** 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.**
Thanks @jmlanzaf, for putting this into perspective; as usual, the voice of reason.
@fathom said:
IMO potential frustration and more likelihood people will be burned increases, oppposite the original purpose of >the TPG.
Veterans from 40 or 50 or even 60 years ago -- long before I began -- know that back then it really was The Wild, Wild, West when it came to grading and dealing with buyers and sellers. I think on balance the TPGs have been a MAJOR positive for the hobby.
I think the confusion and angst here is not because CACG being more conservative in grading....it's the large gap in the slider arena -- potentially moving MS-65 coins down to AU-58 -- that concerns many here. That's a real concern as evidenced by the debate we had here with very knowledgeable experts not able to agree on the definitions, composition, and presence of rub, wear, friction, color loss, etc.
It is very weird for an company which state they go technical grading, to not be able technical to recognise natural toning of Cu alloy based coins. When you question the toning of an coins you has to assimilate those toning to the Minting process of that time. From the Blanking till Strike, many kind of different liquids are involved. If you question those toning colors, you has to know exactly the toning spectrum on those coins at different steps of the production.
This thing could be see only with SDX-DSX. As an scientific I doubt someone at CAC has any knowleadge of those spectrums or analyse the surface of the coins with those beasts, in order to see natural or after strike human interferances and not natural. This was one point.
Second to not gade coins (classics) because has an scratch or two or and ding from bags, SORRY, close yours doors. Read the history of the Minting.
Third: In order to establish an precious metal was clean without rubbing, also you need an SDX-DSX to find the auxilliary substances on the coin and not residues from the Minting process.
As an scientific me I do not understood those from CAC because they do not explain and me I will like to see the prouve of the doubt. And also what it is theirs "technical scale of grading" with points by grade. They has a new standerd different from ANA standards?? to follow.
Do I will risc MS-65 or 66 St-Gauldens to come back MS Detail Scratches??? I do not like Drogs or Alcohools.
NEVER ARGUE WITH AN IDIOT.FIRST THEY WILL DRAG YOU DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL.THEN, THEY WILL BEAT YOU WITH EXPERIENCE. MARK TWAIN
@Walkerlover 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
Because.....the CACG holder is not only saying it's a 65, but it's STRONG for the grade, either an "A" or "B" coin (who knows, maybe only the "A" coins for all we know).
CACG holders are trying to give buyers a twofer: a grade they can trust (like a regular TPG is supposed to be) plus the CAC sticker.
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.
What!?
So the grading services need to loosen up even more than they have in the past?
Keep purchasing what you like, I'd rather use my eyes first no matter what's on the holder.
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 ?
I wouldn’t say the issue I mentioned looks totally identical to wear - there is a difference in the way the luster breaks and especially in the texture upon worn metal and upon unworn, unstruck planchet. But, there can be a significant difference in texture/luster between the unstruck areas and the surrounding areas, and I can see that presenting like wear from a distance or in a photo. In essence, not all forms of high-point luster loss are due to rub.
And yep, die wear is another possible reason for a weak strike. In those instances, if the planchet metal flows into all areas of the die, there will not be that issue of unstruck planchet texture / 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 ?
Yep - that’s why you can get high relief Peace Dollars that look like these in MS66! :
@fathom said:
IMO potential frustration and more likelihood people will be burned increases, oppposite the original purpose of >the TPG.
Veterans from 40 or 50 or even 60 years ago -- long before I began -- know that back then it really was The Wild, Wild, West when it came to grading and dealing with buyers and sellers. I think on balance the TPGs have been a MAJOR positive for the hobby.
I think the confusion and angst here is not because CACG being more conservative in grading....it's the large gap in the slider arena -- potentially moving MS-65 coins down to AU-58 -- that concerns many here. That's a real concern as evidenced by the debate we had here with very knowledgeable experts not able to agree on the definitions, composition, and presence of rub, wear, friction, color loss, etc.
To be fair, this has ALWAYS been the case. 58 is special. It has the broadest range of coins in it. There are currently ba LOT of 65 rub coins in 58 holders. That's why there has for decades been the saying that "a 58 is a 65 with rub". However, the saying is an exaggeration because 58 also always included coins that were 60 to 64 with rub.
And, if you want another inconvenient truth, if you take a 58 that has minor rub and let it tone over, it might well move up to a 65 or higher. And if you take a 64 and let it tone, it may well end up at 65 or 66.
There are even worse issues or there. Coins that go from detail grade to straight grade and vice versa. [See early copper and early silver. ]
You want another fun provocation, there is the Peter principle of coin slabs: every high value coin has been resubmitted until it eeked into a higher grade than it merited.
You want another fun provocation, there is the Peter principle of coin slabs: every high value coin has been resubmitted until it eeked into a higher grade than it merited.
>
Excellent written response!
This last statement probably is of most concern to me and one reason I have almost exclusively bought CAC stickered coins.
Since my primary interest is Type I DEs with some limited Early gold, I believe most of these coins have seen a grading room multiple times to try and squeeze just a little higher grade out. Since these coins are already expensive, it’s certainly worth the time, effort, and money to try multiple attempts for an upgrade.
>
So my hopes has been that a ‘beaned’ coin would have hopefully limited these bumps by not certifying an over graded coin. And this is also my hopes that when the dust settles, CACG will be consistent and not fall into the same game that other TPGs have, with a wink and a nod, bumping up a coin a little more.
>
I certainly understand the main concern of this thread is the downgrade of a gem 65 to a 58, because of rub. This doesn’t effect me because in what I collect, I’ll certainly will not be playing around in the high grades due to the rarity and cost.
>
Just thought I would add my .02 cents.
@fathom said:
IMO potential frustration and more likelihood people will be burned increases, oppposite the original purpose of >the TPG.
Veterans from 40 or 50 or even 60 years ago -- long before I began -- know that back then it really was The Wild, Wild, West when it came to grading and dealing with buyers and sellers. I think on balance the TPGs have been a MAJOR positive for the hobby.
I think the confusion and angst here is not because CACG being more conservative in grading....it's the large gap in the slider arena -- potentially moving MS-65 coins down to AU-58 -- that concerns many here. That's a real concern as evidenced by the debate we had here with very knowledgeable experts not able to agree on the definitions, composition, and presence of rub, wear, friction, color loss, etc.
I wouldn’t be all that worried. I can say that regardless of the way this discussion went, there is tight agreement on definitions and the physical characteristics of coins among the active finalizers at the TPG I worked for, and I would assume so for the other major TPG as well. Coins are not moving back and forth between 58 and 65 in the grading room.
If CACG has elected to define their scale in a certain way that appears to be different from the other major TPGs, they may do so. They could just as easily have made a scale that goes backwards from 70 to 1, or that values struck detail over technical wear - and those scales wouldn’t be wrong, just different. Over in Europe, the traditional grading scale does focus on struck detail over wear, and to them our scale can be nonsensical - they might call a poorly-struck but unworn coin a VF, while here it would be graded MS. I only question the consistency of CACG (perhaps JA’s attempt to redefine certain standards has resulted in some confusion among the CACG graders on how to apply grades?) and the usefulness of their scale to the hobby if applied in the manner it seems to be applied.
_ You want another fun provocation, there is the Peter principle of coin slabs: every high value coin has been resubmitted until it eeked into a higher grade than it merited._
Reminds me of what I overheard at a major and popular dealer’s table at Summer FUN, while discussing a better date high grade two cent piece: “I keep resubmitting it every few months, and it keeps coming back red and brown, but it will eventually get into red holder”.
Wow. Quite a thread. If my customer had not put me on hold for over an hour, don't know if I would have made it.
Still don't know what to make of CACG but as I posted on another site I think the story with CAC stickers is that the coin is suppose to be choice for the stated grade but everyone pays like it is the next grade up.
I REALLY wanted an "I'M still here coin" but the only coin that fit my collection was an 1841 Seated Quarter PCGS-VG 8 with a CAC sticker. Until now I have ignored CAC because my coins were to low grade/price to matter but will be interested to see one in person. James
BTW, got contacted regarding the use of the MCMVII High Reliefs for poor strike = rub.
I just used that as a hypothetical. Actually, that would be one coin that would NOT be expected to have poor strike on the high relief (and no problem getting metal to flow to the high points) because the striking of that coin involved 3 strikes of a 170-ton press to insure all the detail came up.
I think it may have come off as me saying MCMVII HR's were poorly struck now and then. No, I just used them as the example since they are high relief and we were talking about how it could be difficult for other coins to have metal flow to all points in the die, esp. high points.
If you buy a coin for eye appeal than what holder it is in is less important. I have seen coins in PCGS, NGC or CAC stickered coins that were just plain ugly. The reason for the grading issues really has to do with the concept of market grading. To me the grading should be consistent across all denominations which it is obviously not.
After my third submission to CACG on a variety of coins and reviewing the results of others, I'm of the clear opinion that coins with color, especially copper, will get details graded if there's the slightest doubt about whether the color is original. Coins with scratches, spots, stains etc are apt to get details even if removed from previously straight graded holders.
Coins with any rub get the AU designation, coins with unusual white coloring don't pass muster either (chemically "cleaned").
Original, right as rain white coins get rewarded but are consistently downgraded one grade meaning the green bean in the corner is "accurate" because the coin is in fact better than the grade on the slab.
Clearly they're much tighter than PCGS and NGC currently. I think today CACG slabs should command a 20%- 25% premium in the market and their first generation slabs will command a premium just as the OGH's of generation 1 coins from PCGS have.
CACG MS 63 NOT FB..........
Here I would expect MS 65 FB.
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
Should there be a prize given at year end to the tightest grading company in the marketplace?
Should there be a prize given at year end to the loosest grading service in the marketplace?
Should the grand prize be given at year end to the grading company that averages the proper grades of all the other established grading services combined. In other words, the grading service that consistently gets the coins “about right” based upon the tightest and loosest other grading services out there as agreed by the collector/dealer base.
Does anyone out there really have any idea just how truly messed up things are right now in the realm of “professionally” graded coins across the 3 or 4 “best” grading services in the World? Is this being intentionally done (for profit or otherwise) or mostly just the unintended consequences of a seriously damaged system? Thoughts?
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@DollarAfterDollar said:
After my third submission to CACG on a variety of coins and reviewing the results of others, I'm of the clear opinion that coins with color, especially copper, will get details graded if there's the slightest doubt about whether the color is original. Coins with scratches, spots, stains etc are apt to get details even if removed from previously straight graded holders.
Coins with any rub get the AU designation, coins with unusual white coloring don't pass muster either (chemically "cleaned").
Original, right as rain white coins get rewarded but are consistently downgraded one grade meaning the green bean in the corner is "accurate" because the coin is in fact better than the grade on the slab.
Clearly they're much tighter than PCGS and NGC currently. I think today CACG slabs should command a 20%- 25% premium in the market and their first generation slabs will command a premium just as the OGH's of generation 1 coins from PCGS have.
CACG MS 63 NOT FB..........
Here I would expect MS 65 FB.
I think only the non-legacy coins should be thought of as possibly being one grade higher. The legacy CACG coins are rubber stamped CAC coins for the grade. In this scenario paradoxically CACG Non Legacy coins might be valued higher than Legacy coins. CACG Plus coins could upgrade to the next grade level.
Given time, the market will decide what is optimal and what holders command what prices and the risks involved with each. If the CACG graded slab is priced X % higher then the other TPG's but discriminating buyers know they are getting the most conservative grade and less downside risk, they will pay accordingly. If sellers/dealers forego crossing to CACG for fear an MS becomes an AU, or worse details, they may have to drop prices in the future vs CACG coins to entice buyers, esp with sight unseen/internet photos. If these price differences widen, over time the best will cross and that is good for such buyers wanting the best. I would not want to buy an MS65 that in reality is an AU58.
My understanding/question on this, when looking at how the market will shake out in a year or two, would be, "What type of slab and/or grading will carry the most weight (value) in the market?"
PCGS/CAC (sticker) -- It has been seen by two sets of graders, ostensibly the two premier groups.
NGC/CAC (sticker) -- It has been seen by two groups of graders who agree it is . . . (fill in the blank). (Premier, 'A'/'B', superior to others in the grade, top-notch -- whatever superlative you care to designate)
CACG -- 'Legacy' -- Graded by two services . . . you just don't know which of the two. But, CAC still 'applies', and it has been evaluated twice as well.
CACG -- 'Non-Legacy' -- Graded just by CACG. But, CAC still 'applies' here too.
Now factor in the " + " grading complexity of stickers v. CACG v. Legacy. Add 'details' on coins that certainly appear to be solid to the average/slightly above average numismatist, personal preference, eye appeal, etc . . . . . . . .
. . . . . and have a good time with this !!!!!!!!!!!
It’s been explained to me by the strongest world class graders ever to work for the grading services…. they are simply told what is expected from them at the particular job they take. At grading service “A”, these coins are 64’s, at grading service “B” these coins are 65’s and at grading service “C”, these coins are 58’s. The graders are “hired guns” - told exactly what is expected of them. It’s that simple. These graders didn’t “magically forget” how to grade a 64 or 65 and now wake up with an epiphany that they are 58’s. Did a number of these world class graders simply lie to me? Perhaps I will hear that now.
@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.
.
I waded through six pages of sometimes juvenile debate, often by posters who commented 20 plus times, at least one who seems to have never been here before ...
... and I am very glad I missed it in real time while I was on vacation ...
... but I did find these two Gems (there are probably a few more).
.
That said, I have one more thought ... regarding grading from images ...
.
Happy New Year all!
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
@DRUNNER said:
CACG -- 'Legacy' -- Graded by two services . . . you just don't know which of the two. But, CAC still 'applies', and it has been evaluated twice as well.
CACG -- 'Non-Legacy' -- Graded just by CACG. But, CAC still 'applies' here too.
PCGS/CAC (sticker) -- It has been seen by two sets of graders, ostensibly the two premier groups.
NGC/CAC (sticker) -- It has been seen by two groups of graders who agree it is . . . (fill in the blank). (Premier, 'A'/'B', superior to others in the grade, top-notch -- whatever superlative you care to designate)
Should there be a prize given at year end to the tightest grading company in the marketplace?
Should there be a prize given at year end to the loosest grading service in the marketplace?
Should the grand prize be given at year end to the grading company that averages the proper grades of all the other established grading services combined. In other words, the grading service that consistently gets the coins “about right” based upon the tightest and loosest other grading services out there as agreed by the collector/dealer base.
Does anyone out there really have any idea just how truly messed up things are right now in the realm of “professionally” graded coins across the 3 or 4 “best” grading services in the World? Is this being intentionally done (for profit or otherwise) or mostly just the unintended consequences of a seriously damaged system? Thoughts?
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Improve the grading scale by exchanging 58 with 65 and 62 with 53.
Should there be a prize given at year end to the tightest grading company in the marketplace?
Should there be a prize given at year end to the loosest grading service in the marketplace?
Should the grand prize be given at year end to the grading company that averages the proper grades of all the other established grading services combined. In other words, the grading service that consistently gets the coins “about right” based upon the tightest and loosest other grading services out there as agreed by the collector/dealer base.
Does anyone out there really have any idea just how truly messed up things are right now in the realm of “professionally” graded coins across the 3 or 4 “best” grading services in the World? Is this being intentionally done (for profit or otherwise) or mostly just the unintended consequences of a seriously damaged system? Thoughts?
@coinbuf My apologies, I think I was gonna respond to you earlier then realized what you were saying and then responded to Wondercoin w/o completely backing out the text.
A paralegal client (very sharp) recently bought a WLH CACG 64 half recently. She is very sharp and knows how grade and price coins. She feels there is no reason to keep it from 65. Looking at it over coffee, see agreed at the very least it’s an A coin. She does not have the money play the upgrade game. As it is Super PQ for the grade she has made the call to price it between 64 and 65 MV. Jimmy and myself concur. Jimmy went on to say “only a digital idiot would not price for PQ.” I directed her look at the online inventory of a well known dealer who knows how price PQ material. Don’t leave money on the table pricing an A coin at B coin prices.
@wondercoin said:
Should there be a prize given at year end to the tightest grading company in the marketplace?
Should there be a prize given at year end to the loosest grading service in the marketplace?
Should the grand prize be given at year end to the grading company that averages the proper grades of all the other established grading services combined. In other words, the grading service that consistently gets the coins “about right” based upon the tightest and loosest other grading services out there as agreed by the collector/dealer base.
Does anyone out there really have any idea just how truly messed up things are right now in the realm of “professionally” graded coins across the 3 or 4 “best” grading services in the World? Is this being intentionally done (for profit or otherwise) or mostly just the unintended consequences of a seriously damaged system? Thoughts?
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Thoughts?
Well, since you asked…..
I’m not going to speculate as to whether this is a a calculated business move or the consequences of a seriously damaged system- at least not here, on a public forum.
What I will say though is that I find this entire ‘evolution’ of the grading hierarchy to be highly irritating, annoying and disruptive to my plans to have the majority of my currently raw collection- graded. I’m talking hundreds of coins here, and I’ve been holding off throughout the pandemic, waiting for the backlogs and staffing issues to clear, and was poised to pull the trigger with my submissions. That is, until CACG threw this (****) into the equation.
As a modest but serious collector, I am disappointed, confused and concerned.
I’ve been on the waiting list for CAC membership and was planning on submitting several already slabbed coins for beans. These coins have never been to CAC. Many others, which are raw, I would like to submit to one of the 3 majjor players. Based on what I’ve seen so far, I certainly won’t be cracking ANY of my already graded items out for CACG grading services. I was considering sending some raw ones to CACG, but now, after all this, that list of candidates will be greatly reduced in size. For the most part, my collection is not of the highest gem caliber. If I was playing in that pond, it might be different, but the bulk of my materials are MS 63-66’s. I’m not going to take a chance with the new service on this stuff.
For me, the question has been as to what to do with my many raw pieces- which, I plan to have graded in my effort to clean up my collection to help simplify matters for my heirs when I clock out. At one point, a few months back, I was considering the possibility of sending them to CACG for grading, but this possibility has been greatly diminished by my recent observations. Most now will go to PCGS and NGC and then perhaps to CAC for bean considerations. After all this though, I’m left wondering just what to do!
As it stands, I’m going to have to very carefully select coins from my collection as candidates for the 3 top tier services- taking into account their specific proclivities.
This shouldn’t be the case!
My 2 cents….
(Thanks for asking) ;-)
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
@Cougar1978 said:
A paralegal client (very sharp) recently bought a WLH CACG 64 half recently. She is very sharp and knows how grade and price coins. She feels there is no reason to keep it from 65. Looking at it over coffee, see agreed at the very least it’s an A coin. She does not have the money play the upgrade game. As it is Super PQ for the grade she has made the call to price it between 64 and 65 MV. Jimmy and myself concur. Jimmy went on to say “only a digital idiot would not price for PQ.” I directed her look at the online inventory of a well known dealer who knows how price PQ material. Don’t leave money on the table pricing an A coin at B coin prices.
Assume it is a 64, not a 64+ correct? Do you know if it was TPG previously?
I'm honestly just in awe of this thread.
I was hoping for a touch of insight.
The amount of learning and useful information and perspectives has been humbling.
Genuinely, I've read every word in this thread.
I'm just standing back and taking it all in...I'm feeling rather proud of myself for actually understanding basically everything that's being discussed. Especially as a younger less experienced collector (54 years old collecting since about 1978)
Honestly this thread has completely taken me off-guard and has been so satisfying to read every day. This thread is improving my quality of life lol, and will definitely alter the way I collect and look at coins.
I've actually been pretty accurate with my grade guessing before sending things in to PCGS, NGC, and ANACS...but I haven't sent anything to CAC yet...I'm sure I will at some point now!
Thank you everyone most sincerely for making this such an unbelievably informative thread.
Please...don't let me get in the way of this fascinating discussion...
Coins are Neato!
"If it's a penny for your thoughts and you put in your two cents worth, then someone...somewhere...is making a penny." - Steven Wright
As a Submitter to our hosts it doesn’t fit into my budget nor have reason to do other TPG anyway. Let alone play the crackout game (been there done that). As far as another TPG being quick on the trigger as far as details designation still observing that situation. However if I sent in crummy coins somewhere would not expect good results.
@wondercoin said:
Should there be a prize given at year end to the tightest grading company in the marketplace?
Should there be a prize given at year end to the loosest grading service in the marketplace?
Should the grand prize be given at year end to the grading company that averages the proper grades of all the other established grading services combined. In other words, the grading service that consistently gets the coins “about right” based upon the tightest and loosest other grading services out there as agreed by the collector/dealer base.
Does anyone out there really have any idea just how truly messed up things are right now in the realm of “professionally” graded coins across the 3 or 4 “best” grading services in the World? Is this being intentionally done (for profit or otherwise) or mostly just the unintended consequences of a seriously damaged system? Thoughts?
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Thoughts?
Well, since you asked…..
I’m not going to speculate as to whether this is a a calculated business move or the consequences of a seriously damaged system- at least not here, on a public forum.
What I will say though is that I find this entire ‘evolution’ of the grading hierarchy to be highly irritating, annoying and disruptive to my plans to have the majority of my currently raw collection- graded. I’m talking hundreds of coins here, and I’ve been holding off throughout the pandemic, waiting for the backlogs and staffing issues to clear, and was poised to pull the trigger with my submissions. That is, until CACG threw this (****) into the equation.
As a modest but serious collector, I am disappointed, confused and concerned.
I’ve been on the waiting list for CAC membership and was planning on submitting several already slabbed coins for beans. These coins have never been to CAC. Many others, which are raw, I would like to submit to one of the 3 majjor players. Based on what I’ve seen so far, I certainly won’t be cracking ANY of my already graded items out for CACG grading services. I was considering sending some raw ones to CACG, but now, after all this, that list of candidates will be greatly reduced in size. For the most part, my collection is not of the highest gem caliber. If I was playing in that pond, it might be different, but the bulk of my materials are MS 63-66’s. I’m not going to take a chance with the new service on this stuff.
For me, the question has been as to what to do with my many raw pieces- which, I plan to have graded in my effort to clean up my collection to help simplify matters for my heirs when I clock out. At one point, a few months back, I was considering the possibility of sending them to CACG for grading, but this possibility has been greatly diminished by my recent observations. Most now will go to PCGS and NGC and then perhaps to CAC for bean considerations. After all this though, I’m left wondering just what to do!
As it stands, I’m going to have to very carefully select coins from my collection as candidates for the 3 top tier services- taking into account their specific proclivities.
This shouldn’t be the case!
My 2 cents….
(Thanks for asking) ;-)
The question is really: why are you slabbing?
If you want to play the registry game, then you need to pick your registry.
If you are doing it for protection purposes, then you just want the best designed slab.
If you are doing it to sell, you want the slab that offers you the best resale value.
Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera.
There has never been just one answer as to: who do I send my coins to? There is now just one other option. CACG is new, but this thread is getting hung up on the number on the plastic. It is quite possible that a CACG 63 sells for more than a PCGS 64 or 65, for example. In that case, you are better off in the CACG plastic. It is even possible that a CACG 58 sells for more than a PCGS 63.
If you want to play the registry game, then you need to pick your registry.
If you are doing it for protection purposes, then you just want the best designed slab.
If you are doing it to sell, you want the slab that offers you the best resale value.
Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera.
There has never been just one answer as to: who do I send my coins to? There is now just one other option. CACG is new, but this thread is getting hung up on the number on the plastic. It is quite possible that a CACG 63 sells for more than a PCGS 64 or 65, for example. In that case, you are better off in the CACG plastic. It is even possible that a CACG 58 sells for more than a PCGS 63.
P.S. Raw is also perfectly fine.
I am slabbing so it will be much less likely for my wife and kids to get taken advantage of when selling my collection in the event something happens to me. In advance of that (hopefully), I plan to reduce the quantity of my collection and roll the proceeds into fewer and nicer coins.
I know that raw is fine. I currently own and enjoy complete, or nearly complete Dansco sets of a handful of classic series. I have no interest in registry matters- though I appreciate what others are doing. It’s not my thing. I also have several rolls of BU Morgan and Peace dollars and some of these coins are pretty nice.
I will likely qualify for a bulk submission on many of these.
I understand that it’s always been a calculated task in determining which service might best represent any particular coin. THAT I could deal with. What has me rattled now is the degree of disruption with this new player.
MS 65’s suddenly going to AU 58’s and more. The very hard line on very minor scratches too.
I can understand and appreciate strict grading, and even appreciate some downgrades for turned colors.
It just seems to me that this is a huge disruption to the system.
Sure, it’ll play out in time but I’m not getting any younger here and recent health matters have been a wake up call that I really don’t have my collection in good order for my family if I were to drop dead.
I would like to thank those many fine individuals that have poured their energies, efforts and vast knowledge into this discussion! It has been an incredibly interesting and educational ride!
I too have learned a GREAT deal and the knowledge gained will certainly assist me when deciding which coins will be going on to their next destinations. It’s been a GREAT read!
This forum is a FANTASTIC resource and I surely appreciate the incredible body of knowledge reflected here, and the MANY individuals across so many areas of expertise that are willing and generous in their sharing of that knowledge! Cheers to that!
I might add, as an interesting aside, that it was this very forum that I stumbled on many years ago when I first inherited a sizable collection that had been buried underground. With that, I had a somewhat precarious situation with dirt and conservation needs. It was through this very forum that I was able to educate myself and carefully navigate the challenges ahead in dealing with these coins without causing further damage.
And, it was through that process that my childhood interest in coins was rekindled and I began to collect in earnest!
Prior to this, I’ve only shared the details of this collection with a few trusted members through PM.
I’m rambling now.
I’ll leave it at that.
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
Does anybody have any thoughts about all of this MS vs. AU slider stuff and numbers grading in general...and how this might shake out with regards to gold coins and/or Saints ?
I mention that because JA's repuation seems to be unparalleled with his expertise in gold coins/Saints but also seen as a tough grader there. So the entire debate and issues raised on this thread for other coins could be raised to the nth degree for Saints and gold, no ?
Seems to me there could be some big shifts in one of the most popularly-collected and largest dollar-value coins that many of us collect and/or track.
@wondercoin said:
Should there be a prize given at year end to the tightest grading company in the marketplace?
Should there be a prize given at year end to the loosest grading service in the marketplace?
Should the grand prize be given at year end to the grading company that averages the proper grades of all the other established grading services combined. In other words, the grading service that consistently gets the coins “about right” based upon the tightest and loosest other grading services out there as agreed by the collector/dealer base.
Does anyone out there really have any idea just how truly messed up things are right now in the realm of “professionally” graded coins across the 3 or 4 “best” grading services in the World? Is this being intentionally done (for profit or otherwise) or mostly just the unintended consequences of a seriously damaged system? Thoughts?
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Thoughts?
Well, since you asked…..
I’m not going to speculate as to whether this is a a calculated business move or the consequences of a seriously damaged system- at least not here, on a public forum.
What I will say though is that I find this entire ‘evolution’ of the grading hierarchy to be highly irritating, annoying and disruptive to my plans to have the majority of my currently raw collection- graded. I’m talking hundreds of coins here, and I’ve been holding off throughout the pandemic, waiting for the backlogs and staffing issues to clear, and was poised to pull the trigger with my submissions. That is, until CACG threw this (****) into the equation.
As a modest but serious collector, I am disappointed, confused and concerned.
I’ve been on the waiting list for CAC membership and was planning on submitting several already slabbed coins for beans. These coins have never been to CAC. Many others, which are raw, I would like to submit to one of the 3 majjor players. Based on what I’ve seen so far, I certainly won’t be cracking ANY of my already graded items out for CACG grading services. I was considering sending some raw ones to CACG, but now, after all this, that list of candidates will be greatly reduced in size. For the most part, my collection is not of the highest gem caliber. If I was playing in that pond, it might be different, but the bulk of my materials are MS 63-66’s. I’m not going to take a chance with the new service on this stuff.
For me, the question has been as to what to do with my many raw pieces- which, I plan to have graded in my effort to clean up my collection to help simplify matters for my heirs when I clock out. At one point, a few months back, I was considering the possibility of sending them to CACG for grading, but this possibility has been greatly diminished by my recent observations. Most now will go to PCGS and NGC and then perhaps to CAC for bean considerations. After all this though, I’m left wondering just what to do!
As it stands, I’m going to have to very carefully select coins from my collection as candidates for the 3 top tier services- taking into account their specific proclivities.
This shouldn’t be the case!
My 2 cents….
(Thanks for asking) ;-)
The only advice I can give is before you make any judgements from videos like the one in this op (which imo was designed to make people scared of CACG likely for financial reasons) is to try CACG and then make your determination. Once you have received your membership and can submit pick out some coins that (in your opinion) range from solid PQ to borderline, submit those and see how they grade and compare to your grade. That will be the true test and give you an unbiased evaluation to make your decisions from.
I didn’t read all the posts in this thread, but I read some that said CAC is downgrading lots of slider MS coins to AU58s.
If so I’m probably going to send some of my slider MS graded ones so I can use them in my Everyman/Circulated Type sets in places like MyCollect or wherever takes PCGS, NGC and CAC. I’m getting excited about it.
😎
If you want to play the registry game, then you need to pick your registry.
If you are doing it for protection purposes, then you just want the best designed slab.
If you are doing it to sell, you want the slab that offers you the best resale value.
Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera.
There has never been just one answer as to: who do I send my coins to? There is now just one other option. CACG is new, but this thread is getting hung up on the number on the plastic. It is quite possible that a CACG 63 sells for more than a PCGS 64 or 65, for example. In that case, you are better off in the CACG plastic. It is even possible that a CACG 58 sells for more than a PCGS 63.
P.S. Raw is also perfectly fine.
I am slabbing so it will be much less likely for my wife and kids to get taken advantage of when selling my collection in the event something happens to me. In advance of that (hopefully), I plan to reduce the quantity of my collection and roll the proceeds into fewer and nicer coins.
I know that raw is fine. I currently own and enjoy complete, or nearly complete Dansco sets of a handful of classic series. I have no interest in registry matters- though I appreciate what others are doing. It’s not my thing. I also have several rolls of BU Morgan and Peace dollars and some of these coins are pretty nice.
I will likely qualify for a bulk submission on many of these.
I understand that it’s always been a calculated task in determining which service might best represent any particular coin. THAT I could deal with. What has me rattled now is the degree of disruption with this new player.
MS 65’s suddenly going to AU 58’s and more. The very hard line on very minor scratches too.
I can understand and appreciate strict grading, and even appreciate some downgrades for turned colors.
It just seems to me that this is a huge disruption to the system.
Sure, it’ll play out in time but I’m not getting any younger here and recent health matters have been a wake up call that I really don’t have my collection in good order for my family if I were to drop dead.
I would like to thank those many fine individuals that have poured their energies, efforts and vast knowledge into this discussion! It has been an incredibly interesting and educational ride!
I too have learned a GREAT deal and the knowledge gained will certainly assist me when deciding which coins will be going on to their next destinations. It’s been a GREAT read!
This forum is a FANTASTIC resource and I surely appreciate the incredible body of knowledge reflected here, and the MANY individuals across so many areas of expertise that are willing and generous in their sharing of that knowledge! Cheers to that!
I might add, as an interesting aside, that it was this very forum that I stumbled on many years ago when I first inherited a sizable collection that had been buried underground. With that, I had a somewhat precarious situation with dirt and conservation needs. It was through this very forum that I was able to educate myself and carefully navigate the challenges ahead in dealing with these coins without causing further damage.
And, it was through that process that my childhood interest in coins was rekindled and I began to collect in earnest!
Prior to this, I’ve only shared the details of this collection with a few trusted members through PM.
I’m rambling now.
I’ll leave it at that.
The MS 65/ AU58 issue has always been an issue. There are many coins where the price difference isn't that great.
Note: I have not read this entire thread, mostly just the title. lol
Anyway, you can probably do a healthy comparison as Hansen seems to be moving plenty of his coins over to CACG. I do not know if he is only moving his 2nd/3rd sets or his primary sets or if he is turning in his PCGS certs once they are graded at CACG etc. I imagine it will be interesting if he tries to keep sets up at both PCGS and CACG while using the same coins. At Winter FUN his Proof Barber Half Set was on display at the CACG table. Maybe someone will be interested in sleuthing through the questions I posted here?…and then maybe someone will want to compare his PCGS grades vs his CACG grades and then we can discuss…
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
If you want to play the registry game, then you need to pick your registry.
If you are doing it for protection purposes, then you just want the best designed slab.
If you are doing it to sell, you want the slab that offers you the best resale value.
Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera.
There has never been just one answer as to: who do I send my coins to? There is now just one other option. CACG is new, but this thread is getting hung up on the number on the plastic. It is quite possible that a CACG 63 sells for more than a PCGS 64 or 65, for example. In that case, you are better off in the CACG plastic. It is even possible that a CACG 58 sells for more than a PCGS 63.
P.S. Raw is also perfectly fine.
I am slabbing so it will be much less likely for my wife and kids to get taken advantage of when selling my collection in the event something happens to me. In advance of that (hopefully), I plan to reduce the quantity of my collection and roll the proceeds into fewer and nicer coins.
I know that raw is fine. I currently own and enjoy complete, or nearly complete Dansco sets of a handful of classic series. I have no interest in registry matters- though I appreciate what others are doing. It’s not my thing. I also have several rolls of BU Morgan and Peace dollars and some of these coins are pretty nice.
I will likely qualify for a bulk submission on many of these.
I understand that it’s always been a calculated task in determining which service might best represent any particular coin. THAT I could deal with. What has me rattled now is the degree of disruption with this new player.
MS 65’s suddenly going to AU 58’s and more. The very hard line on very minor scratches too.
I can understand and appreciate strict grading, and even appreciate some downgrades for turned colors.
It just seems to me that this is a huge disruption to the system.
Sure, it’ll play out in time but I’m not getting any younger here and recent health matters have been a wake up call that I really don’t have my collection in good order for my family if I were to drop dead.
I would like to thank those many fine individuals that have poured their energies, efforts and vast knowledge into this discussion! It has been an incredibly interesting and educational ride!
I too have learned a GREAT deal and the knowledge gained will certainly assist me when deciding which coins will be going on to their next destinations. It’s been a GREAT read!
This forum is a FANTASTIC resource and I surely appreciate the incredible body of knowledge reflected here, and the MANY individuals across so many areas of expertise that are willing and generous in their sharing of that knowledge! Cheers to that!
I might add, as an interesting aside, that it was this very forum that I stumbled on many years ago when I first inherited a sizable collection that had been buried underground. With that, I had a somewhat precarious situation with dirt and conservation needs. It was through this very forum that I was able to educate myself and carefully navigate the challenges ahead in dealing with these coins without causing further damage.
And, it was through that process that my childhood interest in coins was rekindled and I began to collect in earnest!
Prior to this, I’ve only shared the details of this collection with a few trusted members through PM.
I’m rambling now.
I’ll leave it at that.
Why not wait 12-24 months to see what happens with the market before making a hasty decision?
Trying to decide what changes I will make while dealing with DE's in 2024.
Will not send Legacy coins to CACG. I would Rather keep both NGC's and PCGS's in their holders with sticker. Maybe there will be an early arb with little supply but the markets are currently not deep enough to understand the current pricing.
Will not be sending any coins to CACG without a minimum grade guarantee.
Will not buy anything from auction houses that aren't close to gold price or cac'd. I Prob buy 50 DE's/yr.
Need discounts to buy anything in 2024. CACG added uncertainty to market.
Selling non stickered coins... Not discounting much as I have no reason to sell.
I'm basically hunkering down, in the hobby watching and waiting.
I'm in the same boat. I see no need to change anything, all my PCGS-CAC coins are fine just the way they are.
I won't be sending anything to CACG, why should I, I wouldn't be able to add them to my PCGS registry anyway.
I am confused about something though, Why are people sending in PCGS-CAC coins to CACG? When they cross they will get an "L" to signify that they were already CAC stickered. however, NOW, nobody who buys the coin doesn't know what company graded it in the first place. It seems that it would be better just to keep the coin in the PCGS holder with the CAC sticker! I wouldn't want to lose anything because now the buyer would think that the coin was originally graded by NGC.
Am I missing something here?
I'm in the same boat. I see no need to change anything, all my PCGS-CAC coins are fine just the way they are.
I won't be sending anything to CACG, why should I, I wouldn't be able to add them to my PCGS registry anyway.
I am confused about something though, Why are people sending in PCGS-CAC coins to CACG? When they cross they will get an "L" to signify that they were already CAC stickered. however, NOW, nobody who buys the coin doesn't know what company graded it in the first place. It seems that it would be better just to keep the coin in the PCGS holder with the CAC sticker! I wouldn't want to lose anything because now the buyer would think that the coin was originally graded by NGC.
Am I missing something here?
Because they want it in a CACG holder. Why is it any more complicated than that?
If CACG (L or no L) sells for more than PCAC or NCAC, only a fan boy would choose not to cross it.
What you say is true. I'll react to whatever the buyer wants. It will take a bit of time to discover how much each is worth. but ultimately I'll play the game.
WTS, If buyers will pay more for coins in cracked plastic cases, I'll buy a hammer. Whatever squeals their wheels.
CDN has stated they will value stickered and CACG coins the same (CPG). I would keep as is. As far as what Dealer x calls the digital idiot game (DIG) about what company graded the CACG not really into or hobbyist in that. I don’t doubt there are people who might pay more for the CACG coin but is it that the quality of that piece or something else (DIG)? I do know of a Cali dealer who marks up his CAG higher to snack on that (DIG). Especially Gold and better date big Classic Commems. So don’t say have preference CACG holder vs sticker it’s the coin itself and if deal there for me.
I was looking at a GC auction recently and they went bonkers bidding up a really nice golden toned CACG $ so there are other factors besides a holder.
Comments
** 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.**
Thanks @jmlanzaf, for putting this into perspective; as usual, the voice of reason.
Veterans from 40 or 50 or even 60 years ago -- long before I began
-- know that back then it really was The Wild, Wild, West when it came to grading and dealing with buyers and sellers. I think on balance the TPGs have been a MAJOR positive for the hobby.
I think the confusion and angst here is not because CACG being more conservative in grading....it's the large gap in the slider arena -- potentially moving MS-65 coins down to AU-58 -- that concerns many here. That's a real concern as evidenced by the debate we had here with very knowledgeable experts not able to agree on the definitions, composition, and presence of rub, wear, friction, color loss, etc.
It is very weird for an company which state they go technical grading, to not be able technical to recognise natural toning of Cu alloy based coins. When you question the toning of an coins you has to assimilate those toning to the Minting process of that time. From the Blanking till Strike, many kind of different liquids are involved. If you question those toning colors, you has to know exactly the toning spectrum on those coins at different steps of the production.
This thing could be see only with SDX-DSX. As an scientific I doubt someone at CAC has any knowleadge of those spectrums or analyse the surface of the coins with those beasts, in order to see natural or after strike human interferances and not natural. This was one point.
Second to not gade coins (classics) because has an scratch or two or and ding from bags, SORRY, close yours doors. Read the history of the Minting.
Third: In order to establish an precious metal was clean without rubbing, also you need an SDX-DSX to find the auxilliary substances on the coin and not residues from the Minting process.
As an scientific me I do not understood those from CAC because they do not explain and me I will like to see the prouve of the doubt. And also what it is theirs "technical scale of grading" with points by grade. They has a new standerd different from ANA standards?? to follow.
Do I will risc MS-65 or 66 St-Gauldens to come back MS Detail Scratches??? I do not like Drogs or Alcohools.
NEVER ARGUE WITH AN IDIOT.
FIRST THEY WILL DRAG YOU DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL.
THEN, THEY WILL BEAT YOU WITH EXPERIENCE.
MARK TWAIN
Because.....the CACG holder is not only saying it's a 65, but it's STRONG for the grade, either an "A" or "B" coin (who knows, maybe only the "A" coins for all we know).
CACG holders are trying to give buyers a twofer: a grade they can trust (like a regular TPG is supposed to be) plus the CAC sticker.
You mean like this:
First US coin I purchased in over 7 years .
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Congratulations! I bid on that one. You probably already know but this was a PCGS 66 CAC Green.
coins.ha.com/itm/commemorative-silver/1900-1-lafayette-dollar-ms66-pcgs-cac-duvall
What!?
So the grading services need to loosen up even more than they have in the past?
Keep purchasing what you like, I'd rather use my eyes first no matter what's on the holder.
I did not know but thank you
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Here's your CAC Image Secure, courtesy of @jtlee321!
Interesting it's not a Legacy grade.
@> @GoldFinger1969 said:
I wouldn’t say the issue I mentioned looks totally identical to wear - there is a difference in the way the luster breaks and especially in the texture upon worn metal and upon unworn, unstruck planchet. But, there can be a significant difference in texture/luster between the unstruck areas and the surrounding areas, and I can see that presenting like wear from a distance or in a photo. In essence, not all forms of high-point luster loss are due to rub.
And yep, die wear is another possible reason for a weak strike. In those instances, if the planchet metal flows into all areas of the die, there will not be that issue of unstruck planchet texture / luster.
Yep - that’s why you can get high relief Peace Dollars that look like these in MS66! :
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
To be fair, this has ALWAYS been the case. 58 is special. It has the broadest range of coins in it. There are currently ba LOT of 65 rub coins in 58 holders. That's why there has for decades been the saying that "a 58 is a 65 with rub". However, the saying is an exaggeration because 58 also always included coins that were 60 to 64 with rub.
And, if you want another inconvenient truth, if you take a 58 that has minor rub and let it tone over, it might well move up to a 65 or higher. And if you take a 64 and let it tone, it may well end up at 65 or 66.
There are even worse issues or there. Coins that go from detail grade to straight grade and vice versa. [See early copper and early silver. ]
You want another fun provocation, there is the Peter principle of coin slabs: every high value coin has been resubmitted until it eeked into a higher grade than it merited.
__****> @jmlanzaf said:
>
Excellent written response!
This last statement probably is of most concern to me and one reason I have almost exclusively bought CAC stickered coins.
Since my primary interest is Type I DEs with some limited Early gold, I believe most of these coins have seen a grading room multiple times to try and squeeze just a little higher grade out. Since these coins are already expensive, it’s certainly worth the time, effort, and money to try multiple attempts for an upgrade.
>
So my hopes has been that a ‘beaned’ coin would have hopefully limited these bumps by not certifying an over graded coin. And this is also my hopes that when the dust settles, CACG will be consistent and not fall into the same game that other TPGs have, with a wink and a nod, bumping up a coin a little more.
>
I certainly understand the main concern of this thread is the downgrade of a gem 65 to a 58, because of rub. This doesn’t effect me because in what I collect, I’ll certainly will not be playing around in the high grades due to the rarity and cost.
>
Just thought I would add my .02 cents.
I wouldn’t be all that worried. I can say that regardless of the way this discussion went, there is tight agreement on definitions and the physical characteristics of coins among the active finalizers at the TPG I worked for, and I would assume so for the other major TPG as well. Coins are not moving back and forth between 58 and 65 in the grading room.
If CACG has elected to define their scale in a certain way that appears to be different from the other major TPGs, they may do so. They could just as easily have made a scale that goes backwards from 70 to 1, or that values struck detail over technical wear - and those scales wouldn’t be wrong, just different. Over in Europe, the traditional grading scale does focus on struck detail over wear, and to them our scale can be nonsensical - they might call a poorly-struck but unworn coin a VF, while here it would be graded MS. I only question the consistency of CACG (perhaps JA’s attempt to redefine certain standards has resulted in some confusion among the CACG graders on how to apply grades?) and the usefulness of their scale to the hobby if applied in the manner it seems to be applied.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
_ You want another fun provocation, there is the Peter principle of coin slabs: every high value coin has been resubmitted until it eeked into a higher grade than it merited._
Reminds me of what I overheard at a major and popular dealer’s table at Summer FUN, while discussing a better date high grade two cent piece: “I keep resubmitting it every few months, and it keeps coming back red and brown, but it will eventually get into red holder”.
Wow. Quite a thread. If my customer had not put me on hold for over an hour, don't know if I would have made it.
Still don't know what to make of CACG but as I posted on another site I think the story with CAC stickers is that the coin is suppose to be choice for the stated grade but everyone pays like it is the next grade up.
I REALLY wanted an "I'M still here coin" but the only coin that fit my collection was an 1841 Seated Quarter PCGS-VG 8 with a CAC sticker. Until now I have ignored CAC because my coins were to low grade/price to matter but will be interested to see one in person. James
BTW, got contacted regarding the use of the MCMVII High Reliefs for poor strike = rub.
I just used that as a hypothetical. Actually, that would be one coin that would NOT be expected to have poor strike on the high relief (and no problem getting metal to flow to the high points) because the striking of that coin involved 3 strikes of a 170-ton press to insure all the detail came up.
I think it may have come off as me saying MCMVII HR's were poorly struck now and then. No, I just used them as the example since they are high relief and we were talking about how it could be difficult for other coins to have metal flow to all points in the die, esp. high points.
Sorry for the confusion !
If you buy a coin for eye appeal than what holder it is in is less important. I have seen coins in PCGS, NGC or CAC stickered coins that were just plain ugly. The reason for the grading issues really has to do with the concept of market grading. To me the grading should be consistent across all denominations which it is obviously not.
After my third submission to CACG on a variety of coins and reviewing the results of others, I'm of the clear opinion that coins with color, especially copper, will get details graded if there's the slightest doubt about whether the color is original. Coins with scratches, spots, stains etc are apt to get details even if removed from previously straight graded holders.
Coins with any rub get the AU designation, coins with unusual white coloring don't pass muster either (chemically "cleaned").
Original, right as rain white coins get rewarded but are consistently downgraded one grade meaning the green bean in the corner is "accurate" because the coin is in fact better than the grade on the slab.
Clearly they're much tighter than PCGS and NGC currently. I think today CACG slabs should command a 20%- 25% premium in the market and their first generation slabs will command a premium just as the OGH's of generation 1 coins from PCGS have.
CACG MS 63 NOT FB..........
Here I would expect MS 65 FB.
Hope so
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Should there be a prize given at year end to the tightest grading company in the marketplace?
Should there be a prize given at year end to the loosest grading service in the marketplace?
Should the grand prize be given at year end to the grading company that averages the proper grades of all the other established grading services combined. In other words, the grading service that consistently gets the coins “about right” based upon the tightest and loosest other grading services out there as agreed by the collector/dealer base.
Does anyone out there really have any idea just how truly messed up things are right now in the realm of “professionally” graded coins across the 3 or 4 “best” grading services in the World? Is this being intentionally done (for profit or otherwise) or mostly just the unintended consequences of a seriously damaged system? Thoughts?
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
I think only the non-legacy coins should be thought of as possibly being one grade higher. The legacy CACG coins are rubber stamped CAC coins for the grade. In this scenario paradoxically CACG Non Legacy coins might be valued higher than Legacy coins. CACG Plus coins could upgrade to the next grade level.
Given time, the market will decide what is optimal and what holders command what prices and the risks involved with each. If the CACG graded slab is priced X % higher then the other TPG's but discriminating buyers know they are getting the most conservative grade and less downside risk, they will pay accordingly. If sellers/dealers forego crossing to CACG for fear an MS becomes an AU, or worse details, they may have to drop prices in the future vs CACG coins to entice buyers, esp with sight unseen/internet photos. If these price differences widen, over time the best will cross and that is good for such buyers wanting the best. I would not want to buy an MS65 that in reality is an AU58.
Truth be told you, I, and almost everyone here has been doing just that for many years due to market grading.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
My understanding/question on this, when looking at how the market will shake out in a year or two, would be, "What type of slab and/or grading will carry the most weight (value) in the market?"
PCGS/CAC (sticker) -- It has been seen by two sets of graders, ostensibly the two premier groups.
NGC/CAC (sticker) -- It has been seen by two groups of graders who agree it is . . . (fill in the blank). (Premier, 'A'/'B', superior to others in the grade, top-notch -- whatever superlative you care to designate)
CACG -- 'Legacy' -- Graded by two services . . . you just don't know which of the two. But, CAC still 'applies', and it has been evaluated twice as well.
CACG -- 'Non-Legacy' -- Graded just by CACG. But, CAC still 'applies' here too.
Now factor in the " + " grading complexity of stickers v. CACG v. Legacy. Add 'details' on coins that certainly appear to be solid to the average/slightly above average numismatist, personal preference, eye appeal, etc . . . . . . . .
. . . . . and have a good time with this !!!!!!!!!!!
Drunner
.
I waded through six pages of sometimes juvenile debate, often by posters who commented 20 plus times, at least one who seems to have never been here before ...
... and I am very glad I missed it in real time while I was on vacation ...
... but I did find these two Gems (there are probably a few more).
.
That said, I have one more thought ... regarding grading from images ...
.
Happy New Year all!
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
Fixed it for you.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Improve the grading scale by exchanging 58 with 65 and 62 with 53.
.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Fixed it for you 😉 your honor.
@coinbuf My apologies, I think I was gonna respond to you earlier then realized what you were saying and then responded to Wondercoin w/o completely backing out the text.
A paralegal client (very sharp) recently bought a WLH CACG 64 half recently. She is very sharp and knows how grade and price coins. She feels there is no reason to keep it from 65. Looking at it over coffee, see agreed at the very least it’s an A coin. She does not have the money play the upgrade game. As it is Super PQ for the grade she has made the call to price it between 64 and 65 MV. Jimmy and myself concur. Jimmy went on to say “only a digital idiot would not price for PQ.” I directed her look at the online inventory of a well known dealer who knows how price PQ material. Don’t leave money on the table pricing an A coin at B coin prices.
Thoughts?
Well, since you asked…..
I’m not going to speculate as to whether this is a a calculated business move or the consequences of a seriously damaged system- at least not here, on a public forum.
What I will say though is that I find this entire ‘evolution’ of the grading hierarchy to be highly irritating, annoying and disruptive to my plans to have the majority of my currently raw collection- graded. I’m talking hundreds of coins here, and I’ve been holding off throughout the pandemic, waiting for the backlogs and staffing issues to clear, and was poised to pull the trigger with my submissions. That is, until CACG threw this (****) into the equation.
As a modest but serious collector, I am disappointed, confused and concerned.
I’ve been on the waiting list for CAC membership and was planning on submitting several already slabbed coins for beans. These coins have never been to CAC. Many others, which are raw, I would like to submit to one of the 3 majjor players. Based on what I’ve seen so far, I certainly won’t be cracking ANY of my already graded items out for CACG grading services. I was considering sending some raw ones to CACG, but now, after all this, that list of candidates will be greatly reduced in size. For the most part, my collection is not of the highest gem caliber. If I was playing in that pond, it might be different, but the bulk of my materials are MS 63-66’s. I’m not going to take a chance with the new service on this stuff.
For me, the question has been as to what to do with my many raw pieces- which, I plan to have graded in my effort to clean up my collection to help simplify matters for my heirs when I clock out. At one point, a few months back, I was considering the possibility of sending them to CACG for grading, but this possibility has been greatly diminished by my recent observations. Most now will go to PCGS and NGC and then perhaps to CAC for bean considerations. After all this though, I’m left wondering just what to do!
As it stands, I’m going to have to very carefully select coins from my collection as candidates for the 3 top tier services- taking into account their specific proclivities.
This shouldn’t be the case!
My 2 cents….
(Thanks for asking) ;-)
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
Assume it is a 64, not a 64+ correct? Do you know if it was TPG previously?
It would seem to me at least,the coins remain the same, it's just the interpretations are what keep changing.
Edited to try and secure my loose cannon
@Kurisu Are you getting all of this?
I'm honestly just in awe of this thread.
I was hoping for a touch of insight.
The amount of learning and useful information and perspectives has been humbling.
Genuinely, I've read every word in this thread.
I'm just standing back and taking it all in...I'm feeling rather proud of myself for actually understanding basically everything that's being discussed. Especially as a younger less experienced collector (54 years old collecting since about 1978)
Honestly this thread has completely taken me off-guard and has been so satisfying to read every day. This thread is improving my quality of life lol, and will definitely alter the way I collect and look at coins.
I've actually been pretty accurate with my grade guessing before sending things in to PCGS, NGC, and ANACS...but I haven't sent anything to CAC yet...I'm sure I will at some point now!
Thank you everyone most sincerely for making this such an unbelievably informative thread.
Please...don't let me get in the way of this fascinating discussion...
Coins are Neato!
"If it's a penny for your thoughts and you put in your two cents worth, then someone...somewhere...is making a penny." - Steven Wright
As a Submitter to our hosts it doesn’t fit into my budget nor have reason to do other TPG anyway. Let alone play the crackout game (been there done that). As far as another TPG being quick on the trigger as far as details designation still observing that situation. However if I sent in crummy coins somewhere would not expect good results.
The question is really: why are you slabbing?
If you want to play the registry game, then you need to pick your registry.
If you are doing it for protection purposes, then you just want the best designed slab.
If you are doing it to sell, you want the slab that offers you the best resale value.
Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera.
There has never been just one answer as to: who do I send my coins to? There is now just one other option. CACG is new, but this thread is getting hung up on the number on the plastic. It is quite possible that a CACG 63 sells for more than a PCGS 64 or 65, for example. In that case, you are better off in the CACG plastic. It is even possible that a CACG 58 sells for more than a PCGS 63.
P.S. Raw is also perfectly fine.
I am slabbing so it will be much less likely for my wife and kids to get taken advantage of when selling my collection in the event something happens to me. In advance of that (hopefully), I plan to reduce the quantity of my collection and roll the proceeds into fewer and nicer coins.
I know that raw is fine. I currently own and enjoy complete, or nearly complete Dansco sets of a handful of classic series. I have no interest in registry matters- though I appreciate what others are doing. It’s not my thing. I also have several rolls of BU Morgan and Peace dollars and some of these coins are pretty nice.
I will likely qualify for a bulk submission on many of these.
I understand that it’s always been a calculated task in determining which service might best represent any particular coin. THAT I could deal with. What has me rattled now is the degree of disruption with this new player.
MS 65’s suddenly going to AU 58’s and more. The very hard line on very minor scratches too.
I can understand and appreciate strict grading, and even appreciate some downgrades for turned colors.
It just seems to me that this is a huge disruption to the system.
Sure, it’ll play out in time but I’m not getting any younger here and recent health matters have been a wake up call that I really don’t have my collection in good order for my family if I were to drop dead.
I would like to thank those many fine individuals that have poured their energies, efforts and vast knowledge into this discussion! It has been an incredibly interesting and educational ride!
I too have learned a GREAT deal and the knowledge gained will certainly assist me when deciding which coins will be going on to their next destinations. It’s been a GREAT read!
This forum is a FANTASTIC resource and I surely appreciate the incredible body of knowledge reflected here, and the MANY individuals across so many areas of expertise that are willing and generous in their sharing of that knowledge! Cheers to that!
I might add, as an interesting aside, that it was this very forum that I stumbled on many years ago when I first inherited a sizable collection that had been buried underground. With that, I had a somewhat precarious situation with dirt and conservation needs. It was through this very forum that I was able to educate myself and carefully navigate the challenges ahead in dealing with these coins without causing further damage.
And, it was through that process that my childhood interest in coins was rekindled and I began to collect in earnest!
Prior to this, I’ve only shared the details of this collection with a few trusted members through PM.
I’m rambling now.
I’ll leave it at that.
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
Does anybody have any thoughts about all of this MS vs. AU slider stuff and numbers grading in general...and how this might shake out with regards to gold coins and/or Saints ?
I mention that because JA's repuation seems to be unparalleled with his expertise in gold coins/Saints but also seen as a tough grader there. So the entire debate and issues raised on this thread for other coins could be raised to the nth degree for Saints and gold, no ?
Seems to me there could be some big shifts in one of the most popularly-collected and largest dollar-value coins that many of us collect and/or track.
The only advice I can give is before you make any judgements from videos like the one in this op (which imo was designed to make people scared of CACG likely for financial reasons) is to try CACG and then make your determination. Once you have received your membership and can submit pick out some coins that (in your opinion) range from solid PQ to borderline, submit those and see how they grade and compare to your grade. That will be the true test and give you an unbiased evaluation to make your decisions from.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I didn’t read all the posts in this thread, but I read some that said CAC is downgrading lots of slider MS coins to AU58s.
If so I’m probably going to send some of my slider MS graded ones so I can use them in my Everyman/Circulated Type sets in places like MyCollect or wherever takes PCGS, NGC and CAC. I’m getting excited about it.
😎
Mr_Spud
The MS 65/ AU58 issue has always been an issue. There are many coins where the price difference isn't that great.
Note: I have not read this entire thread, mostly just the title. lol
Anyway, you can probably do a healthy comparison as Hansen seems to be moving plenty of his coins over to CACG. I do not know if he is only moving his 2nd/3rd sets or his primary sets or if he is turning in his PCGS certs once they are graded at CACG etc. I imagine it will be interesting if he tries to keep sets up at both PCGS and CACG while using the same coins. At Winter FUN his Proof Barber Half Set was on display at the CACG table. Maybe someone will be interested in sleuthing through the questions I posted here?…and then maybe someone will want to compare his PCGS grades vs his CACG grades and then we can discuss…
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
Why not wait 12-24 months to see what happens with the market before making a hasty decision?
Trying to decide what changes I will make while dealing with DE's in 2024.
Will not send Legacy coins to CACG. I would Rather keep both NGC's and PCGS's in their holders with sticker. Maybe there will be an early arb with little supply but the markets are currently not deep enough to understand the current pricing.
Will not be sending any coins to CACG without a minimum grade guarantee.
Will not buy anything from auction houses that aren't close to gold price or cac'd. I Prob buy 50 DE's/yr.
Need discounts to buy anything in 2024. CACG added uncertainty to market.
Selling non stickered coins... Not discounting much as I have no reason to sell.
I'm basically hunkering down, in the hobby watching and waiting.
I'm in the same boat. I see no need to change anything, all my PCGS-CAC coins are fine just the way they are.
I won't be sending anything to CACG, why should I, I wouldn't be able to add them to my PCGS registry anyway.
I am confused about something though, Why are people sending in PCGS-CAC coins to CACG? When they cross they will get an "L" to signify that they were already CAC stickered. however, NOW, nobody who buys the coin doesn't know what company graded it in the first place. It seems that it would be better just to keep the coin in the PCGS holder with the CAC sticker! I wouldn't want to lose anything because now the buyer would think that the coin was originally graded by NGC.
Am I missing something here?
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
Because they want it in a CACG holder. Why is it any more complicated than that?
If CACG (L or no L) sells for more than PCAC or NCAC, only a fan boy would choose not to cross it.
What you say is true. I'll react to whatever the buyer wants. It will take a bit of time to discover how much each is worth. but ultimately I'll play the game.
WTS, If buyers will pay more for coins in cracked plastic cases, I'll buy a hammer. Whatever squeals their wheels.
CDN has stated they will value stickered and CACG coins the same (CPG). I would keep as is. As far as what Dealer x calls the digital idiot game (DIG) about what company graded the CACG not really into or hobbyist in that. I don’t doubt there are people who might pay more for the CACG coin but is it that the quality of that piece or something else (DIG)? I do know of a Cali dealer who marks up his CAG higher to snack on that (DIG). Especially Gold and better date big Classic Commems. So don’t say have preference CACG holder vs sticker it’s the coin itself and if deal there for me.
I was looking at a GC auction recently and they went bonkers bidding up a really nice golden toned CACG $ so there are other factors besides a holder.