I think the stickering thing wb phased out anyway at some point in time - business efficiency & consistency. Ronnie pays strong for the CACG (nice and fresh he says) but a little less on the stickered (his table at shows). “Ya just dunno how long ago dey got graded. Seen some ugly toned, spotted ones - coulda been graded decades ago. When dey go bad in holder it’s game over. My CACG getting really good money on them. What’s really neat the green bean on slab too.”
@Cougar1978 said:
I think the stickering thing wb phased out anyway at some point in time. Ronnie pays strong for the CACG (fresher) but a little less on the stickered (his table at shows).
I frequently disagree with this poster. But I don’t think he was stepping out on much of a limb in his prognostication that “ the stickering thing wb phased out anyway at some point in time.” In fact, I think that it would be a very safe bet with the “some point in time” qualifier.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Cougar1978 said:
I think the stickering thing wb phased out anyway at some point in time. Ronnie pays strong for the CACG (fresher) but a little less on the stickered (his table at shows).
I frequently disagree with this poster. But I don’t think he was stepping out on much of a limb in his prognostication that “ the stickering thing wb phased out anyway at some point in time.” In fact, I think that it would be a very safe bet with the “some point in time” qualifier.😉
@Cougar1978 said:
I think the stickering thing wb phased out anyway at some point in time. Ronnie pays strong for the CACG (fresher) but a little less on the stickered (his table at shows).
I frequently disagree with this poster. But I don’t think he was stepping out on much of a limb in his prognostication that “ the stickering thing wb phased out anyway at some point in time.” In fact, I think that it would be a very safe bet with the “some point in time” qualifier.😉
Who’s Ronnie?
Sorry, I don’t know.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
JA spent a considerable amount of time in Virginia working with the CACG graders to get everyone on the same page as best as possible - the CACG graders with each other, AND with the stickering team in NJ. The grading sets will help with that goal. Will they ALWAYS be in PERFECT agreement with each other? Absolutely not, as they are humans, and not machines. But it’s important and good that they recognize their goal is for CACG and CAC stickering to be using the SAME standards!
If you’d like my thoughts on other related issues, please feel free to ask.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
The grading sets will help with that goal.
Do we even begin to comprehend the costs of purchasing coins to make up a grading set? Not just multiple grades, but also multiple examples to cover the customary strikes (i.e. early Buffalo Nickels, middle years, later years, and final years)...
My prediction is that at some point - probably after multi-spectral ultra-high-resolution images and laser scans have been made - the coins will be resold at a profit BECAUSE they were part of the grading sets. Otherwise, I see seven figures of working capital tied up earning bupkis.
-----Burton ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
@winesteven said:
The grading sets will help with that goal.
Do we even begin to comprehend the costs of purchasing coins to make up a grading set? Not just multiple grades, but also multiple examples to cover the customary strikes (i.e. early Buffalo Nickels, middle years, later years, and final years)...
My prediction is that at some point - probably after multi-spectral ultra-high-resolution images and laser scans have been made - the coins will be resold at a profit BECAUSE they were part of the grading sets. Otherwise, I see seven figures of working capital tied up earning bupkis.
I believe that was the fate that the PCGS Grading set met.
JA spent a considerable amount of time in Virginia working with the CACG graders to get everyone on the same page as best as possible - the CACG graders with each other, AND with the stickering team in NJ. The grading sets will help with that goal. Will they ALWAYS be in PERFECT agreement with each other? Absolutely not, as they are humans, and not machines. But it’s important and good that they recognize their goal is for CACG and CAC stickering to be using the SAME standards!
If you’d like my thoughts on other related issues, please feel free to ask.
Steve
Very well articulated, Steve. It seems that some are ignoring the human aspect of this all. Even JA isn’t going to grade a coin the exact same every single time. You could give him 100 coins to grade, and after he’s done he has to grade those same 100 coins again and I would be very surprised if there wasn’t at least some variance with a few of them.
We can’t draw any meaningful conclusions from a couple instances where CAC and CACG weren’t in full agreement with each other, to do so would be a fools errand.
@winesteven said:
But it’s important and good that they recognize their goal is for CACG and CAC stickering to be using the SAME standards!
But that isn't the case, is it, right ?
CAC stickers would go on coins that were OK (A or B coins) for the grade given by PCGS or NGC. The sticker didn't take into account whether the INITIAL grading was done correctly -- right ?
The proof in the pudding is all these MS coins being downgraded to the AU sector. The presence of rub/wear/friction on high points which may have been overlooked or net-graded or minimized by a TPG and then still given a sticker by CAC...is NOT being overlooked by CACG today.
@winesteven said:
But it’s important and good that they recognize their goal is for CACG and CAC stickering to be using the SAME standards!
But that isn't the case, is it, right ?
CAC stickers would go on coins that were OK (A or B coins) for the grade given by PCGS or NGC. The sticker didn't take into account whether the INITIAL grading was done correctly -- right ?
The proof in the pudding is all these MS coins being downgraded to the AU sector. The presence of rub/wear/friction on high points which may have been overlooked or net-graded or minimized by a TPG and then still given a sticker by CAC...is NOT being overlooked by CACG today.
It IS the case. CAC doesn't sticker CACG coins. A PCGS 65 that wouldn't sticker is not a CACG 65.
It is unclear whether CAC would sticker any of the coins with rub, other than by accident. There's no pudding, much less proof. Show me all these stickered coins with rub.
@winesteven said:
But it’s important and good that they recognize their goal is for CACG and CAC stickering to be using the SAME standards!
But that isn't the case, is it, right ?
CAC stickers would go on coins that were OK (A or B coins) for the grade given by PCGS or NGC. The sticker didn't take into account whether the INITIAL grading was done correctly -- right ?
The proof in the pudding is all these MS coins being downgraded to the AU sector. The presence of rub/wear/friction on high points which may have been overlooked or net-graded or minimized by a TPG and then still given a sticker by CAC...is NOT being overlooked by CACG today.
Tied in with @jmlanzaf 's reply above, like he says, it IS the case! CAC stickering DID take into account if the initial grade was done correctly. as coins that CAC stickering felt were incorrectly graded FAILED getting a sticker! In your example of coins that CACG is now downgrading to AU due to rubs - those coins never got stickered because in the opinion of CAC the initial grading was incorrect!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
"Knock knock."
"Who's there?
"A lustrous MS-66 1907 Saint Gaudens $20"
"Got a sticker or wearing a CACG outfit?"
"Nope."
"Not interested. Go away, dreck!"
@ElmerFusterpuck said:
"Knock knock."
"Who's there?
"A lustrous MS-66 1907 Saint Gaudens $20"
"Got a sticker or wearing a CACG outfit?"
"Nope."
"Not interested. Go away, dreck!"
Make fun, but:
So WHY does that 66 Saint NOT have a sticker? Do you really believe at that price point the seller didn't want to spend the few dollars it would cost to see if it merits a CAC sticker? Chances are super high it failed, as you imply. But WHY did it fail?
Is it not solid for the grade in the opinion of CAC?
Is it overgraded in the opinion of CAC?
Are there rubs (WEAR) on the high points?
Were "surface treatments" applied that are unacceptable to CAC but might be acceptable to the TPG's?
Make fun, but the real question is, do YOU want to have your collection consist of a lot of coins, especially high value ones like a 66 Saint, that have "YES" answers to one or more of those four questions above? I don't, and I know many other collectors don't either. On the other hand, to save money, some collectors don't mind at all having coins that are not solid for the grade, or overgraded, or are graded MS but have rubs on the high points, or have had negative surface treatments.
I would think that each collector would want to make informed decisions about the quality of the coins they want in their collection. There is no right or wrong.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@ElmerFusterpuck said:
"Knock knock."
"Who's there?
"A lustrous MS-66 1907 Saint Gaudens $20"
"Got a sticker or wearing a CACG outfit?"
"Nope."
"Not interested. Go away, dreck!"
Make fun, but:
So WHY does that 66 Saint NOT have a sticker? Do you really believe at that price point the seller didn't want to spend the few dollars it would cost to see if it merits a CAC sticker? Chances are super high it failed, as you imply. But WHY did it fail?
Is it not solid for the grade in the opinion of CAC?
Is it overgraded in the opinion of CAC?
Are there rubs (WEAR) on the high points?
Were "surface treatments" applied that are unacceptable to CAC but might be acceptable to the TPG's?
Make fun, but the real question is, do YOU want to have your collection consist of a lot of coins, especially high value ones like a 66 Saint, that have "YES" answers to one or more of those four questions above? I don't, and I know many other collectors don't either. On the other hand, to save money, some collectors don't mind at all having coins that are not solid for the grade, or overgraded, or are graded MS but have rubs on the high points, or have had negative surface treatments.
Each collector makes informed decisions about the quality of the coins they want in their collection. There is no right or wrong.
Steve
Steve, in a very rare occurrence, I strongly disagree with something you wrote - in this case, in the first sentence of your last paragraph above. Many collectors don’t make informed decisions about the quality of the coins they want in their collection. They make uninformed ones.
Please note that my comments don’t necessarily have anything to do with CAC. They pertain to both graded and ungraded coins, with and without stickers.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@ElmerFusterpuck said:
"Knock knock."
"Who's there?
"A lustrous MS-66 1907 Saint Gaudens $20"
"Got a sticker or wearing a CACG outfit?"
"Nope."
"Not interested. Go away, dreck!"
Make fun, but:
So WHY does that 66 Saint NOT have a sticker? Do you really believe at that price point the seller didn't want to spend the few dollars it would cost to see if it merits a CAC sticker? Chances are super high it failed, as you imply. But WHY did it fail?
Is it not solid for the grade in the opinion of CAC?
Is it overgraded in the opinion of CAC?
Are there rubs (WEAR) on the high points?
Were "surface treatments" applied that are unacceptable to CAC but might be acceptable to the TPG's?
Make fun, but the real question is, do YOU want to have your collection consist of a lot of coins, especially high value ones like a 66 Saint, that have "YES" answers to one or more of those four questions above? I don't, and I know many other collectors don't either. On the other hand, to save money, some collectors don't mind at all having coins that are not solid for the grade, or overgraded, or are graded MS but have rubs on the high points, or have had negative surface treatments.
Each collector makes informed decisions about the quality of the coins they want in their collection. There is no right or wrong.
Steve
Steve, in a very rare occurrence, I strongly disagree with something you wrote - in this case, in the first sentence of your last paragraph above. Many collectors don’t make informed decisions about the quality of the coins they want in their collection. They make uninformed ones.
Please note that my comments don’t necessarily have anything to do with CAC. They pertain to both graded and ungraded coins, with and without stickers.
Thanks. I made an edit to the beginning of my last paragraph. My intent is that with an informed decision, it's OK if a collector chooses to save money by purchasing coins that don't have stickers, or even raw coins. That's OK.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
The labels already have a CAC type sticker on the label that is a little smaller than regular CAC stickers. The slabs have flat edges and are wider than PCGS labs. They do fit well in the 10 coin slab boxes you can get on eBay (but not in PCGS boxes as already mentioned).
@winesteven said:
Tied in with @jmlanzaf 's reply above, like he says, it IS the case! CAC stickering DID take into account if the initial >grade was done correctly. as coins that CAC stickering felt were incorrectly graded FAILED getting a sticker! In your >example of coins that CACG is now downgrading to AU due to rubs - those coins never got stickered because in the >opinion of CAC the initial grading was incorrect! Steve
OK, thanks Steve, JMLanz, & Others.....I am reading that near-40 page thread on CACG grading but have only made it trhough about half.
For some reason, I thought I had read that CAC-stickered coins were going down 1 grade and/or into the AU bucket. Must have been PCGS-only coins without the CAC sticker. My fault.
Thanks for clearing that up for me, sorry if I added to the confusion.
@ElmerFusterpuck said:
"Knock knock."
"Who's there?
"A lustrous MS-66 1907 Saint Gaudens $20"
"Got a sticker or wearing a CACG outfit?"
"Nope."
"Not interested. Go away, dreck!"
Make fun, but:
So WHY does that 66 Saint NOT have a sticker? Do you really believe at that price point the seller didn't want to spend the few dollars it would cost to see if it merits a CAC sticker? Chances are super high it failed, as you imply. But WHY did it fail?
Is it not solid for the grade in the opinion of CAC?
Is it overgraded in the opinion of CAC?
Are there rubs (WEAR) on the high points?
Were "surface treatments" applied that are unacceptable to CAC but might be acceptable to the TPG's?
Make fun, but the real question is, do YOU want to have your collection consist of a lot of coins, especially high value ones like a 66 Saint, that have "YES" answers to one or more of those four questions above? I don't, and I know many other collectors don't either. On the other hand, to save money, some collectors don't mind at all having coins that are not solid for the grade, or overgraded, or are graded MS but have rubs on the high points, or have had negative surface treatments.
Each collector makes informed decisions about the quality of the coins they want in their collection. There is no right or wrong.
Steve
Steve, in a very rare occurrence, I strongly disagree with something you wrote - in this case, in the first sentence of your last paragraph above. Many collectors don’t make informed decisions about the quality of the coins they want in their collection. They make uninformed ones.
Please note that my comments don’t necessarily have anything to do with CAC. They pertain to both graded and ungraded coins, with and without stickers.
I'd like to split the difference between you find gentleman and agree with both of you... or disagree with both of you.
I don't think too many people are completely uninformed. I think the problem is partial information applied in a binary fashion. You take the number on the plastic, look at a number on the price guide and you arrive at a purchase/don't purchase decision. Other than the lower sight unseen price for widgets, neither the grade on the plastic or the number in the price guide is as definite as people tend to interpret numerical information.> @winesteven said:
@ElmerFusterpuck said:
"Knock knock."
"Who's there?
"A lustrous MS-66 1907 Saint Gaudens $20"
"Got a sticker or wearing a CACG outfit?"
"Nope."
"Not interested. Go away, dreck!"
Make fun, but:
So WHY does that 66 Saint NOT have a sticker? Do you really believe at that price point the seller didn't want to spend the few dollars it would cost to see if it merits a CAC sticker? Chances are super high it failed, as you imply. But WHY did it fail?
Is it not solid for the grade in the opinion of CAC?
Is it overgraded in the opinion of CAC?
Are there rubs (WEAR) on the high points?
Were "surface treatments" applied that are unacceptable to CAC but might be acceptable to the TPG's?
Make fun, but the real question is, do YOU want to have your collection consist of a lot of coins, especially high value ones like a 66 Saint, that have "YES" answers to one or more of those four questions above? I don't, and I know many other collectors don't either. On the other hand, to save money, some collectors don't mind at all having coins that are not solid for the grade, or overgraded, or are graded MS but have rubs on the high points, or have had negative surface treatments.
Each collector makes informed decisions about the quality of the coins they want in their collection. There is no right or wrong.
Steve
Steve, in a very rare occurrence, I strongly disagree with something you wrote - in this case, in the first sentence of your last paragraph above. Many collectors don’t make informed decisions about the quality of the coins they want in their collection. They make uninformed ones.
Please note that my comments don’t necessarily have anything to do with CAC. They pertain to both graded and ungraded coins, with and without stickers.
Thanks. I made an edit to the beginning of my last paragraph. My intent is that with an informed decision, it's OK if a collector chooses to save money by purchasing coins that don't have stickers, or even raw coins. That's OK.
Steve
I think you're both sort of right. While there are uninformed decisions, I think they are scarce. The more common problem is partially informed decisions. People can be slaves to the number on the slab and the price in the guide. That can cause a lot of mistakes.
@davewesen said:
The labels already have a CAC type sticker on the label that is a little smaller than regular CAC stickers. The slabs have flat edges and are wider than PCGS labs. They do fit well in the 10 coin slab boxes you can get on eBay (but not in PCGS boxes as already mentioned).
>
That's really not a CAC sticker. It's their corporate logo. And, yes, it is rather confusing.
@ElmerFusterpuck said:
"Knock knock."
"Who's there?
"A lustrous MS-66 1907 Saint Gaudens $20"
"Got a sticker or wearing a CACG outfit?"
"Nope."
"Not interested. Go away, dreck!"
Make fun, but:
So WHY does that 66 Saint NOT have a sticker? Do you really believe at that price point the seller didn't want to spend the few dollars it would cost to see if it merits a CAC sticker? Chances are super high it failed, as you imply. But WHY did it fail?
Is it not solid for the grade in the opinion of CAC?
Is it overgraded in the opinion of CAC?
Are there rubs (WEAR) on the high points?
Were "surface treatments" applied that are unacceptable to CAC but might be acceptable to the TPG's?
Make fun, but the real question is, do YOU want to have your collection consist of a lot of coins, especially high value ones like a 66 Saint, that have "YES" answers to one or more of those four questions above? I don't, and I know many other collectors don't either. On the other hand, to save money, some collectors don't mind at all having coins that are not solid for the grade, or overgraded, or are graded MS but have rubs on the high points, or have had negative surface treatments.
I would think that each collector would want to make informed decisions about the quality of the coins they want in their collection. There is no right or wrong.
Steve
Usually agree but this time I don’t. Although I’ve come to respect the CAC opinion, I’ve seen plenty of coins I loved for the price / grade that didn’t have a sticker that had been sent in. I know you choose your words carefully but your message is clear. I’m good with both the sticker and no sticker, and I don’t look at those without as inferior**.
@ElmerFusterpuck said:
"Knock knock."
"Who's there?
"A lustrous MS-66 1907 Saint Gaudens $20"
"Got a sticker or wearing a CACG outfit?"
"Nope."
"Not interested. Go away, dreck!"
Make fun, but:
So WHY does that 66 Saint NOT have a sticker? Do you really believe at that price point the seller didn't want to spend the few dollars it would cost to see if it merits a CAC sticker? Chances are super high it failed, as you imply. But WHY did it fail?
Is it not solid for the grade in the opinion of CAC?
Is it overgraded in the opinion of CAC?
Are there rubs (WEAR) on the high points?
Were "surface treatments" applied that are unacceptable to CAC but might be acceptable to the TPG's?
Make fun, but the real question is, do YOU want to have your collection consist of a lot of coins, especially high value ones like a 66 Saint, that have "YES" answers to one or more of those four questions above? I don't, and I know many other collectors don't either. On the other hand, to save money, some collectors don't mind at all having coins that are not solid for the grade, or overgraded, or are graded MS but have rubs on the high points, or have had negative surface treatments.
I would think that each collector would want to make informed decisions about the quality of the coins they want in their collection. There is no right or wrong.
Steve
Usually agree but this time I don’t. Although I’ve come to respect the CAC opinion, I’ve seen plenty of coins I loved for the price / grade that didn’t have a sticker that had been sent in. I know you choose your words carefully but your message is clear. I’m good with both the sticker and no sticker, and I don’t look at those without as inferior**.
I don’t think we disagree. Assuming a lovely coin was submitted to CAC and failed to get a sticker, my point in a collectors decision to buy that coin, is only to recognize there is a reason it failed! Maybe in the opinion of CAC it’s a “C” coin, or maybe it’s overgraded, or maybe there’s a rub on a high point, or maybe there was a surface treatment that is not acceptable to CAC but is acceptable to the TPG’s. Recognizing there IS a reason, but liking the eye appeal and other attributes, and then choosing to including it in one’s collection, is perfectly fine. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
Is it not solid for the grade in the opinion of CAC?
Is it overgraded in the opinion of CAC?
Are there rubs (WEAR) on the high points?
Were "surface treatments" applied that are unacceptable to CAC but might be acceptable to the TPG's?
PVC is really a accidental cancer for coins and should not fall in the category of "surface treatments" which implies a deliberate action. The four reasons coins fail to CAC should be expanded to include:
Does PVC exist which is unacceptable to CAC but might be acceptable to the TPG's?
Is it not solid for the grade in the opinion of CAC?
Is it overgraded in the opinion of CAC?
Are there rubs (WEAR) on the high points?
Were "surface treatments" applied that are unacceptable to CAC but might be acceptable to the TPG's?
PVC is really a accidental cancer for coins and should not fall in the category of "surface treatments" which implies a deliberate action. The four reasons coins fail to CAC should be expanded to include:
Does PVC exist which is unacceptable to CAC but might be acceptable to the TPG's?
That is not really a 5th category as described. No TPG will slab a coin with PVC.
Is it not solid for the grade in the opinion of CAC?
Is it overgraded in the opinion of CAC?
Are there rubs (WEAR) on the high points?
Were "surface treatments" applied that are unacceptable to CAC but might be acceptable to the TPG's?
PVC is really a accidental cancer for coins and should not fall in the category of "surface treatments" which implies a deliberate action. The four reasons coins fail to CAC should be expanded to include:
Does PVC exist which is unacceptable to CAC but might be acceptable to the TPG's?
That is not really a 5th category as described. No TPG will slab a coin with PVC.
At the very least, I’d change that to “No TPG will knowingly slab a coin with PVC.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Based on prior posts, it appears that someone may have had slabbed coins that CAC would not sticker due to a “tiny” amount of PVC, barely visible to the naked eye. Who knows what the “size” of the PVC was at the time of slabbing?
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
I have a bunch of Morgan's I had graded with PCGS.
I have not sent to CAC for grading. I suppose I should send them because the perceived notion would be that they didn't sticker should I ever decide to sell. I should get motivated to do this. I see on greysheet where they do bring a fair amount more money.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Is it not solid for the grade in the opinion of CAC?
Is it overgraded in the opinion of CAC?
Are there rubs (WEAR) on the high points?
Were "surface treatments" applied that are unacceptable to CAC but might be acceptable to the TPG's?
PVC is really a accidental cancer for coins and should not fall in the category of "surface treatments" which implies a deliberate action. The four reasons coins fail to CAC should be expanded to include:
Does PVC exist which is unacceptable to CAC but might be acceptable to the TPG's?
That is not really a 5th category as described. No TPG will slab a coin with PVC.
PVC can be extremely difficult to see, it often requires special lighting conditions or extremely high magnification.. On another PCGS thread I posted the following:
On the CAC Forums, Bushmaster, who is an active participant, stated the most concise explanation of PVC I've read. This was under the PCGS Conservation topic and I wanted to share it.
"It is the age and the distribution of the plasticizer residue that largely determine whether or not acetone will effectively remove it.
The white haze type of PVC is usually successfully removed by acetone bath because it is distributed in a relatively thin and even layer across a coins surface.
With the passage of time, the white haze usually coalesces, effectively forming a thicker/deeper pool of gunk as opposed to haze.
Simultaneous with this thickening, the color usually turns green we are all familiar with. Once this coalescence has occurred the deposit becomes more stubborn and acetone may not work at all on it, or may require some physical coaxing (usually a cotton tipped swab or a rose thorn).
If left for years the green goo becomes denser, harder, and turns very dark (almost black) green. "
To put things in perspective, look at any coin you have in a 2x2 cardboard flip and assess it a grade. Remove it and then reassess that grade. CAC does not remove a single coin from an NCG or PCGS holder. So explain how accurate their"grading" is. Stickers are merely pyscological approach at convincing one to the reality. To pay the premium attached is why I'll not be adding any soon. But hey, to each their own. Collect what you like, think what you wish. It's your's and your's alone.
@Ebeneezer said:
To put things in perspective, look at any coin you have in a 2x2 cardboard flip and assess it a grade. Remove it and then reassess that grade. CAC does not remove a single coin from an NCG or PCGS holder. So explain how accurate their"grading" is. Stickers are merely pyscological approach at convincing one to the reality. To pay the premium attached is why I'll not be adding any soon. But hey, to each their own. Collect what you like, think what you wish. It's your's and your's alone.
"CAC does not remove a single coin from an NCG or PCGS holder. So explain how accurate their"grading" is"- Huh?
Can you elaborate on the point youre trying to make?
Is it not solid for the grade in the opinion of CAC?
Is it overgraded in the opinion of CAC?
Are there rubs (WEAR) on the high points?
Were "surface treatments" applied that are unacceptable to CAC but might be acceptable to the TPG's?
PVC is really a accidental cancer for coins and should not fall in the category of "surface treatments" which implies a deliberate action. The four reasons coins fail to CAC should be expanded to include:
Does PVC exist which is unacceptable to CAC but might be acceptable to the TPG's?
That is not really a 5th category as described. No TPG will slab a coin with PVC.
At the very least, I’d change that to “No TPG will knowingly slab a coin with PVC.”
The comment I responded to indicated that TPGs were tolerating PVC not missing it. But, yes, of course.
Is it not solid for the grade in the opinion of CAC?
Is it overgraded in the opinion of CAC?
Are there rubs (WEAR) on the high points?
Were "surface treatments" applied that are unacceptable to CAC but might be acceptable to the TPG's?
PVC is really a accidental cancer for coins and should not fall in the category of "surface treatments" which implies a deliberate action. The four reasons coins fail to CAC should be expanded to include:
Does PVC exist which is unacceptable to CAC but might be acceptable to the TPG's?
That is not really a 5th category as described. No TPG will slab a coin with PVC.
PVC can be extremely difficult to see, it often requires special lighting conditions or extremely high magnification.. On another PCGS thread I posted the following:
On the CAC Forums, Bushmaster, who is an active participant, stated the most concise explanation of PVC I've read. This was under the PCGS Conservation topic and I wanted to share it.
"It is the age and the distribution of the plasticizer residue that largely determine whether or not acetone will effectively remove it.
The white haze type of PVC is usually successfully removed by acetone bath because it is distributed in a relatively thin and even layer across a coins surface.
With the passage of time, the white haze usually coalesces, effectively forming a thicker/deeper pool of gunk as opposed to haze.
Simultaneous with this thickening, the color usually turns green we are all familiar with. Once this coalescence has occurred the deposit becomes more stubborn and acetone may not work at all on it, or may require some physical coaxing (usually a cotton tipped swab or a rose thorn).
If left for years the green goo becomes denser, harder, and turns very dark (almost black) green. "
But you indicated that some TPGs were tolerating PVC. That is not correct. They may miss it. But none of them have an acceptable level of PVC.
@Ebeneezer said:
To put things in perspective, look at any coin you have in a 2x2 cardboard flip and assess it a grade. Remove it and then reassess that grade. CAC does not remove a single coin from an NCG or PCGS holder. So explain how accurate their"grading" is. Stickers are merely pyscological approach at convincing one to the reality. To pay the premium attached is why I'll not be adding any soon. But hey, to each their own. Collect what you like, think what you wish. It's your's and your's alone.
"CAC does not remove a single coin from an NCG or PCGS holder. So explain how accurate their"grading" is"- Huh?
Can you elaborate on the point youre trying to make?
I think he was trying to argue that CAC makes its decisions, while viewing coins in PCGS and NGC holders/plastic. And that as a result, they can't be as accurate as they should be to justify a premium for stickered coins.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@ElmerFusterpuck said:
"Knock knock."
"Who's there?
"A lustrous MS-66 1907 Saint Gaudens $20"
"Got a sticker or wearing a CACG outfit?"
"Nope."
"Not interested. Go away, dreck!"
Make fun, but:
So WHY does that 66 Saint NOT have a sticker? Do you really believe at that price point the seller didn't want to spend the few dollars it would cost to see if it merits a CAC sticker? Chances are super high it failed, as you imply. But WHY did it fail?
Is it not solid for the grade in the opinion of CAC?
Is it overgraded in the opinion of CAC?
Are there rubs (WEAR) on the high points?
Were "surface treatments" applied that are unacceptable to CAC but might be acceptable to the TPG's?
Make fun, but the real question is, do YOU want to have your collection consist of a lot of coins, especially high value ones like a 66 Saint, that have "YES" answers to one or more of those four questions above? I don't, and I know many other collectors don't either. On the other hand, to save money, some collectors don't mind at all having coins that are not solid for the grade, or overgraded, or are graded MS but have rubs on the high points, or have had negative surface treatments.
I would think that each collector would want to make informed decisions about the quality of the coins they want in their collection. There is no right or wrong.
Steve
Chances are higher than you'd want to admit that it has never been to CAC yet.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
@Ebeneezer said:
To put things in perspective, look at any coin you have in a 2x2 cardboard flip and assess it a grade. Remove it and then reassess that grade. CAC does not remove a single coin from an NCG or PCGS holder. So explain how accurate their"grading" is. Stickers are merely pyscological approach at convincing one to the reality. To pay the premium attached is why I'll not be adding any soon. But hey, to each their own. Collect what you like, think what you wish. It's your's and your's alone.
"CAC does not remove a single coin from an NCG or PCGS holder. So explain how accurate their"grading" is"- Huh?
Can you elaborate on the point youre trying to make?
To assert that CAC, or any TPG for that matter, can't do an accurate assessment of a grade through a clear plastic slab under magnification is well, malarkey. While you are correct that there is a premium for CAC, you would find that you do get it back on the back-end. I have also found that when showing coins to dealers at a show, they are more attentive to me when they see that my inventory is CAC endorsed.
I've seen several posts, threads, suggesting PCGS/NGC have a sticker program. The problem is it is so hard to get qualified graders and they are already spread thin with long wait times. I don't see this happening. If they hire new graders it should be to lower the stack of orders that keep piling up.
@ElmerFusterpuck said:
"Knock knock."
"Who's there?
"A lustrous MS-66 1907 Saint Gaudens $20"
"Got a sticker or wearing a CACG outfit?"
"Nope."
"Not interested. Go away, dreck!"
Make fun, but:
So WHY does that 66 Saint NOT have a sticker? Do you really believe at that price point the seller didn't want to spend the few dollars it would cost to see if it merits a CAC sticker? Chances are super high it failed, as you imply. But WHY did it fail?
Is it not solid for the grade in the opinion of CAC?
Is it overgraded in the opinion of CAC?
Are there rubs (WEAR) on the high points?
Were "surface treatments" applied that are unacceptable to CAC but might be acceptable to the TPG's?
Make fun, but the real question is, do YOU want to have your collection consist of a lot of coins, especially high value ones like a 66 Saint, that have "YES" answers to one or more of those four questions above? I don't, and I know many other collectors don't either. On the other hand, to save money, some collectors don't mind at all having coins that are not solid for the grade, or overgraded, or are graded MS but have rubs on the high points, or have had negative surface treatments.
I would think that each collector would want to make informed decisions about the quality of the coins they want in their collection. There is no right or wrong.
Steve
Chances are higher than you'd want to admit that it has never been to CAC yet.
So even if the seller/consignor chose to not spend the few dollars needed on a $4,000 coin to have it sticker and then potentially sell for an extra $1,000 to $1,500+ more, I’m not willing to take the chance that it will sticker if I bought it, for TWO reasons:
A small percentage of MS66 Saints merit a CAC sticker.
I still believe the vast majority of 66 Saints that are FOR SALE have been to CAC and failed, for one reason or another, and I won’t risk that it had not previously failed CAC!
Why wouldn’t I try, and if it failed, just keep that $4,000 66 Saint for my collection instead of turning right around and selling it for a loss? As I stated above, while it’s perfectly fine for other collectors to choose to have coins in their collection that don’t merit CAC stickers, I personally choose coins for my collection that are solid for their grade in the opinion of CAC, and have not had surface treatments that apparently are acceptable to the TPG’s that are not acceptable to CAC.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
Although I don't know and don't always agree with @jmlanzaf I want to sincerely thank him for his efforts to speak the truth and correct the large volume of incorrect information continually posted here. It's become obvious that certain posters do not bother to check the accuracy of their statements and accusations. One can only wonder what their objectives are and why they refuse to accept indisputable facts and continue attempting to raise doubts in peoples minds regarding CACG.
Perhaps the best we can do is continue to prove their statements are not accurate by presenting the facts and try to dispel their gloom and doom predictions. J/A, Ron, John, and the CAC & CACG customer support teams are working very hard to continue providing the best grading service.
@shish said:
Although I don't know and don't always agree with @jmlanzaf I want to sincerely thank him for his efforts to speak the truth and correct the large volume of incorrect information continually posted here. It's become obvious that certain posters do not bother to check the accuracy of their statements and accusations. One can only wonder what their objectives are and why they refuse to accept indisputable facts and continue attempting to raise doubts in peoples minds regarding CACG.
Perhaps the best we can do is continue to prove their statements are not accurate by presenting the facts and try to dispel their gloom and doom predictions. J/A, Ron, John, and the CAC & CACG customer support teams are working very hard to continue providing the best grading service.
I would worry if anyone always agreed with me. I don't always agree with myself. 😀 But, thank you.
@ElmerFusterpuck said:
"Knock knock."
"Who's there?
"A lustrous MS-66 1907 Saint Gaudens $20"
"Got a sticker or wearing a CACG outfit?"
"Nope."
"Not interested. Go away, dreck!"
Make fun, but:
So WHY does that 66 Saint NOT have a sticker? Do you really believe at that price point the seller didn't want to spend the few dollars it would cost to see if it merits a CAC sticker? Chances are super high it failed, as you imply. But WHY did it fail?
Is it not solid for the grade in the opinion of CAC?
Is it overgraded in the opinion of CAC?
Are there rubs (WEAR) on the high points?
Were "surface treatments" applied that are unacceptable to CAC but might be acceptable to the TPG's?
Make fun, but the real question is, do YOU want to have your collection consist of a lot of coins, especially high value ones like a 66 Saint, that have "YES" answers to one or more of those four questions above? I don't, and I know many other collectors don't either. On the other hand, to save money, some collectors don't mind at all having coins that are not solid for the grade, or overgraded, or are graded MS but have rubs on the high points, or have had negative surface treatments.
I would think that each collector would want to make informed decisions about the quality of the coins they want in their collection. There is no right or wrong.
Steve
Chances are higher than you'd want to admit that it has never been to CAC yet.
So even if the seller/consignor chose to not spend the few dollars needed on a $4,000 coin to have it sticker and then potentially sell for an extra $1,000 to $1,500+ more, I’m not willing to take the chance that it will sticker if I bought it, for TWO reasons:
A small percentage of MS66 Saints merit a CAC sticker.
I still believe the vast majority of 66 Saints that are FOR SALE have been to CAC and failed, for one reason or another, and I won’t risk that it had not previously failed CAC!
Why wouldn’t I try, and if it failed, just keep that $4,000 66 Saint for my collection instead of turning right around and selling it for a loss? As I stated above, while it’s perfectly fine for other collectors to choose to have coins in their collection that don’t merit CAC stickers, I personally choose coins for my collection that are solid for their grade in the opinion of CAC, and have not had surface treatments that apparently are acceptable to the TPG’s that are not acceptable to CAC.
Steve
I'm not sure why anyone would argue with your personal choice.
Even if there is a 90% chance that the coin has NOT been to CAC, the safer route is to assume that it has. Why do I want to assume more risk than I need to unless it is one of those very few coins that are truly scarce? If other people prefer to gamble (unless it's VB), that's their right and their choice.
@winesteven said:
So WHY does that 66 Saint NOT have a sticker? Do you really believe at that price point the seller didn't want to >spend the few dollars it would cost to see if it merits a CAC sticker? Chances are super high it failed, as you imply.
That sounds logical...but if this is true of Saints in particular and most submitted coins in general....then that early-2009 85% sticker rate that JA said should be much, much lower.....RIGHT ?
If the current CAC sticker rate for 2023 and a few earlier years was much much lower than that 85%, I think your statement is correct, WineSteven. Of course, the overall sticker rate for Saints from JA/CAC was always lower than for other series, I have been told.
Does anybody know what the recent CAC sticker rate has been ?
@DisneyFan said:
In conversation with JA at FUN, John stated about 40% pass.
Thanks, DF....I would say while that is clearly LOWER...it's to be expected after the rush years of 2008-2020 or so.
But it's clearly not 5% or 10% where the odds are stacked against you.
So...my feeling is that while ASSUMING a coin was submitted to CAC but failed to sticker is not unreasonable, there's still a good chance it never was submitted. Assign whatever odds you want, but it would clearly be much more definitive, IMO, if the sticker rate was much lower than that 40% rate.
I think it is a safe assumption that if a non CAC stickered saint is being auctioned through one of the well known auction houses that it has previously failed sticker review.
@Catbert said:
I think it is a safe assumption that if a non CAC stickered saint is being auctioned through one of the well known auction houses that it has previously failed sticker review.
I tend to agree, but I would add a stipulation that it be a saint with a moderate spread between CAC and non. For instance, a common date 64 might only have $100 retail difference with CAC, some guys might not bother with those. Different story with 66, where the spread is a minimum of $1500.
Here's what I believe is your BIG error. @GoldFinger1969 . While I agree with the 40% or so sticker rate (but is NOT just for 2023, but probably for the past 10 years or so), that's talking about all coin submissions to CAC in general. Apparently due to surface treatments, gold in general has a much lower sticker rate. How much? Let's look at two years of common dates for MS66 Saints, which is the subject of this thread:
1924 - PCGS Pop of MS66 and a few MS66+ Saints is 10,784. (we include the + Saints, since the number of CAC stickers is not broken down by those with and without the plus). NGC has 6,241 including a few star and plus 66's). Overall total pop = 17,025. How many have CAC stickers? ONLY 752. That's a measly 4.4%. Yes, some coins have been submitted more than once, but we're still looking at a VERY low % of 66 Saints meriting a CAC sticker!
1927 - PCGS pop = 7,262 including a few pluses, NGC pop = 3,108 including a few stars and pluses. Total pop = 10,370. How many of those merit a CAC sticker? Only 631 (6.1%).
PCGS Price Guide has the 1924 and 1927 Saints at $4,250 each. CAC Price Guide has it as $5,810 for the 1924 and $6,390 for the 1927. While you (and others) may not want to pay that differential, can you see WHY that differential is there?
So I ask again - Do you think that there's a good chance a non- stickered 66 Saint in auction has not been submitted, and what do YOU think the odds are of a nice NON stickered 66 Saint of getting a sticker? For me, that risk is too great!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
Here's what I believe is your BIG error. @GoldFinger1969 . While I agree with the 40% or so sticker rate (but is NOT just for 2023, but probably for the past 10 years or so), that's talking about all coin submissions to CAC in general. Apparently due to surface treatments, gold in general has a much lower sticker rate. How much? Let's look at two years of common dates for MS66 Saints, which is the subject of this thread:
1924 - PCGS Pop of 66 and a few 66+ Saints is 10,784. (we include the + Saints, since the number of CAC stickers is not broken down by those with and without the plus). NGC has 6,241 including a few star and plus 66's). Overall total pop = 17,025. How many have CAC stickers? ONLY 752. That's a measly 4.4%. Yes, some coins have been submitted more than once, but we're still looking at a VERY low % of 66 Saints meriting a CAC sticker!
1927 - PCGS pop = 7,262 including a few pluses, NGC pop = 3,108 including a few stars and pluses. Total pop = 10,370. How many of those merit a CAC sticker? Only 631 (6.1%).
PCGS Price Guide has the 1924 and 1927 Saints at $4,250 each. CAC Price Guide has it as $5,810 for the 1924 and $6,390 for the 1927. While you (and others) may not want to pay that differential, can't you see WHY that differential is there?
So I ask again - Do you think that there's a good chance a non- stickered 66 Saint in auction has not been submitted, and what do YOU think the odds are of a nice NON stickered 66 Saint has of getting a sticker? For me, that risk is too great!
Steve
Well spoken Steve, and a perfect data point illustrate strong premiums at the ms66 level.
@GoldFinger1969, Steve is correct in pointing out that the sticker rate is highly dependent on the series and grade. With that said, I’ll add a bit of empirical evidence but it really depends on who you ask.
There was a discussion about this on Facebook a few months ago. Several dealers claimed that their sticker rate was well over 50% for a long time, and as high as 60-75% with some submissions. Those same dealers opined that their approval rate had fallen into the 20-25% range as of late 2023. Almost any dealer you ask will state that it’s seemingly much more difficult to get a coin to sticker now than it ever was in the past. That could be attributed to multiple factors, one being that there’s obviously less fresh material to be sent, the other being that perhaps there was unintended subconscious tightening when CACG opened.
I've g0t the 6-coin 2021 Morgan/peace dollars in their OGP and have thought about getting them graded. The price seems to about the same if they are sent to NGC or CACG, I don't have a member ship to PCGS, so they are not being considered. I had thought to try and send them to get stickered, but the cost seems redundant too. I will eventually get them graded but will probably pass on the green bean.
USN & USAF retired 1971-1993
Successful Transactions with more than 100 Members
Comments
I think the stickering thing wb phased out anyway at some point in time - business efficiency & consistency. Ronnie pays strong for the CACG (nice and fresh he says) but a little less on the stickered (his table at shows). “Ya just dunno how long ago dey got graded. Seen some ugly toned, spotted ones - coulda been graded decades ago. When dey go bad in holder it’s game over. My CACG getting really good money on them. What’s really neat the green bean on slab too.”
I frequently disagree with this poster. But I don’t think he was stepping out on much of a limb in his prognostication that “ the stickering thing wb phased out anyway at some point in time.” In fact, I think that it would be a very safe bet with the “some point in time” qualifier.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Who’s Ronnie?
Sorry, I don’t know.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You asked my thoughts.
I agree with what others said above.
JA spent a considerable amount of time in Virginia working with the CACG graders to get everyone on the same page as best as possible - the CACG graders with each other, AND with the stickering team in NJ. The grading sets will help with that goal. Will they ALWAYS be in PERFECT agreement with each other? Absolutely not, as they are humans, and not machines. But it’s important and good that they recognize their goal is for CACG and CAC stickering to be using the SAME standards!
If you’d like my thoughts on other related issues, please feel free to ask.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Do we even begin to comprehend the costs of purchasing coins to make up a grading set? Not just multiple grades, but also multiple examples to cover the customary strikes (i.e. early Buffalo Nickels, middle years, later years, and final years)...
My prediction is that at some point - probably after multi-spectral ultra-high-resolution images and laser scans have been made - the coins will be resold at a profit BECAUSE they were part of the grading sets. Otherwise, I see seven figures of working capital tied up earning bupkis.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
I believe that was the fate that the PCGS Grading set met.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Very well articulated, Steve. It seems that some are ignoring the human aspect of this all. Even JA isn’t going to grade a coin the exact same every single time. You could give him 100 coins to grade, and after he’s done he has to grade those same 100 coins again and I would be very surprised if there wasn’t at least some variance with a few of them.
We can’t draw any meaningful conclusions from a couple instances where CAC and CACG weren’t in full agreement with each other, to do so would be a fools errand.
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
But that isn't the case, is it, right ?
CAC stickers would go on coins that were OK (A or B coins) for the grade given by PCGS or NGC. The sticker didn't take into account whether the INITIAL grading was done correctly -- right ?
The proof in the pudding is all these MS coins being downgraded to the AU sector. The presence of rub/wear/friction on high points which may have been overlooked or net-graded or minimized by a TPG and then still given a sticker by CAC...is NOT being overlooked by CACG today.
It IS the case. CAC doesn't sticker CACG coins. A PCGS 65 that wouldn't sticker is not a CACG 65.
It is unclear whether CAC would sticker any of the coins with rub, other than by accident. There's no pudding, much less proof. Show me all these stickered coins with rub.
Tied in with @jmlanzaf 's reply above, like he says, it IS the case! CAC stickering DID take into account if the initial grade was done correctly. as coins that CAC stickering felt were incorrectly graded FAILED getting a sticker! In your example of coins that CACG is now downgrading to AU due to rubs - those coins never got stickered because in the opinion of CAC the initial grading was incorrect!
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
"Knock knock."
"Who's there?
"A lustrous MS-66 1907 Saint Gaudens $20"
"Got a sticker or wearing a CACG outfit?"
"Nope."
"Not interested. Go away, dreck!"
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
Make fun, but:
So WHY does that 66 Saint NOT have a sticker? Do you really believe at that price point the seller didn't want to spend the few dollars it would cost to see if it merits a CAC sticker? Chances are super high it failed, as you imply. But WHY did it fail?
Make fun, but the real question is, do YOU want to have your collection consist of a lot of coins, especially high value ones like a 66 Saint, that have "YES" answers to one or more of those four questions above? I don't, and I know many other collectors don't either. On the other hand, to save money, some collectors don't mind at all having coins that are not solid for the grade, or overgraded, or are graded MS but have rubs on the high points, or have had negative surface treatments.
I would think that each collector would want to make informed decisions about the quality of the coins they want in their collection. There is no right or wrong.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Steve, in a very rare occurrence, I strongly disagree with something you wrote - in this case, in the first sentence of your last paragraph above. Many collectors don’t make informed decisions about the quality of the coins they want in their collection. They make uninformed ones.
Please note that my comments don’t necessarily have anything to do with CAC. They pertain to both graded and ungraded coins, with and without stickers.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thanks. I made an edit to the beginning of my last paragraph. My intent is that with an informed decision, it's OK if a collector chooses to save money by purchasing coins that don't have stickers, or even raw coins. That's OK.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
The labels already have a CAC type sticker on the label that is a little smaller than regular CAC stickers. The slabs have flat edges and are wider than PCGS labs. They do fit well in the 10 coin slab boxes you can get on eBay (but not in PCGS boxes as already mentioned).
OK, thanks Steve, JMLanz, & Others.....I am reading that near-40 page thread on CACG grading but have only made it trhough about half.
For some reason, I thought I had read that CAC-stickered coins were going down 1 grade and/or into the AU bucket. Must have been PCGS-only coins without the CAC sticker. My fault.
Thanks for clearing that up for me, sorry if I added to the confusion.
I'd like to split the difference between you find gentleman and agree with both of you... or disagree with both of you.
I don't think too many people are completely uninformed. I think the problem is partial information applied in a binary fashion. You take the number on the plastic, look at a number on the price guide and you arrive at a purchase/don't purchase decision. Other than the lower sight unseen price for widgets, neither the grade on the plastic or the number in the price guide is as definite as people tend to interpret numerical information.> @winesteven said:
I think you're both sort of right. While there are uninformed decisions, I think they are scarce. The more common problem is partially informed decisions. People can be slaves to the number on the slab and the price in the guide. That can cause a lot of mistakes.
>
That's really not a CAC sticker. It's their corporate logo. And, yes, it is rather confusing.
Usually agree but this time I don’t. Although I’ve come to respect the CAC opinion, I’ve seen plenty of coins I loved for the price / grade that didn’t have a sticker that had been sent in. I know you choose your words carefully but your message is clear. I’m good with both the sticker and no sticker, and I don’t look at those without as inferior**.
Friend of mine likes to say in our financial circles..."there is no such thing as bad bonds, only bad prices."
I would say the same thing about Saints or other coins that don't CAC sticker: at some price level, they become buys.
Just a question of WHERE.
I don’t think we disagree. Assuming a lovely coin was submitted to CAC and failed to get a sticker, my point in a collectors decision to buy that coin, is only to recognize there is a reason it failed! Maybe in the opinion of CAC it’s a “C” coin, or maybe it’s overgraded, or maybe there’s a rub on a high point, or maybe there was a surface treatment that is not acceptable to CAC but is acceptable to the TPG’s. Recognizing there IS a reason, but liking the eye appeal and other attributes, and then choosing to including it in one’s collection, is perfectly fine. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
May I refer you [OP] to the redundancy department of redundancy?
PVC is really a accidental cancer for coins and should not fall in the category of "surface treatments" which implies a deliberate action. The four reasons coins fail to CAC should be expanded to include:
That is not really a 5th category as described. No TPG will slab a coin with PVC.
At the very least, I’d change that to “No TPG will knowingly slab a coin with PVC.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Based on prior posts, it appears that someone may have had slabbed coins that CAC would not sticker due to a “tiny” amount of PVC, barely visible to the naked eye. Who knows what the “size” of the PVC was at the time of slabbing?
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
I have a bunch of Morgan's I had graded with PCGS.
I have not sent to CAC for grading. I suppose I should send them because the perceived notion would be that they didn't sticker should I ever decide to sell. I should get motivated to do this. I see on greysheet where they do bring a fair amount more money.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
PVC can be extremely difficult to see, it often requires special lighting conditions or extremely high magnification.. On another PCGS thread I posted the following:
On the CAC Forums, Bushmaster, who is an active participant, stated the most concise explanation of PVC I've read. This was under the PCGS Conservation topic and I wanted to share it.
"It is the age and the distribution of the plasticizer residue that largely determine whether or not acetone will effectively remove it.
The white haze type of PVC is usually successfully removed by acetone bath because it is distributed in a relatively thin and even layer across a coins surface.
With the passage of time, the white haze usually coalesces, effectively forming a thicker/deeper pool of gunk as opposed to haze.
Simultaneous with this thickening, the color usually turns green we are all familiar with. Once this coalescence has occurred the deposit becomes more stubborn and acetone may not work at all on it, or may require some physical coaxing (usually a cotton tipped swab or a rose thorn).
If left for years the green goo becomes denser, harder, and turns very dark (almost black) green. "
To put things in perspective, look at any coin you have in a 2x2 cardboard flip and assess it a grade. Remove it and then reassess that grade. CAC does not remove a single coin from an NCG or PCGS holder. So explain how accurate their"grading" is. Stickers are merely pyscological approach at convincing one to the reality. To pay the premium attached is why I'll not be adding any soon. But hey, to each their own. Collect what you like, think what you wish. It's your's and your's alone.
"CAC does not remove a single coin from an NCG or PCGS holder. So explain how accurate their"grading" is"- Huh?
Can you elaborate on the point youre trying to make?
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
The comment I responded to indicated that TPGs were tolerating PVC not missing it. But, yes, of course.
But you indicated that some TPGs were tolerating PVC. That is not correct. They may miss it. But none of them have an acceptable level of PVC.
I think he was trying to argue that CAC makes its decisions, while viewing coins in PCGS and NGC holders/plastic. And that as a result, they can't be as accurate as they should be to justify a premium for stickered coins.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Chances are higher than you'd want to admit that it has never been to CAC yet.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
To assert that CAC, or any TPG for that matter, can't do an accurate assessment of a grade through a clear plastic slab under magnification is well, malarkey. While you are correct that there is a premium for CAC, you would find that you do get it back on the back-end. I have also found that when showing coins to dealers at a show, they are more attentive to me when they see that my inventory is CAC endorsed.
I've seen several posts, threads, suggesting PCGS/NGC have a sticker program. The problem is it is so hard to get qualified graders and they are already spread thin with long wait times. I don't see this happening. If they hire new graders it should be to lower the stack of orders that keep piling up.
So even if the seller/consignor chose to not spend the few dollars needed on a $4,000 coin to have it sticker and then potentially sell for an extra $1,000 to $1,500+ more, I’m not willing to take the chance that it will sticker if I bought it, for TWO reasons:
Why wouldn’t I try, and if it failed, just keep that $4,000 66 Saint for my collection instead of turning right around and selling it for a loss? As I stated above, while it’s perfectly fine for other collectors to choose to have coins in their collection that don’t merit CAC stickers, I personally choose coins for my collection that are solid for their grade in the opinion of CAC, and have not had surface treatments that apparently are acceptable to the TPG’s that are not acceptable to CAC.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
BTW for the future of this and other discussions, please, please use the correct label
CAC - stickering operation in New Jersey
CACG - grading operation in Virginia
So up-thread, where
He's correct about CAC. However, the discussion about cross-overs would be CACG
THANKS!
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
Although I don't know and don't always agree with @jmlanzaf I want to sincerely thank him for his efforts to speak the truth and correct the large volume of incorrect information continually posted here. It's become obvious that certain posters do not bother to check the accuracy of their statements and accusations. One can only wonder what their objectives are and why they refuse to accept indisputable facts and continue attempting to raise doubts in peoples minds regarding CACG.
Perhaps the best we can do is continue to prove their statements are not accurate by presenting the facts and try to dispel their gloom and doom predictions. J/A, Ron, John, and the CAC & CACG customer support teams are working very hard to continue providing the best grading service.
I would worry if anyone always agreed with me. I don't always agree with myself. 😀 But, thank you.
I'm not sure why anyone would argue with your personal choice.
Even if there is a 90% chance that the coin has NOT been to CAC, the safer route is to assume that it has. Why do I want to assume more risk than I need to unless it is one of those very few coins that are truly scarce? If other people prefer to gamble (unless it's VB), that's their right and their choice.
That sounds logical...but if this is true of Saints in particular and most submitted coins in general....then that early-2009 85% sticker rate that JA said should be much, much lower.....RIGHT ?
If the current CAC sticker rate for 2023 and a few earlier years was much much lower than that 85%, I think your statement is correct, WineSteven. Of course, the overall sticker rate for Saints from JA/CAC was always lower than for other series, I have been told.
Does anybody know what the recent CAC sticker rate has been ?
In conversation with JA at FUN, John stated about 40% pass.
Thanks, DF....I would say while that is clearly LOWER...it's to be expected after the rush years of 2008-2020 or so.
But it's clearly not 5% or 10% where the odds are stacked against you.
So...my feeling is that while ASSUMING a coin was submitted to CAC but failed to sticker is not unreasonable, there's still a good chance it never was submitted. Assign whatever odds you want, but it would clearly be much more definitive, IMO, if the sticker rate was much lower than that 40% rate.
I think it is a safe assumption that if a non CAC stickered saint is being auctioned through one of the well known auction houses that it has previously failed sticker review.
I tend to agree, but I would add a stipulation that it be a saint with a moderate spread between CAC and non. For instance, a common date 64 might only have $100 retail difference with CAC, some guys might not bother with those. Different story with 66, where the spread is a minimum of $1500.
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
Here's what I believe is your BIG error. @GoldFinger1969 . While I agree with the 40% or so sticker rate (but is NOT just for 2023, but probably for the past 10 years or so), that's talking about all coin submissions to CAC in general. Apparently due to surface treatments, gold in general has a much lower sticker rate. How much? Let's look at two years of common dates for MS66 Saints, which is the subject of this thread:
1924 - PCGS Pop of MS66 and a few MS66+ Saints is 10,784. (we include the + Saints, since the number of CAC stickers is not broken down by those with and without the plus). NGC has 6,241 including a few star and plus 66's). Overall total pop = 17,025. How many have CAC stickers? ONLY 752. That's a measly 4.4%. Yes, some coins have been submitted more than once, but we're still looking at a VERY low % of 66 Saints meriting a CAC sticker!
1927 - PCGS pop = 7,262 including a few pluses, NGC pop = 3,108 including a few stars and pluses. Total pop = 10,370. How many of those merit a CAC sticker? Only 631 (6.1%).
PCGS Price Guide has the 1924 and 1927 Saints at $4,250 each. CAC Price Guide has it as $5,810 for the 1924 and $6,390 for the 1927. While you (and others) may not want to pay that differential, can you see WHY that differential is there?
So I ask again - Do you think that there's a good chance a non- stickered 66 Saint in auction has not been submitted, and what do YOU think the odds are of a nice NON stickered 66 Saint of getting a sticker? For me, that risk is too great!
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Well spoken Steve, and a perfect data point illustrate strong premiums at the ms66 level.
@GoldFinger1969, Steve is correct in pointing out that the sticker rate is highly dependent on the series and grade. With that said, I’ll add a bit of empirical evidence but it really depends on who you ask.
There was a discussion about this on Facebook a few months ago. Several dealers claimed that their sticker rate was well over 50% for a long time, and as high as 60-75% with some submissions. Those same dealers opined that their approval rate had fallen into the 20-25% range as of late 2023. Almost any dealer you ask will state that it’s seemingly much more difficult to get a coin to sticker now than it ever was in the past. That could be attributed to multiple factors, one being that there’s obviously less fresh material to be sent, the other being that perhaps there was unintended subconscious tightening when CACG opened.
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
I've g0t the 6-coin 2021 Morgan/peace dollars in their OGP and have thought about getting them graded. The price seems to about the same if they are sent to NGC or CACG, I don't have a member ship to PCGS, so they are not being considered. I had thought to try and send them to get stickered, but the cost seems redundant too. I will eventually get them graded but will probably pass on the green bean.
USN & USAF retired 1971-1993
Successful Transactions with more than 100 Members