@slider23 said:
Most of the coins in the video, I would not have sent into CAC for a sticker as it would be a waste of time and money. It appears that if the coin is not worthy of a sticker at grade, it is not going into a straight grade CACG holder. I remember my first submission of 20 Morgans to CAC and I got two green stickers. It looks like there is going to be a learning curve on what coins to submit to CACG. I am considering crossing over all my NGC coins with CAC stickers to CACG.
I'm leaving this NGC slab alone.
Very nice piece. I agree, let it be.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
@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.
@bidask said:
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 !
If CACG wants to ever be #1, eventually they will need to add medals, tokens. and world coins. They will also need to stop their prejudice by not evaluating the coins from any TPGS. If being so strict, alienates dealers, they may need the extra submissions.
PS Who is this Rexford professional and what TPGS did he work for? He sounds like a good catch for CACG if they go into world coins. I know many other very knowledgeable numismatists identify themselves here and on all the coin forums. I like to know who I argue with as I approach the point of realizing that I actually know nothing (I forgot the name of it already).
@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.
I thought folks are already proposing a grade of AU-64 for coins as that?
@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
IMO, everyone can make use of a TPGS when a question of authenticity comes up. Dealers must use TPGS's because most collectors demand it. Other than questions of authenticity, the only grade that matters to me is my own UNLESS someone can change my mind because my grade was incorrect. I personally consider grading circulated coins in an unfamilliar or unpopular series you are not up tosnuff with to to be more difficult than grading MS coins in any series.
@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) ;-)
IMHO, If you need to send a coin to any TPGS to determine its actual grade (except for dealers who are forced to sell their coins in graded holders, Registry members, those seeking protection for their coins or indication of value for their heirs, or authenticity, you need a new hobby.
A wonderful discussion. I am still working on reading and adding my 2c to posts at the top of page 6; but it is way past my bedtime. I'll leave you all with this answer to the last post I read.
@nwcoast, A true Mint State coin will never, never, never downgrade to AU unless the professional grader has a log in their eye!
@Rexford said:
That’s not something that has ever been claimed by CAC to my knowledge. They may find some coins frictiony for >their standards, but that doesn’t make them purely technical graders. There are plenty of CAC stickered MS coins >out there with light friction. In fact, there’s a CACG MS67 WLH on eBay right now that looks to have what some in >this thread would likely deem rub and a technical 58.
@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.
So for gold, this is probably NOT a problem with most coins, excepting maybe MCMVII HR's ?
You would think it wouldn't matter if the metal is hard or soft when solid....as liquids, you would think they could flow into all areas of the die, no ?
Comments
Very nice piece. I agree, let it be.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
> Is that good for the market long term? That the three major TPGs separate themselves with differing individual criteria and opinion?__
NO, NO, a thousand times NO!
If CACG wants to ever be #1, eventually they will need to add medals, tokens. and world coins. They will also need to stop their prejudice by not evaluating the coins from any TPGS. If being so strict, alienates dealers, they may need the extra submissions.
PS Who is this Rexford professional and what TPGS did he work for? He sounds like a good catch for CACG if they go into world coins. I know many other very knowledgeable numismatists identify themselves here and on all the coin forums. I like to know who I argue with as I approach the point of realizing that I actually know nothing (I forgot the name of it already).
I thought folks are already proposing a grade of AU-64 for coins as that?
IMO, everyone can make use of a TPGS when a question of authenticity comes up. Dealers must use TPGS's because most collectors demand it. Other than questions of authenticity, the only grade that matters to me is my own UNLESS someone can change my mind because my grade was incorrect. I personally consider grading circulated coins in an unfamilliar or unpopular series you are not up tosnuff with to to be more difficult than grading MS coins in any series.
IMHO, If you need to send a coin to any TPGS to determine its actual grade (except for dealers who are forced to sell their coins in graded holders, Registry members, those seeking protection for their coins or indication of value for their heirs, or authenticity, you need a new hobby.
A wonderful discussion. I am still working on reading and adding my 2c to posts at the top of page 6; but it is way past my bedtime. I'll leave you all with this answer to the last post I read.
@nwcoast, A true Mint State coin will never, never, never downgrade to AU unless the professional grader has a log in their eye!
Only the last one, the MS-65 coin, is still listed. The other 3 got pulled.
So for gold, this is probably NOT a problem with most coins, excepting maybe MCMVII HR's ?
You would think it wouldn't matter if the metal is hard or soft when solid....as liquids, you would think they could flow into all areas of the die, no ?