Home U.S. Coin Forum

CAC stickers for CACG coins?

cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,055 ✭✭✭✭✭

Many have opined that they prefer having the opinion of two grading services, hence the allure of CAC. Since CAC and CACG are two separate corporate entities with distinct grading teams, should CAC begin reviewing and stickering CACG coins? Given the alleged harshness of CACG, it would seem that an “L less” CACG holder with a gold CAC sticker would be a gold mine for the submitter.

«13

Comments

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,311 ✭✭✭✭✭

    No. 2 reasons:

    1. No one would trust them.
    2. They would feel a lot of pressure to sticker everything.

    Why doesn't PCGS offer a "2nd opinion" service with a different grading team?

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,055 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:
    No. 2 reasons:

    1. No one would trust them.
    2. They would feel a lot of pressure to sticker everything.

    Why doesn't PCGS offer a "2nd opinion" service with a different grading team?

    That is a great question. Maybe someone could suggest that to Heather. NGC could do the same.

  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 22,675 ✭✭✭✭✭

    God forbid that the coin should be the actual center of attention or even in some instances the Holy Grail...

    Add up what the anticipated grading fees would amount to even if these services were offered...

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • keyman64keyman64 Posts: 15,451 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 7, 2024 5:47PM

    I have some CACG holdered coins that have QA stickers on them ;)
    Two professional and respected opinions.
    Granted, the coins have to be in the date range that QA handles.

    "If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64
    Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners. :smile:
  • Cougar1978Cougar1978 Posts: 7,466 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 8, 2024 6:21AM

    No. No reason why they should.

    CACG ends the sticker thing. Demand for CACG coins is very high both retail sales off bourse and online. Auction bidding competition is very fierce. Many even trading in excess of CPG for the CACG material. Better date CACG material even more so. Expect to pay the money if going to get them.

    Like a star going to full sequence, I would shut down the sticker thing and concentrate it all on the slab operation. Furthermore CDN has already decided CPG MV for both (CACG & Stickered PCGS, NGC) to be the same a move to consistency I strongly agree with.

    So Cali Area - Coins & Currency
  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,311 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 8, 2024 6:11AM

    @robec said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    No. 2 reasons:

    1. No one would trust them.
    2. They would feel a lot of pressure to sticker everything.

    Why doesn't PCGS offer a "2nd opinion" service with a different grading team?

    They sort of do, it’s called Regrade. You’re almost guaranteed a different grading team.

    Not the same thing. It doesn't represent a 2nd opinion on the slab. It's a different 1st opinion. And no buyer would know that anyone had affirmed the grade.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,311 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Beatty said:
    I collect coins I do not collect the holders they are in. If I like the coin I am happy regardless of the holder it is in. I have seen plenty of coins in 65-67 holders that are just plain ugly whether that is CAC, PCGS, NGC. In fact I find many of the CAC coins to be ugly.

    If you think CAC coins are ugly, good like when it's time to sell.

  • TwoSides2aCoinTwoSides2aCoin Posts: 43,759 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:
    No. 2 reasons:

    1. No one would trust them.
    2. They would feel a lot of pressure to sticker everything.

    Why doesn't PCGS offer a "2nd opinion" service with a different grading team?

    They used to have a “presidential review” at PCGS. I used it one time. David Hall seemed to understand it all and was at the top here, in the old days. Remember them days ? He would even grace the halls , on occasion. But we are not here, anymore. The old days are gone.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,311 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @TwoSides2aCoin said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    No. 2 reasons:

    1. No one would trust them.
    2. They would feel a lot of pressure to sticker everything.

    Why doesn't PCGS offer a "2nd opinion" service with a different grading team?

    They used to have a “presidential review” at PCGS. I used it one time. David Hall seemed to understand it all and was at the top here, in the old days. Remember them days ? He would even grace the halls , on occasion. But we are not here, anymore. The old days are gone.

    Did they sticker them?

  • Che_GrapesChe_Grapes Posts: 1,850 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Manifest_Destiny said:
    All slabs come auto-beaned.

    Does the slab fit into a NGC or a PCGS box? Or do we need yet a third one —?

  • okiedudeokiedude Posts: 643 ✭✭✭

    @Che_Grapes said:

    @Manifest_Destiny said:
    All slabs come auto-beaned.

    Does the slab fit into a NGC or a PCGS box? Or do we need yet a third one —?

    No, they don't fit the "other" guys boxes-sigh. Kind of annoying.

    BST with: Oldhobo, commoncents05, NoLawyer, AgentJim007, Bronzemat, 123cents, Lordmarcovan, VanHalen, ajaan, MICHAELDIXON, jayPem and more!
  • FredSFredS Posts: 59 ✭✭✭

    I can't believe some people took this as a serious thread.

  • jackpine20jackpine20 Posts: 136 ✭✭✭✭

    I would remove this CAC sticker so fast. An overnight application of peanut butter works wonders.

    Matt Snebold

  • BStrauss3BStrauss3 Posts: 3,036 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Manifest_Destiny said:
    All slabs come auto-beaned.

    That's not a bean, it's their logo. CACG coins will not be stickered by CAC.

    -----Burton
    ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
  • Manifest_DestinyManifest_Destiny Posts: 3,046 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jackpine20 said:
    I would remove this CAC sticker so fast. An overnight application of peanut butter works wonders.

    I'd have it reholdered in a standard blue.

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,055 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @FredS said:
    I can't believe some people took this as a serious thread.

    It is a legitimate question. Many value JA’s opinion above everyone else’s, and he isn’t on the CACG grading team. Others have commented on the strength of having two different grading teams opine on a coin. Taking these individuals and their positions at face value, it would make some sense.

  • LuxorLuxor Posts: 398 ✭✭✭✭✭

    <<< @Che_Grapes said:

    » show previous quotes
    Does the slab fit into a NGC or a PCGS box? Or do we need yet a third one —?

    No, they don't fit the "other" guys boxes-sigh. Kind of annoying. >>>

    Are you sure about that? The CAC holders seem to fit nicely into my silver NGC box, and they also seem to be similar as far as thickness as the older no line fatty NGC holders. I also recently purchased a generic blue plastic slab box on Amazon for about $11.00 that seems to hold all 3 brands.

    Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,311 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @FredS said:
    I can't believe some people took this as a serious thread.

    I can't believe you thought he was kidding.

  • RYKRYK Posts: 35,753 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:
    No. 2 reasons:

    1. No one would trust them.
    2. They would feel a lot of pressure to sticker everything.

    Why doesn't PCGS offer a "2nd opinion" service with a different grading team?

    I suggested this 15 years ago - The PCGS Blue sticker


    "There are no called strikes in coin collecting."--Henry David Thoreau RYK
  • Cougar1978Cougar1978 Posts: 7,466 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 8, 2024 8:36PM

    @Che_Grapes said:

    @Manifest_Destiny said:
    All slabs come auto-beaned.

    Does the slab fit into a NGC or a PCGS box? Or do we need yet a third one —?

    Fits in the old Teletrade boxes great. Glad kept them. Working on box of 20 (CACG).

    So Cali Area - Coins & Currency
  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,311 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 9, 2024 6:06AM

    @RYK said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    No. 2 reasons:

    1. No one would trust them.
    2. They would feel a lot of pressure to sticker everything.

    Why doesn't PCGS offer a "2nd opinion" service with a different grading team?

    I suggested this 15 years ago - The PCGS Blue sticker

    I think it's a horrible idea. I'm not advocating it. It's not a legitimate second opinion when there is a corporate connection to the first opinion. My question was more rhetorical. The only worthwhile 2nd opinion would be an INDEPENDENT second opinion.

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,055 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @RYK said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    No. 2 reasons:

    1. No one would trust them.
    2. They would feel a lot of pressure to sticker everything.

    Why doesn't PCGS offer a "2nd opinion" service with a different grading team?

    I suggested this 15 years ago - The PCGS Blue sticker

    I think it's a horrible idea. I'm not advocating it. It's not a legitimate second opinion when they're is a corporate connection to the first opinion. My question was more rhetorical. The only worthwhile 2nd opinion would be an INDEPENDENT second opinion.

    Why is it a horrible idea? You could generate revenue with resubmissions for a Doily sticker (analogous to CAC gold sticker). You get paid for the opinion but there would no guarantee (read as risk) since you didn’t see it raw. It sounds like a nice revenue generator.

  • david3142david3142 Posts: 3,368 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 9, 2024 5:41AM

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @RYK said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    No. 2 reasons:

    1. No one would trust them.
    2. They would feel a lot of pressure to sticker everything.

    Why doesn't PCGS offer a "2nd opinion" service with a different grading team?

    I suggested this 15 years ago - The PCGS Blue sticker

    I think it's a horrible idea. I'm not advocating it. It's not a legitimate second opinion when they're is a corporate connection to the first opinion. My question was more rhetorical. The only worthwhile 2nd opinion would be an INDEPENDENT second opinion.

    Too much work. When I need a second opinion from a doctor I just ask him again. 😂

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,311 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @RYK said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    No. 2 reasons:

    1. No one would trust them.
    2. They would feel a lot of pressure to sticker everything.

    Why doesn't PCGS offer a "2nd opinion" service with a different grading team?

    I suggested this 15 years ago - The PCGS Blue sticker

    I think it's a horrible idea. I'm not advocating it. It's not a legitimate second opinion when they're is a corporate connection to the first opinion. My question was more rhetorical. The only worthwhile 2nd opinion would be an INDEPENDENT second opinion.

    Why is it a horrible idea? You could generate revenue with resubmissions for a Doily sticker (analogous to CAC gold sticker). You get paid for the opinion but there would no guarantee (read as risk) since you didn’t see it raw. It sounds like a nice revenue generator.

    It's a horrible idea because asking PCGS Team 2 to tell the customer that PCGS Team 1 was wrong undermines PCGS Team 1. And they are both PCGS teams. It's not an independent person. If PCGS Team 2 affirms Team 1, then I just assume their opinion is compromised by supporting the "Boss". If PCGS Team 2 fails to affirm Team 2, then PCGS has undermined their own credibility.

    Further, if PCGS Team 2 raises the grade of PCGS Team 1, then the customer is happy. But if PCGS Team 2 lowers the grade of PCGS Team 1, the customer is going to want a refund from PCGS for the impairment of the value of slab. You are literally asking PCGS Team 2 to create "PCGS guarantee" cases for PCGS. Even if the grade is raised, the customer may well want a refund for the "incorrect" first opinion.

    HORRIBLE idea.

    The same would apply to CAC/CACG. There is zero point, from a customer standpoint, to pay for a second opinion from the same people. There is a very negative consequence from the corporate standpoint to be constantly undermining your own opinions.

  • RYKRYK Posts: 35,753 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @RYK said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    No. 2 reasons:

    1. No one would trust them.
    2. They would feel a lot of pressure to sticker everything.

    Why doesn't PCGS offer a "2nd opinion" service with a different grading team?

    I suggested this 15 years ago - The PCGS Blue sticker

    I think it's a horrible idea. I'm not advocating it. It's not a legitimate second opinion when they're is a corporate connection to the first opinion. My question was more rhetorical. The only worthwhile 2nd opinion would be an INDEPENDENT second opinion.

    Why is it a horrible idea? You could generate revenue with resubmissions for a Doily sticker (analogous to CAC gold sticker). You get paid for the opinion but there would no guarantee (read as risk) since you didn’t see it raw. It sounds like a nice revenue generator.

    It's a horrible idea because asking PCGS Team 2 to tell the customer that PCGS Team 1 was wrong undermines PCGS Team 1. And they are both PCGS teams. It's not an independent person. If PCGS Team 2 affirms Team 1, then I just assume their opinion is compromised by supporting the "Boss". If PCGS Team 2 fails to affirm Team 2, then PCGS has undermined their own credibility.

    Further, if PCGS Team 2 raises the grade of PCGS Team 1, then the customer is happy. But if PCGS Team 2 lowers the grade of PCGS Team 1, the customer is going to want a refund from PCGS for the impairment of the value of slab. You are literally asking PCGS Team 2 to create "PCGS guarantee" cases for PCGS. Even if the grade is raised, the customer may well want a refund for the "incorrect" first opinion.

    HORRIBLE idea.

    The same would apply to CAC/CACG. There is zero point, from a customer standpoint, to pay for a second opinion from the same people. There is a very negative consequence from the corporate standpoint to be constantly undermining your own opinions.

    My idea, at the time, was that PCGS could "blue sticker" NGC coins that met its grading standards. Now, PCGS can also blue sticker CACG coins (and ANACS, if interested). It was not to blue sticker PCGS graded coins (though it might be useful as a second opinion for scenarios like grading errors or coins that have turned in the holder and perhaps no longer meet the standard for the grade...)


    "There are no called strikes in coin collecting."--Henry David Thoreau RYK
  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 22,675 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 9, 2024 6:44AM

    @RYK

    Your idea would go along way to help populate the PCGS World Coin Registry sets. There are several registry sets that would likely experience much greater participation if there were enough coins to go around. I like the idea and there really is no compelling reason to exclude ANACs graded coins- especially varieties that were submitted to them when they were the only TPG that would accept and recognize them.

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,311 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 9, 2024 6:47AM

    @RYK said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @RYK said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    No. 2 reasons:

    1. No one would trust them.
    2. They would feel a lot of pressure to sticker everything.

    Why doesn't PCGS offer a "2nd opinion" service with a different grading team?

    I suggested this 15 years ago - The PCGS Blue sticker

    I think it's a horrible idea. I'm not advocating it. It's not a legitimate second opinion when they're is a corporate connection to the first opinion. My question was more rhetorical. The only worthwhile 2nd opinion would be an INDEPENDENT second opinion.

    Why is it a horrible idea? You could generate revenue with resubmissions for a Doily sticker (analogous to CAC gold sticker). You get paid for the opinion but there would no guarantee (read as risk) since you didn’t see it raw. It sounds like a nice revenue generator.

    It's a horrible idea because asking PCGS Team 2 to tell the customer that PCGS Team 1 was wrong undermines PCGS Team 1. And they are both PCGS teams. It's not an independent person. If PCGS Team 2 affirms Team 1, then I just assume their opinion is compromised by supporting the "Boss". If PCGS Team 2 fails to affirm Team 2, then PCGS has undermined their own credibility.

    Further, if PCGS Team 2 raises the grade of PCGS Team 1, then the customer is happy. But if PCGS Team 2 lowers the grade of PCGS Team 1, the customer is going to want a refund from PCGS for the impairment of the value of slab. You are literally asking PCGS Team 2 to create "PCGS guarantee" cases for PCGS. Even if the grade is raised, the customer may well want a refund for the "incorrect" first opinion.

    HORRIBLE idea.

    The same would apply to CAC/CACG. There is zero point, from a customer standpoint, to pay for a second opinion from the same people. There is a very negative consequence from the corporate standpoint to be constantly undermining your own opinions.

    My idea, at the time, was that PCGS could "blue sticker" NGC coins that met its grading standards. Now, PCGS can also blue sticker CACG coins (and ANACS, if interested). It was not to blue sticker PCGS graded coins (though it might be useful as a second opinion for scenarios like grading errors or coins that have turned in the holder and perhaps no longer meet the standard for the grade...)

    That's a separate idea. We were talking about PCGS reviewing PCGS or CAC reviewing CACG. Stickering other people's opinion is an independent second opinion which is why CAC works.

  • fathomfathom Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I don't think that works from a business plan standpoint. If you are stickering your own certification you are confirming that you may not have had the correct expertise opinion.

    Which will give submitters the impression a two step process may be necessary for a solid grade.

    Instead (free advice, no charge) a TPG could form a service with a well respected marketplace veteran to certify that a particular date in a particular series is exceptional for the grade. For instance a Morgan Dollar expert could take a specific date and certify it is unusually well struck or flashy luster or original surfaces or whatever for that specific date.

    Plenty of coin nerds out there might appreciate a series expert opinion.

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,055 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @RYK said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @RYK said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    No. 2 reasons:

    1. No one would trust them.
    2. They would feel a lot of pressure to sticker everything.

    Why doesn't PCGS offer a "2nd opinion" service with a different grading team?

    I suggested this 15 years ago - The PCGS Blue sticker

    I think it's a horrible idea. I'm not advocating it. It's not a legitimate second opinion when they're is a corporate connection to the first opinion. My question was more rhetorical. The only worthwhile 2nd opinion would be an INDEPENDENT second opinion.

    Why is it a horrible idea? You could generate revenue with resubmissions for a Doily sticker (analogous to CAC gold sticker). You get paid for the opinion but there would no guarantee (read as risk) since you didn’t see it raw. It sounds like a nice revenue generator.

    It's a horrible idea because asking PCGS Team 2 to tell the customer that PCGS Team 1 was wrong undermines PCGS Team 1. And they are both PCGS teams. It's not an independent person. If PCGS Team 2 affirms Team 1, then I just assume their opinion is compromised by supporting the "Boss". If PCGS Team 2 fails to affirm Team 2, then PCGS has undermined their own credibility.

    Further, if PCGS Team 2 raises the grade of PCGS Team 1, then the customer is happy. But if PCGS Team 2 lowers the grade of PCGS Team 1, the customer is going to want a refund from PCGS for the impairment of the value of slab. You are literally asking PCGS Team 2 to create "PCGS guarantee" cases for PCGS. Even if the grade is raised, the customer may well want a refund for the "incorrect" first opinion.

    HORRIBLE idea.

    The same would apply to CAC/CACG. There is zero point, from a customer standpoint, to pay for a second opinion from the same people. There is a very negative consequence from the corporate standpoint to be constantly undermining your own opinions.

    My idea, at the time, was that PCGS could "blue sticker" NGC coins that met its grading standards. Now, PCGS can also blue sticker CACG coins (and ANACS, if interested). It was not to blue sticker PCGS graded coins (though it might be useful as a second opinion for scenarios like grading errors or coins that have turned in the holder and perhaps no longer meet the standard for the grade...)

    That's a separate idea. We were talking about PCGS reviewing PCGS or CAC reviewing CACG. Stickering other people's opinion is an independent second opinion which is why CAC works.

    Wrong. I was responding to PCGS reviewing CACG or CAC reviewing CACG. CAC is not the same as CACG. And it could only sticker the top 2/3s of CACG coins without undermining the opinion or integrity of the other. CACG is a third party grading service meant to compete with PCGS and CAC with JA’s blessing. CAC is JA’s personal brain child and all pieces through it carry his approval. While related sister companies, the two are distinct. CACG must grade every coin and is a full fledged grading service. CAC is an approval service that reviews other slabs and has no guarantee.

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,055 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said;

    There is zero point, from a customer standpoint, to pay for a second opinion from the same people. There is a very negative consequence from the corporate standpoint to be constantly undermining your own opinions.

    Not the same people- see above

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,311 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 9, 2024 10:34AM

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @RYK said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @RYK said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    No. 2 reasons:

    1. No one would trust them.
    2. They would feel a lot of pressure to sticker everything.

    Why doesn't PCGS offer a "2nd opinion" service with a different grading team?

    I suggested this 15 years ago - The PCGS Blue sticker

    I think it's a horrible idea. I'm not advocating it. It's not a legitimate second opinion when they're is a corporate connection to the first opinion. My question was more rhetorical. The only worthwhile 2nd opinion would be an INDEPENDENT second opinion.

    Why is it a horrible idea? You could generate revenue with resubmissions for a Doily sticker (analogous to CAC gold sticker). You get paid for the opinion but there would no guarantee (read as risk) since you didn’t see it raw. It sounds like a nice revenue generator.

    It's a horrible idea because asking PCGS Team 2 to tell the customer that PCGS Team 1 was wrong undermines PCGS Team 1. And they are both PCGS teams. It's not an independent person. If PCGS Team 2 affirms Team 1, then I just assume their opinion is compromised by supporting the "Boss". If PCGS Team 2 fails to affirm Team 2, then PCGS has undermined their own credibility.

    Further, if PCGS Team 2 raises the grade of PCGS Team 1, then the customer is happy. But if PCGS Team 2 lowers the grade of PCGS Team 1, the customer is going to want a refund from PCGS for the impairment of the value of slab. You are literally asking PCGS Team 2 to create "PCGS guarantee" cases for PCGS. Even if the grade is raised, the customer may well want a refund for the "incorrect" first opinion.

    HORRIBLE idea.

    The same would apply to CAC/CACG. There is zero point, from a customer standpoint, to pay for a second opinion from the same people. There is a very negative consequence from the corporate standpoint to be constantly undermining your own opinions.

    My idea, at the time, was that PCGS could "blue sticker" NGC coins that met its grading standards. Now, PCGS can also blue sticker CACG coins (and ANACS, if interested). It was not to blue sticker PCGS graded coins (though it might be useful as a second opinion for scenarios like grading errors or coins that have turned in the holder and perhaps no longer meet the standard for the grade...)

    That's a separate idea. We were talking about PCGS reviewing PCGS or CAC reviewing CACG. Stickering other people's opinion is an independent second opinion which is why CAC works.

    Wrong. I was responding to PCGS reviewing CACG or CAC reviewing CACG. CAC is not the same as CACG. And it could only sticker the top 2/3s of CACG coins without undermining the opinion or integrity of the other. CACG is a third party grading service meant to compete with PCGS and CAC with JA’s blessing. CAC is JA’s personal brain child and all pieces through it carry his approval. While related sister companies, the two are distinct. CACG must grade every coin and is a full fledged grading service. CAC is an approval service that reviews other slabs and has no guarantee.

    DOUBLE WRONG! :)

    Your OP never mentioned PCGS at all. But, regardless...

    CAC and CACG ARE THE SAME COMPANY. They are NOT different corporate entities. They are the SAME company just offering 2 different services in 2 different locations.

    They have the same frigging website FGS.

    https://www.cacgrading.com/

    CAC cannot offer a truly independent evaluation (from the submitter standpoint) of a CACG coin because every failure to sticker would be undermining their other division. That creates an incentive to affirm the grade.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,311 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 9, 2024 10:37AM

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @jmlanzaf said;

    There is zero point, from a customer standpoint, to pay for a second opinion from the same people. There is a very negative consequence from the corporate standpoint to be constantly undermining your own opinions.

    Not the same people- see above

    It IS the same (corporate) people. SEE Above. IT'S THE SAME COMPANY.

    And note the following language directly from the CACG website. They indicate that the slab service has the same standard as the sticker service. Hence you can't not sticker a slab without calling them a liar:

    "Coin Grading
    In 2007, John Albanese partnered with twenty-two leading members of the numismatic community to create the Certified Acceptance Corporation. CAC accepted coins grading by other companies and certified top quality examples with a green or gold sticker. These stickers have become universally recognized as the highest standard attainable for certified coins.
    Fifteen years later, John Albanese assembled over 150 leading members of the numismatic community with a purpose to reclaim accuracy and consistency in grading. **After all, why merely sticker a previously certified coin when the same stringent standards can be applied within the context of a grading service? ** Thus, CAC Grading was born!"

  • DollarAfterDollarDollarAfterDollar Posts: 3,214 ✭✭✭✭✭

    CACG coins fit in an NGC silver box. They can however be a bit snug if pressed down.

    If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,055 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 9, 2024 4:22PM

    @jmlanzaf said:
    CAC and CACG ARE THE SAME COMPANY. They are NOT different corporate entities. They are the SAME company just offering 2 different services in 2 different locations….

    CAC cannot offer a truly independent evaluation (from the submitter standpoint) of a CACG coin because every failure to sticker would be undermining their other division. That creates an incentive to affirm the grade.

    This is simply inaccurate:

    1. The submitter agreement plainly states that Certified Acceptance Corporation ("CAC Coin") and CAC Grading, LLC are "completely separate" entities:

    CAC Grading, LLC (hereafter referred to as “CAC”) and you, the person or entity submitting one or more coins for review (“Submitter”) enter into this Submitter Agreement (the “Submitter Agreement”).... All Submitters acknowledge that CAC Grading, LLC is a new entity completely separate from the original Certified Acceptance Corporation (“OLD CAC”)....
    Source: https://www.cacgrading.com/legal

    1. The grading teams are not the same. On the CAC Forum, it was stated that JA would continue to reside in New Jersey as the head and finalizer of the stickering operation. Yes, they could always call JA to consult on an ultra rarity, but for 99.9999% of the coins that CACG reviews, JA will never touch the coin. CACG is no more CAC (the sticker company) than David Hall Rare Coins was PCGS when David Hall was still employed by the latter or that NGC was a division of Heritage when the owners of Heritage owned NGC.

    2. There has been an obsession with JA with repeated claims in threads that JA is the essence of CAC. There is even a dedicated post mortem thread about what will happen to CAC coins "post JA."

    3. It is not redundant to seek two different grading opinions from two different teams at two different corporate entities.

    Based on the above, does anyone change their mind? Should CAC review CACG coins? It would seem perverse that collectors would be denied the opportunity to have JA approve their coins and sticker them because they were submitted to a grading service that JA endorses but does not grade for with any regularity.

    What say you @winesteven @Gazes @specialist ?

  • FredSFredS Posts: 59 ✭✭✭

    They do not fit at all in my PCGS boxes.

  • JW77JW77 Posts: 445 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    CAC and CACG ARE THE SAME COMPANY. They are NOT different corporate entities. They are the SAME company just offering 2 different services in 2 different locations….

    CAC cannot offer a truly independent evaluation (from the submitter standpoint) of a CACG coin because every failure to sticker would be undermining their other division. That creates an incentive to affirm the grade.

    This is simply inaccurate:

    1. The submitter agreement plainly states that Certified Acceptance Corporation ("CAC Coin") and CAC Grading, LLC are "completely separate" entities:

    CAC Grading, LLC (hereafter referred to as “CAC”) and you, the person or entity submitting one or more coins for review (“Submitter”) enter into this Submitter Agreement (the “Submitter Agreement”).... All Submitters acknowledge that CAC Grading, LLC is a new entity completely separate from the original Certified Acceptance Corporation (“OLD CAC”)....
    Source: https://www.cacgrading.com/legal

    1. The grading teams are not the same. On the CAC Forum, it was stated that JA would continue to reside in New Jersey as the head and finalizer of the stickering operation. Yes, they could always call JA to consult on an ultra rarity, but for 99.9999% of the coins that CACG reviews, JA will never touch the coin. CACG is no more CAC (the sticker company) than David Hall Rare Coins and was PCGS when David Hall was still employed by the latter or that NGC was a division of Heritage when the owners of Heritage owned NGC.

    2. There has been an obsession with JA with repeated claims in threads that JA is the essence of CAC. There is even a dedicated post mortem thread about what will happen to CAC coins "post JA."

    3. It is not redundant to seek two different grading opinions from two different teams at two different corporate entities.

    Based on the above, does anyone change their mind? Should CAC review CACG coins? It would seem perverse that collectors would be denied the opportunity to have JA approve their coins and sticker them because they were submitted to a grading service that JA endorses but does not grade for with any regularity.

    What say you @winesteven @Gazes @specialist ?

    I tend to agree with @jmlanzaf, the two companies may be separate legal entities, but there is some level of common ownership and a shared website. There will be an appearance of bias, even if in reality there is not.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,311 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JW77 said:

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    CAC and CACG ARE THE SAME COMPANY. They are NOT different corporate entities. They are the SAME company just offering 2 different services in 2 different locations….

    CAC cannot offer a truly independent evaluation (from the submitter standpoint) of a CACG coin because every failure to sticker would be undermining their other division. That creates an incentive to affirm the grade.

    This is simply inaccurate:

    1. The submitter agreement plainly states that Certified Acceptance Corporation ("CAC Coin") and CAC Grading, LLC are "completely separate" entities:

    CAC Grading, LLC (hereafter referred to as “CAC”) and you, the person or entity submitting one or more coins for review (“Submitter”) enter into this Submitter Agreement (the “Submitter Agreement”).... All Submitters acknowledge that CAC Grading, LLC is a new entity completely separate from the original Certified Acceptance Corporation (“OLD CAC”)....
    Source: https://www.cacgrading.com/legal

    1. The grading teams are not the same. On the CAC Forum, it was stated that JA would continue to reside in New Jersey as the head and finalizer of the stickering operation. Yes, they could always call JA to consult on an ultra rarity, but for 99.9999% of the coins that CACG reviews, JA will never touch the coin. CACG is no more CAC (the sticker company) than David Hall Rare Coins and was PCGS when David Hall was still employed by the latter or that NGC was a division of Heritage when the owners of Heritage owned NGC.

    2. There has been an obsession with JA with repeated claims in threads that JA is the essence of CAC. There is even a dedicated post mortem thread about what will happen to CAC coins "post JA."

    3. It is not redundant to seek two different grading opinions from two different teams at two different corporate entities.

    Based on the above, does anyone change their mind? Should CAC review CACG coins? It would seem perverse that collectors would be denied the opportunity to have JA approve their coins and sticker them because they were submitted to a grading service that JA endorses but does not grade for with any regularity.

    What say you @winesteven @Gazes @specialist ?

    I tend to agree with @jmlanzaf, the two companies may be separate legal entities, but there is some level of common ownership and a shared website. There will be an appearance of bias, even if in reality there is not.

    This. They share JA's standards, the grading set. JA works at both operations. They have ownership in common. The share a website. They are not two INDEPENDENT opinions.

  • P0CKETCHANGEP0CKETCHANGE Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @TwoSides2aCoin said:
    They used to have a “presidential review” at PCGS. I used it one time. David Hall seemed to understand it all and was at the top here, in the old days. Remember them days ? He would even grace the halls , on occasion. But we are not here, anymore. The old days are gone.

    If you want David Hall’s opinion you could send the coins to CMQ. Even CACG coins. Maybe the market leading coins will actually be CACG+CMQ in the future. You heard it here first folks.

    Nothing is as expensive as free money.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,311 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    CAC and CACG ARE THE SAME COMPANY. They are NOT different corporate entities. They are the SAME company just offering 2 different services in 2 different locations….

    CAC cannot offer a truly independent evaluation (from the submitter standpoint) of a CACG coin because every failure to sticker would be undermining their other division. That creates an incentive to affirm the grade.

    This is simply inaccurate:

    1. The submitter agreement plainly states that Certified Acceptance Corporation ("CAC Coin") and CAC Grading, LLC are "completely separate" entities:

    CAC Grading, LLC (hereafter referred to as “CAC”) and you, the person or entity submitting one or more coins for review (“Submitter”) enter into this Submitter Agreement (the “Submitter Agreement”).... All Submitters acknowledge that CAC Grading, LLC is a new entity completely separate from the original Certified Acceptance Corporation (“OLD CAC”)....
    Source: https://www.cacgrading.com/legal

    1. The grading teams are not the same. On the CAC Forum, it was stated that JA would continue to reside in New Jersey as the head and finalizer of the stickering operation. Yes, they could always call JA to consult on an ultra rarity, but for 99.9999% of the coins that CACG reviews, JA will never touch the coin. CACG is no more CAC (the sticker company) than David Hall Rare Coins was PCGS when David Hall was still employed by the latter or that NGC was a division of Heritage when the owners of Heritage owned NGC.

    2. There has been an obsession with JA with repeated claims in threads that JA is the essence of CAC. There is even a dedicated post mortem thread about what will happen to CAC coins "post JA."

    3. It is not redundant to seek two different grading opinions from two different teams at two different corporate entities.

    Based on the above, does anyone change their mind? Should CAC review CACG coins? It would seem perverse that collectors would be denied the opportunity to have JA approve their coins and sticker them because they were submitted to a grading service that JA endorses but does not grade for with any regularity.

    What say you @winesteven @Gazes @specialist ?

    https://help.cacgrading.com/support/solutions/articles/151000073223-cac-stickering-vs-cac-grading

    They are barely pretending to be separate entities. They may be separate LLC's, but they are effectively different divisions of the same conglomerate. They don't even deny it. Heck, they even halted sticker memberships to "aid the transition" while they were getting CACG up and running.

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,055 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 9, 2024 4:56PM

    @jmlanzaf said:
    They share JA's standards, the grading set.

    Maybe in theory, but a number of posters and threads are suggesting that CACG is tougher than CAC, hence my question.

    JA works at both operations.

    Not in a meaningful capacity. JA will see few CACG pieces based on statistics and postings on the CAC Forums.

    They have ownership in common.

    I would not assume that. JA is publicly listed as principal of CAC in New Jersey on official government documents. In Virginia he is not, although Virginia requires minimal disclosures so this may not be meaningful. We can't assume anything here.

    The share a website.

    I concede that this is a little weird.

    They are not two INDEPENDENT opinions.

    Define "independent opinions." Two separate grading teams offering opinions are independent of each other. JW77 brings up a good point about the appearance of bias but that is because many falsely assume, as you did, that CACG is merely a division of CAC.

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,055 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:
    They are barely pretending to be separate entities. They may be separate LLC's, but they are effectively different divisions of the same conglomerate. They don't even deny it. Heck, they even halted sticker memberships to "aid the transition" while they were getting CACG up and running.

    It is fair to say that the companies may appear closely associated. The whole thing just seems like a bait and switch (and I don't mean that in a negative way per se). CAC's success was largely because of JA, and it looks like CACG is trying to piggy back on that reputation and JA's express endorsement. It is not the same thing as having JA review the coin, which I feel will blindside a lot of collectors.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file