" or "B" in a lower grade.
Yes, they will. But many/most of these "C" coins (I won't say all of them) were OK with the original grade (let's call it MS-65), just not worthy of a CAC sticker. That's from JA himself.
Now, that same coin is going to go into an MS-64 CACG or maybe even an MS-63 CACG (assuming no issues that would merit a Chutes-and-Ladders plunge to the AU levels ).
@Elcontador said:
I'll let people who see far more coins than I do make this call. Five years ago virtually everything I sent to CAC stickered. More recently, it has been about 1 in 3. I believe the overall quality of coins I have submitted has been fairly consistent. The stickering has not. This may or may not apply to CACG.
As others have mentioned, they focus pretty much on gold, which I don't collect, so I don't know how relevant this will be to my collecting habits.
CACG gold coins and CAC stickered gold are great at gold ...I once bought a PCGS MS 65 classic 5 dollar gold only to find out it was puttied !! Big OUCH .
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
It is hard to be the strictest grading service. People like higher numbers. If grade inflation exists, that is the reason for it. However, I think that number obsession is simplistic. There are only two things that ever matter: is it pretty? How much is it worth? The answer to those questions is not determined by the number on the slab.
I very much disagree with what you are saying here, both P and N are not grading coins as much as they are pricing coins. That is the real discussion and the big issue with gradeflation, yes I agree that people like higher grades, but this market grading and gradflation happened because dealers (who are mostly the people that become graders) took it upon themselves to decide that it would be easier to sell sliders if they were in UNC holders. That has led to this ridiculous concept that some rub is fine if it came from certain types of contact or situations, this concept is completely arbitrary and about a solid a grading definition as a bowl of jello. The number on the slab actually does define the price into some range that is then dispersed to the masses via the price guides.
You have yourself posted the PCGS definition of a couple of the grading definitions in this thread, we all know that the TPG's are not following their own grading definitions. Instead graders are deciding that a coin is too pretty to be an AU and assigning a mint state grade because as a dealer that is the price they feel it should sell for.
That is why dealers/graders like Rexford and the guy in the video in the OP are so up in arms over CACG. CACG wants to actually grade the coin not price the coin and let the pricing decision be between the buyer and seller, and that scares most dealers that only know price guides. I like what CACG is doing because they are acting like a true TPG, grading coins and not pricing coins, that is the type of impartial service that I both want and expect from a TPG.
And it's not just rub we are talking about; although this thread as mostly been about that; what about damaged coins that find their way into straight grade holders. Just this past week someone posted a coin that was cracked out of one TPG details holder and ended up in another's straight graded holder. Damaged coins should not be put into straight graded holders, yet it happens all the time with both P and N. This again is the graders/TPG's not grading coins but rather pricing coins.
@Zoins said:
I think "C" coins will get graded in a CACG holder, just as an "A" or "B" in a lower grade.
Yes, they will. But many/most of these "C" coins (I won't say all of them) were OK with the original grade (let's call it MS-65), just not worthy of a CAC sticker. That's from JA himself.
Now, that same coin is going to go into an MS-64 CACG or maybe even an MS-63 CACG (assuming no issues that would merit a Chutes-and-Ladders plunge to the AU levels ).
An ms65 "C" coin, using the example referencing JA's nomenclature, would be graded ms65 by CACG -Not ms64 or ms63- as CACG uses the whole grade range. @Zoins is correct.
@CascadeChris said:
An ms65 "C" coin, using the example referencing JA's nomenclature, would be graded ms65 by CACG -Not ms64 or >ms63- as CACG uses the whole grade range. @Zoins is correct.
I've been told -- as it's been said by JA/CACG -- that a "C" coin for a grade would not straight grade from PCGS/NGC into the same grade at CACG.
I'm not talking about truly overgraded coins but ones that CAC originally and throughout their existence said were OK for the numerical grade...just not worthy of a sticker (those are for the "A" and "B" coins).
It is hard to be the strictest grading service. People like higher numbers. If grade inflation exists, that is the reason for it. However, I think that number obsession is simplistic. There are only two things that ever matter: is it pretty? How much is it worth? The answer to those questions is not determined by the number on the slab.
I very much disagree with what you are saying here, both P and N are not grading coins as much as they are pricing coins. That is the real discussion and the big issue with gradeflation, yes I agree that people like higher grades, but this market grading and gradflation happened because dealers (who are mostly the people that become graders) took it upon themselves to decide that it would be easier to sell sliders if they were in UNC holders. That has led to this ridiculous concept that some rub is fine if it came from certain types of contact or situations, this concept is completely arbitrary and about a solid a grading definition as a bowl of jello. The number on the slab actually does define the price into some range that is then dispersed to the masses via the price guides.
You have yourself posted the PCGS definition of a couple of the grading definitions in this thread, we all know that the TPG's are not following their own grading definitions. Instead graders are deciding that a coin is too pretty to be an AU and assigning a mint state grade because as a dealer that is the price they feel it should sell for.
That is why dealers/graders like Rexford and the guy in the video in the OP are so up in arms over CACG. CACG wants to actually grade the coin not price the coin and let the pricing decision be between the buyer and seller, and that scares most dealers that only know price guides. I like what CACG is doing because they are acting like a true TPG, grading coins and not pricing coins, that is the type of impartial service that I both want and expect from a TPG.
And it's not just rub we are talking about; although this thread as mostly been about that; what about damaged coins that find their way into straight grade holders. Just this past week someone posted a coin that was cracked out of one TPG details holder and ended up in another's straight graded holder. Damaged coins should not be put into straight graded holders, yet it happens all the time with both P and N. This again is the graders/TPG's not grading coins but rather pricing coins.
@Zoins said:
I think "C" coins will get graded in a CACG holder, just as an "A" or "B" in a lower grade.
Yes, they will. But many/most of these "C" coins (I won't say all of them) were OK with the original grade (let's call it MS-65), just not worthy of a CAC sticker. That's from JA himself.
Now, that same coin is going to go into an MS-64 CACG or maybe even an MS-63 CACG (assuming no issues that would merit a Chutes-and-Ladders plunge to the AU levels ).
An ms65 "C" coin, using the example referencing JA's nomenclature, would be graded ms65 by CACG -Not ms64 or ms63- as CACG uses the whole grade range. @Zoins is correct.
This was pretty well discussed on the CAC forum, coins that have previously been seen and failed at CAC will in almost every case not be crossed at grade. I say almost as there are bound to be a few that will get crossed at grade after a second look, not unlike how on occasion a coin receives a green bean upon reconsideration.
Of course just as at P or N the submitter has the choice to choose cross at any grade or only at grade (or above if the graders feel its worthy), so no one is being forced into taking a lower grade in a crossover situation.
@Zoins said:
I think "C" coins will get graded in a CACG holder, just as an "A" or "B" in a lower grade.
Yes, they will. But many/most of these "C" coins (I won't say all of them) were OK with the original grade (let's call it MS-65), just not worthy of a CAC sticker. That's from JA himself.
Now, that same coin is going to go into an MS-64 CACG or maybe even an MS-63 CACG (assuming no issues that would merit a Chutes-and-Ladders plunge to the AU levels ).
An ms65 "C" coin, using the example referencing JA's nomenclature, would be graded ms65 by CACG -Not ms64 or ms63- as CACG uses the whole grade range. @Zoins is correct.
This was pretty well discussed on the CAC forum, coins that have previously been seen and failed at CAC will in almost every case not be crossed at grade. I say almost as there are bound to be a few that will get crossed at grade after a second look, not unlike how on occasion a coin receives a green bean upon reconsideration.
Of course just as at P or N the submitter has the choice to choose cross at any grade or only at grade (or above if the graders feel its worthy), so no one is being forced into taking a lower grade in a crossover situation.
A JA parlance "C" coin -ms65 in that example- would not automatically top out at 64/64+ at CACG as CACG uses the whole grade range whereas CAC Stickering uses only the "A" & "B" range. So if this generic example ms65 coin was assessed by the CACG graders as a 65.1 or 65.2 it would get a grade of ms65. If they assess it as a 64.6 or 64.9 to their standards then it would get that ms64/64+ grade.
@Zoins said:
I think "C" coins will get graded in a CACG holder, just as an "A" or "B" in a lower grade.
Yes, they will. But many/most of these "C" coins (I won't say all of them) were OK with the original grade (let's call it MS-65), just not worthy of a CAC sticker. That's from JA himself.
Now, that same coin is going to go into an MS-64 CACG or maybe even an MS-63 CACG (assuming no issues that would merit a Chutes-and-Ladders plunge to the AU levels ).
An ms65 "C" coin, using the example referencing JA's nomenclature, would be graded ms65 by CACG -Not ms64 or ms63- as CACG uses the whole grade range. @Zoins is correct.
This was pretty well discussed on the CAC forum, coins that have previously been seen and failed at CAC will in almost every case not be crossed at grade. I say almost as there are bound to be a few that will get crossed at grade after a second look, not unlike how on occasion a coin receives a green bean upon reconsideration.
Of course just as at P or N the submitter has the choice to choose cross at any grade or only at grade (or above if the graders feel its worthy), so no one is being forced into taking a lower grade in a crossover situation.
A JA parlance "C" coin -ms65 in that example- would not automatically top out at 64/64+ at CACG as CACG uses the whole grade range whereas CAC Stickering uses only the "A" & "B" range. So if this generic example ms65 coin was assessed by the CACG graders as a 65.1 or 65.2 it would get a grade of ms65. If they assess it as a 64.6 or 64.9 to their standards then it would get that ms64/64+ grade.
So hobbyists are supposed to know this intuitively?
@Zoins said:
I think "C" coins will get graded in a CACG holder, just as an "A" or "B" in a lower grade.
Yes, they will. But many/most of these "C" coins (I won't say all of them) were OK with the original grade (let's call it MS-65), just not worthy of a CAC sticker. That's from JA himself.
Now, that same coin is going to go into an MS-64 CACG or maybe even an MS-63 CACG (assuming no issues that would merit a Chutes-and-Ladders plunge to the AU levels ).
An ms65 "C" coin, using the example referencing JA's nomenclature, would be graded ms65 by CACG -Not ms64 or ms63- as CACG uses the whole grade range. @Zoins is correct.
This was pretty well discussed on the CAC forum, coins that have previously been seen and failed at CAC will in almost every case not be crossed at grade. I say almost as there are bound to be a few that will get crossed at grade after a second look, not unlike how on occasion a coin receives a green bean upon reconsideration.
Of course just as at P or N the submitter has the choice to choose cross at any grade or only at grade (or above if the graders feel its worthy), so no one is being forced into taking a lower grade in a crossover situation.
A JA parlance "C" coin -ms65 in that example- would not automatically top out at 64/64+ at CACG as CACG uses the whole grade range whereas CAC Stickering uses only the "A" & "B" range. So if this generic example ms65 coin was assessed by the CACG graders as a 65.1 or 65.2 it would get a grade of ms65. If they assess it as a 64.6 or 64.9 to their standards then it would get that ms64/64+ grade.
So hobbyists are supposed to know this intuitively?
Are you kidding me?
The details aren't really necessary for "hobbyists". For those that want to know, that's what forums and other communications are for. Depends on how far down the rabbit hole one wants to go
It is hard to be the strictest grading service. People like higher numbers. If grade inflation exists, that is the reason for it. However, I think that number obsession is simplistic. There are only two things that ever matter: is it pretty? How much is it worth? The answer to those questions is not determined by the number on the slab.
I very much disagree with what you are saying here, both P and N are not grading coins as much as they are pricing coins. That is the real discussion and the big issue with gradeflation, yes I agree that people like higher grades, but this market grading and gradflation happened because dealers (who are mostly the people that become graders) took it upon themselves to decide that it would be easier to sell sliders if they were in UNC holders. That has led to this ridiculous concept that some rub is fine if it came from certain types of contact or situations, this concept is completely arbitrary and about a solid a grading definition as a bowl of jello. The number on the slab actually does define the price into some range that is then dispersed to the masses via the price guides.
You have yourself posted the PCGS definition of a couple of the grading definitions in this thread, we all know that the TPG's are not following their own grading definitions. Instead graders are deciding that a coin is too pretty to be an AU and assigning a mint state grade because as a dealer that is the price they feel it should sell for.
That is why dealers/graders like Rexford and the guy in the video in the OP are so up in arms over CACG. CACG wants to actually grade the coin not price the coin and let the pricing decision be between the buyer and seller, and that scares most dealers that only know price guides. I like what CACG is doing because they are acting like a true TPG, grading coins and not pricing coins, that is the type of impartial service that I both want and expect from a TPG.
And it's not just rub we are talking about; although this thread as mostly been about that; what about damaged coins that find their way into straight grade holders. Just this past week someone posted a coin that was cracked out of one TPG details holder and ended up in another's straight graded holder. Damaged coins should not be put into straight graded holders, yet it happens all the time with both P and N. This again is the graders/TPG's not grading coins but rather pricing coins.
You may think you disagree with me but nothing you say really disagrees with me. It's more tangential to it. What I said was that people shouldn't be slaves to the numbers.
The key to knowledge is knowing what you don't know.
There is a lot to unpack here and must of it is discussed in the thread.
Not all grades correlate to price. For widgets, there is a sight unseen price for slabbed coins but MS65 prices represent a range not a single value and there will be outliers.
The issue over rub, environmental damage etc is complex. Part of that equation , the "rub" is the whole point of this long thread. MOST coins MS60 and above can NOT have rub. But cabinet friction has almost always been tolerated in certain series. Whether it should be is, again, part of the issue here.
Environmental damage is as complex or more.
It is hard to be the strictest grading service. People like higher numbers. If grade inflation exists, that is the reason for it. However, I think that number obsession is simplistic. There are only two things that ever matter: is it pretty? How much is it worth? The answer to those questions is not determined by the number on the slab.
If CACG is truly stricter - I have not seen enough of their coins to be sure- they only survive if the market price or collector demand for their coins is higher than their competitors. It is to soon to know the answer to that question.
I like this explanation, perhaps I would modify it to include a third thing that matters. That is rarity, because one must adjust the weight assigned to eye-appeal for truly rare coins when there are only a few examples that exist.
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
I love the contention in this thread.
The debate is the perfect reminder that all grading is simply an opinion at one point in time, and that learning >to evaluate a coin’s merits according to one’s own standards is a key to this hobby.
But the degree that we are off is more than the traditional GTG Threads about 1-2 grading points up or down. We're revisiting the old debates about net grading, rub, wear, different types of "friction" (and wear), bag marks, etc.
Except we're possibly going to invalidate large numbers of previously graded MS coins into the AU bucket (concern is less with AU's going into the EF bucket).
I can live with good rules or bad rules. But changing the rules in the middle of the game is what concerns me.
For better and for worse market grading is established and accepted in numismatics. The rules have changed before and they will change in the future. CACG is more akin to revolution than evolution and that jolts the senses. At least mine!
One specific question: How many of those 63/64 Saints that become AU58s actually circulated in the channels of commerce?
I can live with good rules or bad rules. But changing the rules in the middle of the game is what concerns me.
For better and for worse market grading is established and accepted in numismatics. The rules have changed before and they will change in the future. CACG is more akin to revolution than evolution and that jolts the senses. At least mine!
With all this revolution and evolution, I can’t help but feel some disillusion.
As an owner of many $thousands worth of coins in both PCGS and NGC holders, acquired as such, or sent in by me to be certified pre-CAC, I can’t help but feel these are now going to be viewed unfavorably by many in the marketplace. Like they are in SEGS holders, or raw, because the standards are now deemed to be much stricter.
I can live with good rules or bad rules. But changing the rules in the middle of the game is what concerns me.
For better and for worse market grading is established and accepted in numismatics. The rules have changed before and they will change in the future. CACG is more akin to revolution than evolution and that jolts the senses. At least mine!
With all this revolution and evolution, I can’t help but feel some disillusion.
As an owner of many $thousands worth of coins in both PCGS and NGC holders, acquired as such, or sent in by me to be certified pre-CAC, I can’t help but feel these are now going to be viewed unfavorably by many in the marketplace. Like they are in SEGS holders, or raw, because the standards are now deemed to be much stricter.
I feel you but I reckon we need more time and data points before we draw hard conclusions.
@CascadeChris said:
A JA parlance "C" coin -ms65 in that example- would not automatically top out at 64/64+ at CACG as CACG uses the >whole grade range whereas CAC Stickering uses only the "A" & "B" range. So if this generic example ms65 coin was >assessed by the CACG graders as a 65.1 or 65.2 it would get a grade of ms65. If they assess it as a 64.6 or 64.9 to >their standards then it would get that ms64/64+ grade.
I'm not sure about that, from what CACG and JA have (allegedly) said. They are saying that the CACG MS-65 is equivalent to a PCGS/NGC MS-65 with a CAC sticker -- which said sticker would NOT go to a 65.1 or 65.2 coin. So they will NOT put the low-65 fractionally ID'd coin in the 65 holder, but the 64 holder.
If I'm wrong, someone correct me. Lord knows I've been corrected a bunch already on this whole thing.
BTW, this whole thing with what grade a coin will CAC sticker at reminds me of the owner of a 1927-D Saint who REQUESTED a lower grade from PCGS so that the coin would CAC.
@CascadeChris said:
A JA parlance "C" coin -ms65 in that example- would not automatically top out at 64/64+ at CACG as CACG uses the >whole grade range whereas CAC Stickering uses only the "A" & "B" range. So if this generic example ms65 coin was >assessed by the CACG graders as a 65.1 or 65.2 it would get a grade of ms65. If they assess it as a 64.6 or 64.9 to >their standards then it would get that ms64/64+ grade.
I'm not sure about that, from what CACG and JA have (allegedly) said. They are saying that the CACG MS-65 is equivalent to a PCGS/NGC MS-65 with a CAC sticker -- which said sticker would NOT go to a 65.1 or 65.2 coin. So they will NOT put the low-65 fractionally ID'd coin in the 65 holder, but the 64 holder.
If I'm wrong, someone correct me. Lord knows I've been corrected a bunch already on this whole thing.
BTW, this whole thing with what grade a coin will CAC sticker at reminds me of the owner of a 1927-D Saint who REQUESTED a lower grade from PCGS so that the coin would CAC.
Strange but true !
@tradedollarnut has indicated he's also had coins downgraded so they would CAC.
I can live with good rules or bad rules. But changing the rules in the middle of the game is what concerns me.
For better and for worse market grading is established and accepted in numismatics. The rules have changed before and they will change in the future. CACG is more akin to revolution than evolution and that jolts the senses. At least mine!
With all this revolution and evolution, I can’t help but feel some disillusion.
As an owner of many $thousands worth of coins in both PCGS and NGC holders, acquired as such, or sent in by me to be certified pre-CAC, I can’t help but feel these are now going to be viewed unfavorably by many in the marketplace. Like they are in SEGS holders, or raw, because the standards are now deemed to be much stricter.
Don't conflate too much. A PCGS 65 is still a PCGS 65 just like an ANACS 65 is still an ANACS 65. Now, a PCGS 65 sells for more, typically, than an ANACS 65. And maybe a CACG 65 will sell for more than a PCGS 65. Even if true, you can get to "more" by paying a premium for a CACG or by the PCGS trading at a discount. Since the PCGS 65 is still a PCGS 65, it is more likely that a premium applies to the CACG than a discount applies to a PCGS coin.
Would that mean people will want to cross to CACG to maximize value? Probably. But that arbitrage already exists as people cross to PCGS from ANACS or NGC or as people try to get their coins CAC stickered.
If you feel this is a problem, take it up with PCGS.
@Zoins said:
I think "C" coins will get graded in a CACG holder, just as an "A" or "B" in a lower grade.
Yes, they will. But many/most of these "C" coins (I won't say all of them) were OK with the original grade (let's call it MS-65), just not worthy of a CAC sticker. That's from JA himself.
Now, that same coin is going to go into an MS-64 CACG or maybe even an MS-63 CACG (assuming no issues that would merit a Chutes-and-Ladders plunge to the AU levels ).
An ms65 "C" coin, using the example referencing JA's nomenclature, would be graded ms65 by CACG -Not ms64 or ms63- as CACG uses the whole grade range. @Zoins is correct.
This was pretty well discussed on the CAC forum, coins that have previously been seen and failed at CAC will in almost every case not be crossed at grade. I say almost as there are bound to be a few that will get crossed at grade after a second look, not unlike how on occasion a coin receives a green bean upon reconsideration.
Of course just as at P or N the submitter has the choice to choose cross at any grade or only at grade (or above if the graders feel its worthy), so no one is being forced into taking a lower grade in a crossover situation.
A JA parlance "C" coin -ms65 in that example- would not automatically top out at 64/64+ at CACG as CACG uses the whole grade range whereas CAC Stickering uses only the "A" & "B" range. So if this generic example ms65 coin was assessed by the CACG graders as a 65.1 or 65.2 it would get a grade of ms65. If they assess it as a 64.6 or 64.9 to their standards then it would get that ms64/64+ grade.
So hobbyists are supposed to know this intuitively?
Are you kidding me?
The details aren't really necessary for "hobbyists". For those that want to know, that's what forums and other communications are for. Depends on how far down the rabbit hole one wants to go
I respect your opinion and I agree it's a rabbit hole.
Is that good for the market long term? That the three major TPGs separate themselves with differing individual criteria and opinion?
IMO potential frustration and more likelihood people will be burned increases, oppposite the original purpose of the TPG.
I still make plenty of mistake’s especially determining if a raw coin will straight grade ….any grade .
I still hire professionals like Mr Eureka to help me buy coins I want that are raw or have a second look at even if they are graded because his opinions matters !
I personally know Rexford and believe he has a huge future in the coin biz if he wants . He is clearly knowledgeable about coins in general and extremely so in world coinage as can be seen from his posts .
I would suggest if CACG EVER wants to crack the virgin field of grading world coins ( at least virgin to their young grading company at this time) they should make
Rexford an offer to join their ranks as a world coin grader and one he cannot refuse !
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
@GoldFinger1969 said: Question(s):Is the term "Circulated" being misused since most of the AU coins and the debate about MS Uncirculated coins concerns mostly MISHANLDING over time -- none of these coins actually "circulated" in a commercial sense ?
Is "Circulated" and rub/wear/friction coming into play from coins that were simply held in one's hands decades ago before we knew not to do that ?
What about coins that were kept in velvet pouches or jewelry boxes or similar containers and just slid along the material -- could that come off as rub/wear/cleaning ?
Since we are currently unable to travel back in time we can only speculate whether a coin circulated for a short period of time or shows signs of rub/wear/friction from other sources. Certainly there are some characteristics that help us make judgements but not with 100% certainty.
The TPG's have defined all mint state grades as having no signs of wear. We know this is not accurate. Instead they use an undefined standard that uses the amount of rub/wear/friction a coin displays from being stored in a pouch, box, container, or sliding against some material, to determine a straight, details, or no grade.
I remember a rare date Liberty Seated Dollar with beautiful peripheral toning graded MS-64 that has obvious slide marks often referred to as cabinet friction on Liberty's thigh. The TPG's should modify their grade definitions to accurately reflect the standards (criteria) they use to grade.
Yeah! Lets go with a new grade FU. Friction Uncirculated.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
@Zoins said:
I think "C" coins will get graded in a CACG holder, just as an "A" or "B" in a lower grade.
Yes, they will. But many/most of these "C" coins (I won't say all of them) were OK with the original grade (let's call it MS-65), just not worthy of a CAC sticker. That's from JA himself.
Now, that same coin is going to go into an MS-64 CACG or maybe even an MS-63 CACG (assuming no issues that would merit a Chutes-and-Ladders plunge to the AU levels ).
An ms65 "C" coin, using the example referencing JA's nomenclature, would be graded ms65 by CACG -Not ms64 or ms63- as CACG uses the whole grade range. @Zoins is correct.
This was pretty well discussed on the CAC forum, coins that have previously been seen and failed at CAC will in almost every case not be crossed at grade. I say almost as there are bound to be a few that will get crossed at grade after a second look, not unlike how on occasion a coin receives a green bean upon reconsideration.
Of course just as at P or N the submitter has the choice to choose cross at any grade or only at grade (or above if the graders feel its worthy), so no one is being forced into taking a lower grade in a crossover situation.
A JA parlance "C" coin -ms65 in that example- would not automatically top out at 64/64+ at CACG as CACG uses the whole grade range whereas CAC Stickering uses only the "A" & "B" range. So if this generic example ms65 coin was assessed by the CACG graders as a 65.1 or 65.2 it would get a grade of ms65. If they assess it as a 64.6 or 64.9 to their standards then it would get that ms64/64+ grade.
This doesn’t make any sense. A CAC MS 65 C coin cannot be a CACG MS 65 as it would not be solid for the grade. The 2 grading services have to grade similarly or their is a problem as the standards as stated by JA should be the same. So a CAC MS 65 C coin needs to downgrade to a 64 at CACG otherwise they are not in sync
I have not watched the entire video, and I am not interested in doing so. I have also not read all of the commentary.
I am not a copper person. When I saw the first three coins shown, my immediate impression was that the coins had turned in the NGC and PCGS holders and would not straight grade at NGC and PCGS today. This may have already been suggested. Nothing was proven, IMO.
@Zoins said:
I think "C" coins will get graded in a CACG holder, just as an "A" or "B" in a lower grade.
Yes, they will. But many/most of these "C" coins (I won't say all of them) were OK with the original grade (let's call it MS-65), just not worthy of a CAC sticker. That's from JA himself.
Now, that same coin is going to go into an MS-64 CACG or maybe even an MS-63 CACG (assuming no issues that would merit a Chutes-and-Ladders plunge to the AU levels ).
An ms65 "C" coin, using the example referencing JA's nomenclature, would be graded ms65 by CACG -Not ms64 or ms63- as CACG uses the whole grade range. @Zoins is correct.
This was pretty well discussed on the CAC forum, coins that have previously been seen and failed at CAC will in almost every case not be crossed at grade. I say almost as there are bound to be a few that will get crossed at grade after a second look, not unlike how on occasion a coin receives a green bean upon reconsideration.
Of course just as at P or N the submitter has the choice to choose cross at any grade or only at grade (or above if the graders feel its worthy), so no one is being forced into taking a lower grade in a crossover situation.
A JA parlance "C" coin -ms65 in that example- would not automatically top out at 64/64+ at CACG as CACG uses the whole grade range whereas CAC Stickering uses only the "A" & "B" range. So if this generic example ms65 coin was assessed by the CACG graders as a 65.1 or 65.2 it would get a grade of ms65. If they assess it as a 64.6 or 64.9 to their standards then it would get that ms64/64+ grade.
This doesn’t make any sense. A CAC MS 65 C coin cannot be a CACG MS 65 as it would not be solid for the grade. The 2 grading services have to grade similarly or their is a problem as the standards as stated by JA should be the same. So a CAC MS 65 C coin needs to downgrade to a 64 at CACG otherwise they are not in sync
My understanding....
A CAC MS65 coin will cross with a minimum 65 grade. Perhaps a 65+.
A MS 65 grade no CAC (B coin) grade 65 grade or 64+?
A non CAC 65 (C coin will certainly be downgraded).
Yeah! Lets go with a new grade FU. Friction Uncirculated.
I think your being sarcastic , what I said was "the grading services should modify their grade definitions to accurately reflect the standards (criteria) they use to grade."
The last thing we need is need is new grade names. They could easily update the existing grade definitions and make them much more accurate.
Comments
Graders look at 500 coins on a bad day. That's 2500 coins a week. And that's "You need to speed up or find a new job" levels of production for a Vintage US grader. They should be around 800 coins a day. If the average grader works 225 days a year (45 weeks a year, which is low), that's 180,000 coins a year.
I don't think Rexford needs it but I'll step in here to vouch for his grading skills and history as a former TPG grader. He knows his stuff in and out, and there's really only a handful of folks I'd trust over his grading and authenticating skills with world coins. If Rexford keeps on his current path, he's one of those guys you'll hear about in 25-30 years as one of the quiet titans of the hobby/business.
Saying pro graders go through the cream of the crop is an absurd statement based on what I've seen inside grading rooms. Collectors are indeed passionate, and a lot are passionate about hot freakin' garbage. When I was doing some grading testing for a major firm, somebody submitted a 25 year run of proof Lincoln Memorial cents, none higher than pr67 in my book. Somebody else submitted a whole submission of damaged pocket change trying to call them errors. A whole run of AT'ed Indian Head Cents. Counterfeit gold galore. Graders see it all, too, dude.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Thank you. There should be no need to remind any of us that we stand on the shoulders of former numismatists. As a young collector I was also full of myself and thought I knew everything. That's because the long time dealers where I grew up could not tell a cleaned coin and one of them told me that the clash marks that looked like letters under the Indian's nickel's chin was damaged. I could see perfectly shaped letters and had to teach my self how they got there. Fast forward to all the buying mistakes I made the first time around and I woke up to the real world. I believe I have learned enough about coins to debate others here. It took a very long time of study, research, classes, and a very large library. I can state as a fact that anyone who does not reach end stage "Dunning-Kruger" quickly after joining this forum is a fool. The learning never stops.
I never posted about fakes so you may be answering another post. Additionally, I have only questiond a few statements by the professional world class grader. A person can be completely wrong about something as My comments are to him and still respect their position in the hobby. For example, just because the guys at NGC let outside consultants help them slab fake coins, does not mean we should disrespect their authenticators.
All collectors and the dummies who could now become slab coin dealers just by being good business men should be glad PCGS was started in the first place. Unfortunately, over time, much of the grading business appeared to became a scheme of wink, wink, watch the grade go up as the same coin was tossed back and forth between TPGS.
CAC stickers cane about as another layer of opinion. Now CACG appears to be taking a big risk to its future by reining in a runaway grading gravy train.
Finally, let me play like an arrogant professional grader and make it simple: Coins are a physical object. When something happens to a physical object it is changed. Therefore, if you know what the original surface looks like on a physical object made of things like cardboard, porcelain, wood or metal you can tell if it has been changed in any way. This is true for all coin types and all compositions from any, age, made in any way including casting. I should expect every well-known,very knowledgeable numismatist (professional or not) to agree with my statement.
Happy New Year! I think the NYC celebration is being done with out the usual crowd.
You mean NOW or HISTORICALLY ? Years ago when there was still plenty of low-hanging fruit, crossing at the same grade or getting a CAC sticker from PCGS/NGC was more likely.
As someone who owns a few coins but is a relative novice in collecting I am in awe of all of you.
I must admit that reading this thread left me confused at times? Much too sophisticated given my lack of working knowledge. Would it be possible for someone to recap? Am I missing something?
My question revolves around the entrance of CACG into the hobby relative to NGC / PCGS. Do they grade any differently
considering a standard industry grading system? Meaning I failed to understand how a 64/5 slabbed TPG coin becomes a 58 in another piece of plastic? Is that an outlier?
Are scratches/ toning-Environmental damage - Rub on coin not permitted above a certain grade? Without a vast knowledge should i stay purchasing DE's in the sub $500 premium to gold? Limiting my downside. I was willing to look at higher premiums for rarer coins. now, I'm on hold.
I am beginning to feel a paranoia (perhaps realizing that i can't rely on coin grades? I knew TPG's could differ depending on tightness of grading at any particular point of time but seeing 64/65 fall into an AU state gives me pause.
I can't imagine this works for CACG either. Are many going to send their graded coins to cACG? Did they change the previously accepted industry standards?
I'm not sure how the coin hobby benefits from this dichotomy? Will this pass or will a loss of confidence doom the hobby? Not being a 'pro" I'm sitting back and watching.
If CACG doesn't loosen up, they're gonna be a niche grading service. Just my humble opinion. PCGS+CAC Sticker is still king, and will be for quite some time.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
But the degree that we are off is more than the traditional GTG Threads about 1-2 grading points up or down. We're revisiting the old debates about net grading, rub, wear, different types of "friction" (and wear), bag marks, etc.
Except we're possibly going to invalidate large numbers of previously graded MS coins into the AU bucket (concern is less with AU's going into the EF bucket).
I can live with good rules or bad rules. But changing the rules in the middle of the game is what concerns me.
The rub is the darker/blacker blotches, correct ? What do you think caused them ?
Question(s): Is the term "Circulated" being misused since most of the AU coins and the debate about MS Uncirculated coins concerns mostly MISHANLDING over time -- none of these coins actually "circulated" in a commercial sense ?
Is "Circulated" and rub/wear/friction coming into play from coins that were simply held in one's hands decades ago before we knew not to do that ?
What about coins that were kept in velvet pouches or jewelry boxes or similar containers and just slid along the material -- could that come off as rub/wear/cleaning ?
Is there not an option at CACG to cross at same grade as a minimum or don’t cross?
Yes, there is an option at CACG to cross at the same grade.
Since we are currently unable to travel back in time we can only speculate whether a coin circulated for a short period of time or shows signs of rub/wear/friction from other sources. Certainly there are some characteristics that help us make judgements but not with 100% certainty.
The TPG's have defined all mint state grades as having no signs of wear. We know this is not accurate. Instead they use an undefined standard that uses the amount of rub/wear/friction a coin displays from being stored in a pouch, box, container, or sliding against some material, to determine a straight, details, or no grade.
I remember a rare date Liberty Seated Dollar with beautiful peripheral toning graded MS-64 that has obvious slide marks often referred to as cabinet friction on Liberty's thigh. The TPG's should modify their grade definitions to accurately reflect the standards (criteria) they use to grade.
This is really the issue. And not just "friction" or light rub. Old copper can straight grade with "mild environmental damage" and old silver can straight grade with "mild or old cleaning". And, of course, there is the fuzzy line between AT and NT ("questionable color"). These are far harder for collectors to navigate than 65 vs 66 and none of them are really discussed in official grading standards.
"Uncirculated" should never be taken literally. It is a degree of preservation not a history of the coin. It is not being misused but people may be misinterpreting it.
Coins do not develop friction or rub from a single circulation event. You can get MS67 coins in pocket change because the few circulation events the coin endured did not result in any loss of metal.
The key to knowledge is knowing what you don't know.
There is a lot to unpack here and must of it is discussed in the thread.
Not all grades correlate to price. For widgets, there is a sight unseen price for slabbed coins but MS65 prices represent a range not a single value and there will be outliers.
The issue over rub, environmental damage etc is complex. Part of that equation , the "rub" is the whole point of this long thread. MOST coins MS60 and above can NOT have rub. But cabinet friction has almost always been tolerated in certain series. Whether it should be is, again, part of the issue here.
Environmental damage is as complex or more.
It is hard to be the strictest grading service. People like higher numbers. If grade inflation exists, that is the reason for it. However, I think that number obsession is simplistic. There are only two things that ever matter: is it pretty? How much is it worth? The answer to those questions is not determined by the number on the slab.
If CACG is truly stricter - I have not seen enough of their coins to be sure- they only survive if the market price or collector demand for their coins is higher than their competitors. It is to soon to know the answer to that question.
First, I want to say that I have found this to be one of the best threads I have read in my many years of participating in online forums. I appeciate ALL the comments and ALL the back-and-forth from everybody who took the time to give really in-depth commentary. These weren't 1 or 2 sentence posts that took 15 seconds to type out -- they took some serious effort and time. Thanks !!
Second, Rex....your paragraph above (which I found outstanding)....translate it into a series I am more familiar with, Saints and HR Saints. You are saying that if the coins have a "bad strike" it will/can appear as rub because the high points on the coins (esp. the MCMVII HR's) is NOT being filled/struck 100%...is this correct ? I have also believed that "poor strikes" are largely not mechanical in nature but from overused dies -- again, is this part of what you are saying ?
As for luster, the best description I found was from Roger Burdette's Saint-Gaudens book where he gave a somewhat molecular reason: deformation of the metal under high pressure so that light reflects off of thousands of tiny microscopic ridges and grooves in the metal resulting from stress in the steel dies. The crystals of the die face change imperceptibly with each blow. After a few hundred blows, a brand-new die would no longer produce perfectly smooth fields but microscopic ridges and grooves that reflect light. So some coins are going to be lucky to have "great luster" but others might just have average luster.
Does this mean if a strike is likely to be "weak" because of the die/high point issue....that a grader should/would take this into account in grading ?
I guess you could be right....technically.
But back in 2008 in the interview with Maurice Rosen he did say that "C" coins were still OK for the grade, just not worthy of a CAC sticker like the "A" and "B" coins. The thing is now those same "C" coins are NOT going into the same graded CACG holder.
I think he said that "D" and "F" coins were certainly overgraded though a distinct minority. It was the "C" coins -- which were dominant in dealer inventories (the "A" and "B" coins being held by collectors and investors) which were dominant in inventory and setting/distorting prices which he wanted to separate from the CAC-worthy A's and B's.
they do
Why does the hardness/softness of the metal impact how the metal flows into high points ? Why would that matter -- I would think if it was High Relief vs. Normal Relief that might matter but not the composition of the die metal itself.
I disagree 100%. I am glad you took the time to post here, Rex -- and to all the people who offered their opinions, agreeing with or disagreeing with you. How else can those of us with less experience learn ? I can't find this thread in a book.
I have found this thread very informative....I learned alot....no, some fine points are still in a gray area and are not solved but at least now I am armed with more ammunition if I ever look at a raw coins (doubtful for high-end purchases), looking beyond the grade on the TPG holder, etc.
This is why spending hours reading the posts here are worth it. Thanks everybody !
All die metals are the same, it is the metal of the coin being punched that has different hardness. Nickel is the hardest of common coinage. It is not just high points, but corresponding high points on both sides of the coin. More pressure is needed to completely fill the die, but that cuts how long the die will survive. When you learn a series, you will notice the parts of the coin that frequently are not completely filled.
He's talking about the planchet composition not the die composition. Consider striking butter vs steel.
If the area where the strictness is more than a few points is with sliders, there may be a market for their services.
I think "C" coins will get graded in a CACG holder, just as an "A" or "B" in a lower grade.
I wouldn't. I'm more or less in the same boat as you. Most of my Saint purchases save a few have been for the price of bullion give or take 25% (~ $400-$500). I would CERTAINLY be more careful and discerning and have a list of "tells" to examine on a Saint that cost a multiple of the price of gold, like a rare coin or condition...or an MCMVII High Relief. I'd like to think that these more expensive, rarer coins got more than 10-15 seconds being examined, but who knows ? If a coin looks good for the grade and I personally look it over for a few minutes going down my checklist of "watch outs" and "tells"....then I should be OK. And if I get burned on 1 coin out of 20, hey, it's the price we pay for playing in this hobby, right ?
We all are.
In the past, the main risk was gradeflation. Now it seems like we have to worry about Grade Deflation. 
The dichotomy between AU-58 and low-MS coins (or even mid-60's coins) is one particular focus of this debate but we had that before with PCGS and NGC. But not as much for coins that were MS-65 (or higher !). It's a bit of a culture shock which is why this thread has attracted so many posts -- but it DOES contain some great information.
If we could nail down definitions of "wear" and "rub" and "friction" that would probably be a good start. We're still having back-and-forths about dies being filled, cabinet friction, stacking friction/rub, etc. If what APPEARS to be rub or wear or friction is in fact something dating to the original striking of the coin, that would help us nail down some coins that do NOT need to be downgraded from MS to AU even under strict technical grading standards.
Yes, they will. But many/most of these "C" coins (I won't say all of them) were OK with the original grade (let's call it MS-65), just not worthy of a CAC sticker. That's from JA himself.
Now, that same coin is going to go into an MS-64 CACG or maybe even an MS-63 CACG (assuming no issues that would merit a Chutes-and-Ladders plunge to the AU levels
).
CACG gold coins and CAC stickered gold are great at gold ...I once bought a PCGS MS 65 classic 5 dollar gold only to find out it was puttied !! Big OUCH .
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
I very much disagree with what you are saying here, both P and N are not grading coins as much as they are pricing coins. That is the real discussion and the big issue with gradeflation, yes I agree that people like higher grades, but this market grading and gradflation happened because dealers (who are mostly the people that become graders) took it upon themselves to decide that it would be easier to sell sliders if they were in UNC holders. That has led to this ridiculous concept that some rub is fine if it came from certain types of contact or situations, this concept is completely arbitrary and about a solid a grading definition as a bowl of jello. The number on the slab actually does define the price into some range that is then dispersed to the masses via the price guides.
You have yourself posted the PCGS definition of a couple of the grading definitions in this thread, we all know that the TPG's are not following their own grading definitions. Instead graders are deciding that a coin is too pretty to be an AU and assigning a mint state grade because as a dealer that is the price they feel it should sell for.
That is why dealers/graders like Rexford and the guy in the video in the OP are so up in arms over CACG. CACG wants to actually grade the coin not price the coin and let the pricing decision be between the buyer and seller, and that scares most dealers that only know price guides. I like what CACG is doing because they are acting like a true TPG, grading coins and not pricing coins, that is the type of impartial service that I both want and expect from a TPG.
And it's not just rub we are talking about; although this thread as mostly been about that; what about damaged coins that find their way into straight grade holders. Just this past week someone posted a coin that was cracked out of one TPG details holder and ended up in another's straight graded holder. Damaged coins should not be put into straight graded holders, yet it happens all the time with both P and N. This again is the graders/TPG's not grading coins but rather pricing coins.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
An ms65 "C" coin, using the example referencing JA's nomenclature, would be graded ms65 by CACG -Not ms64 or ms63- as CACG uses the whole grade range. @Zoins is correct.
I've been told -- as it's been said by JA/CACG -- that a "C" coin for a grade would not straight grade from PCGS/NGC into the same grade at CACG.
I'm not talking about truly overgraded coins but ones that CAC originally and throughout their existence said were OK for the numerical grade...just not worthy of a sticker (those are for the "A" and "B" coins).
.
.
@Rexford - THIS...................
This was pretty well discussed on the CAC forum, coins that have previously been seen and failed at CAC will in almost every case not be crossed at grade. I say almost as there are bound to be a few that will get crossed at grade after a second look, not unlike how on occasion a coin receives a green bean upon reconsideration.
Of course just as at P or N the submitter has the choice to choose cross at any grade or only at grade (or above if the graders feel its worthy), so no one is being forced into taking a lower grade in a crossover situation.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
A JA parlance "C" coin -ms65 in that example- would not automatically top out at 64/64+ at CACG as CACG uses the whole grade range whereas CAC Stickering uses only the "A" & "B" range. So if this generic example ms65 coin was assessed by the CACG graders as a 65.1 or 65.2 it would get a grade of ms65. If they assess it as a 64.6 or 64.9 to their standards then it would get that ms64/64+ grade.
So hobbyists are supposed to know this intuitively?
Are you kidding me?
The details aren't really necessary for "hobbyists". For those that want to know, that's what forums and other communications are for. Depends on how far down the rabbit hole one wants to go
You may think you disagree with me but nothing you say really disagrees with me. It's more tangential to it. What I said was that people shouldn't be slaves to the numbers.
I like this explanation, perhaps I would modify it to include a third thing that matters. That is rarity, because one must adjust the weight assigned to eye-appeal for truly rare coins when there are only a few examples that exist.
For better and for worse market grading is established and accepted in numismatics. The rules have changed before and they will change in the future. CACG is more akin to revolution than evolution and that jolts the senses. At least mine!
One specific question: How many of those 63/64 Saints that become AU58s actually circulated in the channels of commerce?
With all this revolution and evolution, I can’t help but feel some disillusion.
As an owner of many $thousands worth of coins in both PCGS and NGC holders, acquired as such, or sent in by me to be certified pre-CAC, I can’t help but feel these are now going to be viewed unfavorably by many in the marketplace. Like they are in SEGS holders, or raw, because the standards are now deemed to be much stricter.
I feel you but I reckon we need more time and data points before we draw hard conclusions.
Smitten with DBLCs.
I'm not sure about that, from what CACG and JA have (allegedly) said. They are saying that the CACG MS-65 is equivalent to a PCGS/NGC MS-65 with a CAC sticker -- which said sticker would NOT go to a 65.1 or 65.2 coin. So they will NOT put the low-65 fractionally ID'd coin in the 65 holder, but the 64 holder.
If I'm wrong, someone correct me. Lord knows I've been corrected a bunch already on this whole thing.
BTW, this whole thing with what grade a coin will CAC sticker at reminds me of the owner of a 1927-D Saint who REQUESTED a lower grade from PCGS so that the coin would CAC.
Strange but true !
@tradedollarnut has indicated he's also had coins downgraded so they would CAC.
Don't conflate too much. A PCGS 65 is still a PCGS 65 just like an ANACS 65 is still an ANACS 65. Now, a PCGS 65 sells for more, typically, than an ANACS 65. And maybe a CACG 65 will sell for more than a PCGS 65. Even if true, you can get to "more" by paying a premium for a CACG or by the PCGS trading at a discount. Since the PCGS 65 is still a PCGS 65, it is more likely that a premium applies to the CACG than a discount applies to a PCGS coin.
Would that mean people will want to cross to CACG to maximize value? Probably. But that arbitrage already exists as people cross to PCGS from ANACS or NGC or as people try to get their coins CAC stickered.
If you feel this is a problem, take it up with PCGS.
I respect your opinion and I agree it's a rabbit hole.
Is that good for the market long term? That the three major TPGs separate themselves with differing individual criteria and opinion?
IMO potential frustration and more likelihood people will be burned increases, oppposite the original purpose of the TPG.
I have been collecting coins over 50 years now.
I still make plenty of mistake’s especially determining if a raw coin will straight grade ….any grade .
I still hire professionals like Mr Eureka to help me buy coins I want that are raw or have a second look at even if they are graded because his opinions matters !
I personally know Rexford and believe he has a huge future in the coin biz if he wants . He is clearly knowledgeable about coins in general and extremely so in world coinage as can be seen from his posts .
I would suggest if CACG EVER wants to crack the virgin field of grading world coins ( at least virgin to their young grading company at this time) they should make
Rexford an offer to join their ranks as a world coin grader and one he cannot refuse !
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Yeah! Lets go with a new grade FU. Friction Uncirculated.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
Ll> @CascadeChris said:
This doesn’t make any sense. A CAC MS 65 C coin cannot be a CACG MS 65 as it would not be solid for the grade. The 2 grading services have to grade similarly or their is a problem as the standards as stated by JA should be the same. So a CAC MS 65 C coin needs to downgrade to a 64 at CACG otherwise they are not in sync
I have not watched the entire video, and I am not interested in doing so. I have also not read all of the commentary.
I am not a copper person. When I saw the first three coins shown, my immediate impression was that the coins had turned in the NGC and PCGS holders and would not straight grade at NGC and PCGS today. This may have already been suggested. Nothing was proven, IMO.
My understanding....
A CAC MS65 coin will cross with a minimum 65 grade. Perhaps a 65+.
A MS 65 grade no CAC (B coin) grade 65 grade or 64+?
A non CAC 65 (C coin will certainly be downgraded).
I think your being sarcastic
, what I said was "the grading services should modify their grade definitions to accurately reflect the standards (criteria) they use to grade."
The last thing we need is need is new grade names. They could easily update the existing grade definitions and make them much more accurate.