Home U.S. Coin Forum

CAC Grading Commentary at FUN 2024

CatbertCatbert Posts: 6,468 ✭✭✭✭✭

During Scott Traver's facilitated panel discussion that involved David Hall, a question was raised by Hall to CACG Ron Drezewucki and John Butler - (paraphrased) "what problems do you see regarding how the major TPGs grade coins, give an example?" They immediately answered that Walker's that were graded MS64 that have rub/wear along the hip and leg should not be graded MS and that these coins would be graded AU58 at CACG.

Hall also commented that he did not see Standing Liberty Quarters being MS unless they had a fully rounded knee. This was also agreed to by the two CACG finalizers.

Am speculating that the Walker commentary was in direct response to the threads here regarding controversy on major TPG gem Walkers when graded by CACG getting an AU grade.

Food for thought.

"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
«1

Comments

  • davewesendavewesen Posts: 5,655 ✭✭✭✭✭

    depending on the specific WLH coin, some disagree whether the leg has 'rub' or just a weaker strike with nicks and color from unstruck planchet still seen. I am surely going to look close at CACG AU58 Walkers as many have decent price spread between AU58 and MS65.

  • Walkerguy21DWalkerguy21D Posts: 11,042 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It would be interesting to see what they think about this one:

    Successful BST transactions with 170 members. Recent: Tonedeaf, Shane6596, Piano1, Ikenefic, RG, PCGSPhoto, stman, Don'tTelltheWife, Boosibri, Ron1968, snowequities, VTchaser, jrt103, SurfinxHI, 78saen, bp777, FHC, RYK, JTHawaii, Opportunity, Kliao, bigtime36, skanderbeg, split37, thebigeng, acloco, Toninginthblood, OKCC, braddick, Coinflip, robcool, fastfreddie, tightbudget, DBSTrader2, nickelsciolist, relaxn, Eagle eye, soldi, silverman68, ElKevvo, sawyerjosh, Schmitz7, talkingwalnut2, konsole, sharkman987, sniocsu, comma, jesbroken, David1234, biosolar, Sullykerry, Moldnut, erwindoc, MichaelDixon, GotTheBug
  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,050 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Good for CACG sticking to its guns. I hope they continue to hold firm.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,170 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @cameonut2011 said:
    Good for CACG sticking to its guns. I hope they continue to hold firm.

    Agreed. As long as you know what the standard is and they are consistent in the application, I don't think there's a problem.

    To the OP, I very much doubt they saw the thread here. However, the thread here reflects some legitimate concern/ confusion and I'm sure they've received questions/complaints. After all, the coins posted here have possibly angry submitters.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,170 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @oih82w8 said:
    Why would a Walker, or any coin, with a rub on the knee, or any high point on a coin, be given a MS anything grade?

    You might want to see the prior thread on this forum where "cabinet friction: was discussed as one reason.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,170 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @wondercoin said:
    ‘’Walker's that were graded MS64 that have rub/wear along the hip and leg should not be graded MS and that these coins would be graded AU58 at CACG.’’

    If this is the case, why were they graded this way in the first place for DECADES by some or all (or even a few) of the very graders now potentially taking this very position? Is this just further proof of the “hired gun” reality of a “world class grader”? Basically “grade as you are told”.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Wondercoin.

    Agreed.

    It's also a little odd to hear David Hall opining in what TPGs are doing incorrectly since he was running one not so long ago. If he felt it was so wrong to grade SLQs that way, I'd like to know why he chose to grade SLQs that way.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,170 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 11, 2024 4:59AM

    @logger7 said:

    @wondercoin said:
    ‘’Walker's(sic) that were graded MS64 that have rub/wear along the hip and leg should not be graded MS and that these coins would be graded AU58 at CACG.’’

    If this is the case, why were they graded this way in the first place for DECADES by some or all (or even a few) of the very graders now potentially taking this very position? Is this just further proof of the “hired gun” reality of a “world class grader”? Basically “grade as you are told”.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Wondercoin.

    The mainstream grading companies know what they are doing. If a new company wants to adhere to supremely nitpicking, legalistic and frankly petty bright lines between AU and BU that's up to them; but the economic consequences will not be in their favor.

    It depends on what the marketplace decides. If a CACG AU58 sells for more than a PCGS 64/65, CACG will be the preferred plastic - at least at the time of sale.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 11,607 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Walkerguy21D said:
    Here’s the rest of the photo of the walker I posted above.
    If CACG or anyone else for that matter wants to claim it’s not mint state because of whatever they’re seeing on the hip, that’s there prerogative, but as it came from an original roll, it’s definitely uncirculated.

    I certainly wouldn’t want to have to assess the coin from that image.
    And none of us know its history prior to it going into an “original roll”.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • CuprinkorCuprinkor Posts: 192 ✭✭✭

    What about 1884-S Morgan Dollars in lower MS (60-63) grade holders?
    Especially those in major auctions?

  • dcarrdcarr Posts: 7,878 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Walkerguy21D said:
    Here’s the rest of the photo of the walker I posted above.
    If CACG or anyone else for that matter wants to claim it’s not mint state because of whatever they’re seeing on the hip, that’s there prerogative, but as it came from an original roll, it’s definitely uncirculated.

    What I see on the hip there is a somewhat weak strike which allows the pre-strike planchet texture and scrapes to show through. I don't see any "rub", so I would grade this one MS61 or 2 .

    I am also guessing that it is an "S" mint coin, due to the strike characteristics.

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

    Because the major TPG's invented market grading, that was the game we all became accustom to. Now CACG comes along and says that won't fly, if there's any rub on the leg of a Walker we're assigning AU 58 to it. OK, fair enough.
    What that tells me is to gobble up as many AU 58 Walkers as I can find in CACG plastic if I can get them at AU 58 money and let the crackouts begin. My suspicion is that the value of CACG AU 58 Walkers will explode once the market place knows to scoop. I still think that the hammer is where the free money will be at on all but the most common dates.

    If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
  • GoldFinger1969GoldFinger1969 Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 11, 2024 8:19AM

    @oih82w8 said:
    Why would a Walker, or any coin, with a rub on the knee, or any high point on a coin, be given a MS anything grade?

    Good question, I'll play Devil's Advocate:

    (1) It's only 1 high point, not multiple ones, so they're either forgiving (market grading/net grading) OR they think there's a possibility that the APPEARANCE of wear/rub MIGHT have been caused by something else (i.e., the Poor Strike High Point Theory).

    (2) Consistency....if you yank grading back to strict technical grading after decades of market grading, it's unfair to presently submitted coins.

    (3) The AU definition of wear is that the coin CIRCULATED. If this "wear" is from bag movement...handling decades ago...friction caused by sliding in-and-out of a velvet pouch in a SDB every couple of years....that's different than CIRCULATING in a commerce sort of way (coin register, pockets, being gripped multiple times, etc.).

    I think what is causing the problems here is the CHANGE not the actual grading per-se. What do sports atheletes say all the time -- they can live with how the refs/umps call a game, as long as it's CONSISTENT from start to finish. Don't call something a penalty or foul or ball in the early part of the game and then let it slide later on (except the NHL where it's understood that they "let them play" in the 3rd Period :) ).

  • Walkerguy21DWalkerguy21D Posts: 11,042 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yes, @dcarr , it is a ‘44S.
    And thank you for your assessment and seeing my point, in spite of the poor photography.

    Successful BST transactions with 170 members. Recent: Tonedeaf, Shane6596, Piano1, Ikenefic, RG, PCGSPhoto, stman, Don'tTelltheWife, Boosibri, Ron1968, snowequities, VTchaser, jrt103, SurfinxHI, 78saen, bp777, FHC, RYK, JTHawaii, Opportunity, Kliao, bigtime36, skanderbeg, split37, thebigeng, acloco, Toninginthblood, OKCC, braddick, Coinflip, robcool, fastfreddie, tightbudget, DBSTrader2, nickelsciolist, relaxn, Eagle eye, soldi, silverman68, ElKevvo, sawyerjosh, Schmitz7, talkingwalnut2, konsole, sharkman987, sniocsu, comma, jesbroken, David1234, biosolar, Sullykerry, Moldnut, erwindoc, MichaelDixon, GotTheBug
  • jkrkjkrk Posts: 945 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 11, 2024 9:05AM

    @dcarr said:

    @Walkerguy21D said:
    Here’s the rest of the photo of the walker I posted above.
    If CACG or anyone else for that matter wants to claim it’s not mint state because of whatever they’re seeing on the hip, that’s there prerogative, but as it came from an original roll, it’s definitely uncirculated.

    What I see on the hip there is a somewhat weak strike which allows the pre-strike planchet texture and scrapes to show through. I don't see any "rub", so I would grade this one MS61 or 2 .

    I am also guessing that it is an "S" mint coin, due to the strike characteristics.

    Show off!

    LOL

    Very impressive.

  • fathomfathom Posts: 1,493 ✭✭✭✭✭

    IMO probably the toughest grade by photo is AU58-MS lower grades. Not just Walkers, try it with CBH, $20 Lib.

  • FrankHFrankH Posts: 753 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Project Numismatics said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @wondercoin said:
    ‘’Walker's that were graded MS64 that have rub/wear along the hip and leg should not be graded MS and that these coins would be graded AU58 at CACG.’’

    If this is the case, why were they graded this way in the first place for DECADES by some or all (or even a few) of the very graders now potentially taking this very position? Is this just further proof of the “hired gun” reality of a “world class grader”? Basically “grade as you are told”.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Wondercoin.

    Agreed.

    It's also a little odd to hear David Hall opining in what TPGs are doing incorrectly since he was running one not so long ago. If he felt it was so wrong to grade SLQs that way, I'd like to know why he chose to grade SLQs that way.

    The major TPGs have been engaging in market grading up to this point which is an exercise in pricing coins not an exercise in technical grading.

    I think you both are well aware of this, so not sure why you are expressing confusion.

    The problem with CACG calling all the current PCGS/NGC AU58 - MS64 coins AU58 is that the price spread within the AU58 grade will be huge - some coins will look like the old PCGS MS64 and some will have very obvious wear. For a coin where the spread between 58 and 62/3/4 is huge, this will create collector confusion. Why is one dealer pricing their AU58 at $1,000 and the next dealer at $5,000 (e.g. 1934-S Peace $1).

    You say, "The major TPGs have been engaging in market grading up to this point which is an exercise in pricing coins not an exercise in technical grading."

    What other element besides pricing is today's "grading" used for?

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,170 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Project Numismatics said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @logger7 said:

    @wondercoin said:
    ‘’Walker's(sic) that were graded MS64 that have rub/wear along the hip and leg should not be graded MS and that these coins would be graded AU58 at CACG.’’

    If this is the case, why were they graded this way in the first place for DECADES by some or all (or even a few) of the very graders now potentially taking this very position? Is this just further proof of the “hired gun” reality of a “world class grader”? Basically “grade as you are told”.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Wondercoin.

    The mainstream grading companies know what they are doing. If a new company wants to adhere to supremely nitpicking, legalistic and frankly petty bright lines between AU and BU that's up to them; but the economic consequences will not be in their favor.

    It depends on what the marketplace decides. If a CACG AU58 sells for more than a PCGS 64/65, CACG will be the preferred plastic - at least at the time of sale.

    I don’t think that’s a safe assumption at all. Why do you that if a dealer prices a CACG 58 at the same price as a PCGS 64/5 that the collector would prefer the CACG 58? If I see two identical coins in a dealer inventory at the same price, I’m going to buy the nicer of the two - it might be the PCGS 64/65 (or not). If CACG 58 = PCGS 64/65, buyers should be indifferent on a sight unseen basis - why would CACG 58 be the preferred plastic over PCGS 64/65?

    I didn't make an assumption. I'm simply pointing out that the market will sort it out.

    @Project Numismatics said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @wondercoin said:
    ‘’Walker's that were graded MS64 that have rub/wear along the hip and leg should not be graded MS and that these coins would be graded AU58 at CACG.’’

    If this is the case, why were they graded this way in the first place for DECADES by some or all (or even a few) of the very graders now potentially taking this very position? Is this just further proof of the “hired gun” reality of a “world class grader”? Basically “grade as you are told”.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Wondercoin.

    Agreed.

    It's also a little odd to hear David Hall opining in what TPGs are doing incorrectly since he was running one not so long ago. If he felt it was so wrong to grade SLQs that way, I'd like to know why he chose to grade SLQs that way.

    The major TPGs have been engaging in market grading up to this point which is an exercise in pricing coins not an exercise in technical grading.

    I think you both are well aware of this, so not sure why you are expressing confusion.

    The problem with CACG calling all the current PCGS/NGC AU58 - MS64 coins AU58 is that the price spread within the AU58 grade will be huge - some coins will look like the old PCGS MS64 and some will have very obvious wear. For a coin where the spread between 58 and 62/3/4 is huge, this will create collector confusion. Why is one dealer pricing their AU58 at $1,000 and the next dealer at $5,000 (e.g. 1934-S Peace $1).

    I'm not expressing confusion nor, I think, is @Wondercoin. He's simply pointing out that the change in attitude by the same people indicates that the graders are "hired guns" who will grade according to any standard they are handed. I agreed with him.

    And in the case of David Hall, he could have implemented any standard he wanted. Yet he sounds like he chose one that he doesn't agree with. That emphasizes the fact that, perhaps, standards are just marketing ploys. That should concern you a little, market grading or not.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,170 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @GoldFinger1969 said:

    @oih82w8 said:
    Why would a Walker, or any coin, with a rub on the knee, or any high point on a coin, be given a MS anything grade?

    Good question, I'll play Devil's Advocate:

    (1) It's only 1 high point, not multiple ones, so they're either forgiving (market grading/net grading) OR they think there's a possibility that the APPEARANCE of wear/rub MIGHT have been caused by something else (i.e., the Poor Strike High Point Theory).

    (2) Consistency....if you yank grading back to strict technical grading after decades of market grading, it's unfair to presently submitted coins.

    (3) The AU definition of wear is that the coin CIRCULATED. If this "wear" is from bag movement...handling decades ago...friction caused by sliding in-and-out of a velvet pouch in a SDB every couple of years....that's different than CIRCULATING in a commerce sort of way (coin register, pockets, being gripped multiple times, etc.).

    I think what is causing the problems here is the CHANGE not the actual grading per-se. What do sports atheletes say all the time -- they can live with how the refs/umps call a game, as long as it's CONSISTENT from start to finish. Don't call something a penalty or foul or ball in the early part of the game and then let it slide later on (except the NHL where it's understood that they "let them play" in the 3rd Period :) ).

    It is not correct that AU means it literally circulated. Circulated refers to a state of preservation, not the actual history of the coin. It is possible for a coin to circulate in commerce and still be "mint state". It is also possible for a coin to never enter actual circulation and still be "circulated".

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,170 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @FrankH said:

    @Project Numismatics said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @wondercoin said:
    ‘’Walker's that were graded MS64 that have rub/wear along the hip and leg should not be graded MS and that these coins would be graded AU58 at CACG.’’

    If this is the case, why were they graded this way in the first place for DECADES by some or all (or even a few) of the very graders now potentially taking this very position? Is this just further proof of the “hired gun” reality of a “world class grader”? Basically “grade as you are told”.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Wondercoin.

    Agreed.

    It's also a little odd to hear David Hall opining in what TPGs are doing incorrectly since he was running one not so long ago. If he felt it was so wrong to grade SLQs that way, I'd like to know why he chose to grade SLQs that way.

    The major TPGs have been engaging in market grading up to this point which is an exercise in pricing coins not an exercise in technical grading.

    I think you both are well aware of this, so not sure why you are expressing confusion.

    The problem with CACG calling all the current PCGS/NGC AU58 - MS64 coins AU58 is that the price spread within the AU58 grade will be huge - some coins will look like the old PCGS MS64 and some will have very obvious wear. For a coin where the spread between 58 and 62/3/4 is huge, this will create collector confusion. Why is one dealer pricing their AU58 at $1,000 and the next dealer at $5,000 (e.g. 1934-S Peace $1).

    You say, "The major TPGs have been engaging in market grading up to this point which is an exercise in pricing coins not an exercise in technical grading."

    What other element besides pricing is today's "grading" used for?

    Bragging rights...

  • Project NumismaticsProject Numismatics Posts: 1,266 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 11, 2024 10:21AM

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @Project Numismatics said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @logger7 said:

    @wondercoin said:
    ‘’Walker's(sic) that were graded MS64 that have rub/wear along the hip and leg should not be graded MS and that these coins would be graded AU58 at CACG.’’

    If this is the case, why were they graded this way in the first place for DECADES by some or all (or even a few) of the very graders now potentially taking this very position? Is this just further proof of the “hired gun” reality of a “world class grader”? Basically “grade as you are told”.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Wondercoin.

    The mainstream grading companies know what they are doing. If a new company wants to adhere to supremely nitpicking, legalistic and frankly petty bright lines between AU and BU that's up to them; but the economic consequences will not be in their favor.

    It depends on what the marketplace decides. If a CACG AU58 sells for more than a PCGS 64/65, CACG will be the preferred plastic - at least at the time of sale.

    I don’t think that’s a safe assumption at all. Why do you that if a dealer prices a CACG 58 at the same price as a PCGS 64/5 that the collector would prefer the CACG 58? If I see two identical coins in a dealer inventory at the same price, I’m going to buy the nicer of the two - it might be the PCGS 64/65 (or not). If CACG 58 = PCGS 64/65, buyers should be indifferent on a sight unseen basis - why would CACG 58 be the preferred plastic over PCGS 64/65?

    I didn't make an assumption. I'm simply pointing out that the market will sort it out.

    @Project Numismatics said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @wondercoin said:
    ‘’Walker's that were graded MS64 that have rub/wear along the hip and leg should not be graded MS and that these coins would be graded AU58 at CACG.’’

    If this is the case, why were they graded this way in the first place for DECADES by some or all (or even a few) of the very graders now potentially taking this very position? Is this just further proof of the “hired gun” reality of a “world class grader”? Basically “grade as you are told”.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Wondercoin.

    Agreed.

    It's also a little odd to hear David Hall opining in what TPGs are doing incorrectly since he was running one not so long ago. If he felt it was so wrong to grade SLQs that way, I'd like to know why he chose to grade SLQs that way.

    The major TPGs have been engaging in market grading up to this point which is an exercise in pricing coins not an exercise in technical grading.

    I think you both are well aware of this, so not sure why you are expressing confusion.

    The problem with CACG calling all the current PCGS/NGC AU58 - MS64 coins AU58 is that the price spread within the AU58 grade will be huge - some coins will look like the old PCGS MS64 and some will have very obvious wear. For a coin where the spread between 58 and 62/3/4 is huge, this will create collector confusion. Why is one dealer pricing their AU58 at $1,000 and the next dealer at $5,000 (e.g. 1934-S Peace $1).

    I'm not expressing confusion nor, I think, is @Wondercoin. He's simply pointing out that the change in attitude by the same people indicates that the graders are "hired guns" who will grade according to any standard they are handed. I agreed with him.

    And in the case of David Hall, he could have implemented any standard he wanted. Yet he sounds like he chose one that he doesn't agree with. That emphasizes the fact that, perhaps, standards are just marketing ploys. That should concern you a little, market grading or not.

    You did make an assumption: "If a CACG AU58 sells for more than a PCGS 64/65, CACG will be the preferred plastic - at least at the time of sale." Your assumption is that if a 58 sells for more than a 64/65 that CACG will be preferred.

    It does get tiresome that when challenged, you have a tendency to claim that other have somehow misread the plain text your posts.

  • coastaljerseyguycoastaljerseyguy Posts: 1,196 ✭✭✭✭✭

    One of the better recent posts. Some great discussion and learning.
    Thanks for starting post @Catbert

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 11,607 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Project Numismatics said:
    @jmlanzaf said:

    @Project Numismatics said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @logger7 said:

    @wondercoin said:
    ‘’Walker's(sic) that were graded MS64 that have rub/wear along the hip and leg should not be graded MS and that these coins would be graded AU58 at CACG.’’

    If this is the case, why were they graded this way in the first place for DECADES by some or all (or even a few) of the very graders now potentially taking this very position? Is this just further proof of the “hired gun” reality of a “world class grader”? Basically “grade as you are told”.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Wondercoin.

    The mainstream grading companies know what they are doing. If a new company wants to adhere to supremely nitpicking, legalistic and frankly petty bright lines between AU and BU that's up to them; but the economic consequences will not be in their favor.

    It depends on what the marketplace decides. If a CACG AU58 sells for more than a PCGS 64/65, CACG will be the preferred plastic - at least at the time of sale.

    I don’t think that’s a safe assumption at all. Why do you that if a dealer prices a CACG 58 at the same price as a PCGS 64/5 that the collector would prefer the CACG 58? If I see two identical coins in a dealer inventory at the same price, I’m going to buy the nicer of the two - it might be the PCGS 64/65 (or not). If CACG 58 = PCGS 64/65, buyers should be indifferent on a sight unseen basis - why would CACG 58 be the preferred plastic over PCGS 64/65?

    I didn't make an assumption. I'm simply pointing out that the market will sort it out.

    @Project Numismatics said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @wondercoin said:
    ‘’Walker's that were graded MS64 that have rub/wear along the hip and leg should not be graded MS and that these coins would be graded AU58 at CACG.’’

    If this is the case, why were they graded this way in the first place for DECADES by some or all (or even a few) of the very graders now potentially taking this very position? Is this just further proof of the “hired gun” reality of a “world class grader”? Basically “grade as you are told”.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Wondercoin.

    Agreed.

    It's also a little odd to hear David Hall opining in what TPGs are doing incorrectly since he was running one not so long ago. If he felt it was so wrong to grade SLQs that way, I'd like to know why he chose to grade SLQs that way.

    The major TPGs have been engaging in market grading up to this point which is an exercise in pricing coins not an exercise in technical grading.

    I think you both are well aware of this, so not sure why you are expressing confusion.

    The problem with CACG calling all the current PCGS/NGC AU58 - MS64 coins AU58 is that the price spread within the AU58 grade will be huge - some coins will look like the old PCGS MS64 and some will have very obvious wear. For a coin where the spread between 58 and 62/3/4 is huge, this will create collector confusion. Why is one dealer pricing their AU58 at $1,000 and the next dealer at $5,000 (e.g. 1934-S Peace $1).

    I'm not expressing confusion nor, I think, is @Wondercoin. He's simply pointing out that the change in attitude by the same people indicates that the graders are "hired guns" who will grade according to any standard they are handed. I agreed with him.

    And in the case of David Hall, he could have implemented any standard he wanted. Yet he sounds like he chose one that he doesn't agree with. That emphasizes the fact that, perhaps, standards are just marketing ploys. That should concern you a little, market grading or not.

    You did make an assumption: "If a CACG AU58 sells for more than a PCGS 64/65, CACG will be the preferred plastic - at least at the time of sale." Your assumption is that if a 58 sells for more than a 64/65 that CACG will be preferred.

    It does get tiresome that when challenged, you have a tendency to claim that other have somehow misread the plain text your posts.

    The plain text in the post you quoted included “at least at the time of sale”.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • FredSFredS Posts: 59 ✭✭✭
    edited January 11, 2024 10:37AM

    So what happens if the rubbed Walker is in a 64 holder with a sticker, and they want to cross to CACG? Is that not supposed to be an automatic cross?

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,170 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Project Numismatics said:
    @jmlanzaf said:

    @Project Numismatics said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @logger7 said:

    @wondercoin said:
    ‘’Walker's(sic) that were graded MS64 that have rub/wear along the hip and leg should not be graded MS and that these coins would be graded AU58 at CACG.’’

    If this is the case, why were they graded this way in the first place for DECADES by some or all (or even a few) of the very graders now potentially taking this very position? Is this just further proof of the “hired gun” reality of a “world class grader”? Basically “grade as you are told”.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Wondercoin.

    The mainstream grading companies know what they are doing. If a new company wants to adhere to supremely nitpicking, legalistic and frankly petty bright lines between AU and BU that's up to them; but the economic consequences will not be in their favor.

    It depends on what the marketplace decides. If a CACG AU58 sells for more than a PCGS 64/65, CACG will be the preferred plastic - at least at the time of sale.

    I don’t think that’s a safe assumption at all. Why do you that if a dealer prices a CACG 58 at the same price as a PCGS 64/5 that the collector would prefer the CACG 58? If I see two identical coins in a dealer inventory at the same price, I’m going to buy the nicer of the two - it might be the PCGS 64/65 (or not). If CACG 58 = PCGS 64/65, buyers should be indifferent on a sight unseen basis - why would CACG 58 be the preferred plastic over PCGS 64/65?

    I didn't make an assumption. I'm simply pointing out that the market will sort it out.

    @Project Numismatics said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @wondercoin said:
    ‘’Walker's that were graded MS64 that have rub/wear along the hip and leg should not be graded MS and that these coins would be graded AU58 at CACG.’’

    If this is the case, why were they graded this way in the first place for DECADES by some or all (or even a few) of the very graders now potentially taking this very position? Is this just further proof of the “hired gun” reality of a “world class grader”? Basically “grade as you are told”.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Wondercoin.

    Agreed.

    It's also a little odd to hear David Hall opining in what TPGs are doing incorrectly since he was running one not so long ago. If he felt it was so wrong to grade SLQs that way, I'd like to know why he chose to grade SLQs that way.

    The major TPGs have been engaging in market grading up to this point which is an exercise in pricing coins not an exercise in technical grading.

    I think you both are well aware of this, so not sure why you are expressing confusion.

    The problem with CACG calling all the current PCGS/NGC AU58 - MS64 coins AU58 is that the price spread within the AU58 grade will be huge - some coins will look like the old PCGS MS64 and some will have very obvious wear. For a coin where the spread between 58 and 62/3/4 is huge, this will create collector confusion. Why is one dealer pricing their AU58 at $1,000 and the next dealer at $5,000 (e.g. 1934-S Peace $1).

    I'm not expressing confusion nor, I think, is @Wondercoin. He's simply pointing out that the change in attitude by the same people indicates that the graders are "hired guns" who will grade according to any standard they are handed. I agreed with him.

    And in the case of David Hall, he could have implemented any standard he wanted. Yet he sounds like he chose one that he doesn't agree with. That emphasizes the fact that, perhaps, standards are just marketing ploys. That should concern you a little, market grading or not.

    You did make an assumption: "If a CACG AU58 sells for more than a PCGS 64/65, CACG will be the preferred plastic - at least at the time of sale." Your assumption is that if a 58 sells for more than a 64/65 that CACG will be preferred.

    It does get tiresome that when challenged, you have a tendency to claim that other have somehow misread the plain text your posts.

    That's not really an assumption. People will put it in the plastic that yields the best price. Auction houses would cross the coins, with permission, in the same way that they send coins out for CAC. I specified "at the time of sale" for a reason. Because, for example, people not selling might prefer PCGS for registry reasons or even to simply have the same holders for all of their coins.

    Note also that I said "time of sale" not "time of purchase".

    So, yes, you are slightly misreading or misunderstanding what I wrote. That's fine, but it would be more polite to simply ask for clarification rather than making some kind of criticism.

  • coastaljerseyguycoastaljerseyguy Posts: 1,196 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think what is causing the problems here is the CHANGE not the actual grading per-se. What do sports athletes say all the time -- they can live with how the refs/umps call a game, as long as it's CONSISTENT from start to finish. Don't call something a penalty or foul or ball in the early part of the game and then let it slide later on.

    Good analogy and almost accurate. In baseball, Ump Angel Hernandez was consistently wrong and everyone hated him, lol. Also they change umps game to game, so similar to our TPGs, there are differences in how each evaluate. There is no consistency with humans, and probably can not expect any here. The market will decide who they like. I expect the higher end collectors will follow CACG for auction big dollar items. With sight seen, there is a level playing field unless you're just after grades or are not experienced with nuances of grading AU vs MS.

  • Project NumismaticsProject Numismatics Posts: 1,266 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @Project Numismatics said:
    @jmlanzaf said:

    @Project Numismatics said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @logger7 said:

    @wondercoin said:
    ‘’Walker's(sic) that were graded MS64 that have rub/wear along the hip and leg should not be graded MS and that these coins would be graded AU58 at CACG.’’

    If this is the case, why were they graded this way in the first place for DECADES by some or all (or even a few) of the very graders now potentially taking this very position? Is this just further proof of the “hired gun” reality of a “world class grader”? Basically “grade as you are told”.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Wondercoin.

    The mainstream grading companies know what they are doing. If a new company wants to adhere to supremely nitpicking, legalistic and frankly petty bright lines between AU and BU that's up to them; but the economic consequences will not be in their favor.

    It depends on what the marketplace decides. If a CACG AU58 sells for more than a PCGS 64/65, CACG will be the preferred plastic - at least at the time of sale.

    I don’t think that’s a safe assumption at all. Why do you that if a dealer prices a CACG 58 at the same price as a PCGS 64/5 that the collector would prefer the CACG 58? If I see two identical coins in a dealer inventory at the same price, I’m going to buy the nicer of the two - it might be the PCGS 64/65 (or not). If CACG 58 = PCGS 64/65, buyers should be indifferent on a sight unseen basis - why would CACG 58 be the preferred plastic over PCGS 64/65?

    I didn't make an assumption. I'm simply pointing out that the market will sort it out.

    @Project Numismatics said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @wondercoin said:
    ‘’Walker's that were graded MS64 that have rub/wear along the hip and leg should not be graded MS and that these coins would be graded AU58 at CACG.’’

    If this is the case, why were they graded this way in the first place for DECADES by some or all (or even a few) of the very graders now potentially taking this very position? Is this just further proof of the “hired gun” reality of a “world class grader”? Basically “grade as you are told”.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Wondercoin.

    Agreed.

    It's also a little odd to hear David Hall opining in what TPGs are doing incorrectly since he was running one not so long ago. If he felt it was so wrong to grade SLQs that way, I'd like to know why he chose to grade SLQs that way.

    The major TPGs have been engaging in market grading up to this point which is an exercise in pricing coins not an exercise in technical grading.

    I think you both are well aware of this, so not sure why you are expressing confusion.

    The problem with CACG calling all the current PCGS/NGC AU58 - MS64 coins AU58 is that the price spread within the AU58 grade will be huge - some coins will look like the old PCGS MS64 and some will have very obvious wear. For a coin where the spread between 58 and 62/3/4 is huge, this will create collector confusion. Why is one dealer pricing their AU58 at $1,000 and the next dealer at $5,000 (e.g. 1934-S Peace $1).

    I'm not expressing confusion nor, I think, is @Wondercoin. He's simply pointing out that the change in attitude by the same people indicates that the graders are "hired guns" who will grade according to any standard they are handed. I agreed with him.

    And in the case of David Hall, he could have implemented any standard he wanted. Yet he sounds like he chose one that he doesn't agree with. That emphasizes the fact that, perhaps, standards are just marketing ploys. That should concern you a little, market grading or not.

    You did make an assumption: "If a CACG AU58 sells for more than a PCGS 64/65, CACG will be the preferred plastic - at least at the time of sale." Your assumption is that if a 58 sells for more than a 64/65 that CACG will be preferred.

    It does get tiresome that when challenged, you have a tendency to claim that other have somehow misread the plain text your posts.

    The plain text in the post you quoted included “at least at the time of sale”.

    Mark, you have to compare apples to apples. It's entirely too early to say that if 58 = 65, that collectors will prefer CACG.

    The comparison of CACG and PCGS cross should be apples to apples.

    The value of a TPG is in consistency (not conservatism or liberalism) because consistency is what facilitates trading based on photos and/or sight unseen. If an AU58 1934-S Peace dollar in a CACG holder could equate to anything from an AU58 to an ~MS63 at PCGS, how do I get comfortable bidding? The value could be $1,000 to $5,000+ in today's market.

    I get it, I love CAC too. I highly prefer stickered coins and CAC has added a ton of value and reassurance in the market. That doesn't mean that CACG is going to dominate the market or be successful. There is a lot of criticism and confusion in the market right now. Very experienced veterans of the market are submitting coins with disappointing results. It remains to be seen how the average collector will respond. For example, I am skeptical collectors will pay today's straight-grade money for all of the PCGS/NGC coins that are coming back in CACG details holders.

  • Project NumismaticsProject Numismatics Posts: 1,266 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    That's fine, but it would be more polite to simply ask for clarification rather than making some kind of criticism.

    I can agree to this part - apologies sir.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 11,607 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Project Numismatics said:

    @MFeld said:

    @Project Numismatics said:
    @jmlanzaf said:

    @Project Numismatics said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @logger7 said:

    @wondercoin said:
    ‘’Walker's(sic) that were graded MS64 that have rub/wear along the hip and leg should not be graded MS and that these coins would be graded AU58 at CACG.’’

    If this is the case, why were they graded this way in the first place for DECADES by some or all (or even a few) of the very graders now potentially taking this very position? Is this just further proof of the “hired gun” reality of a “world class grader”? Basically “grade as you are told”.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Wondercoin.

    The mainstream grading companies know what they are doing. If a new company wants to adhere to supremely nitpicking, legalistic and frankly petty bright lines between AU and BU that's up to them; but the economic consequences will not be in their favor.

    It depends on what the marketplace decides. If a CACG AU58 sells for more than a PCGS 64/65, CACG will be the preferred plastic - at least at the time of sale.

    I don’t think that’s a safe assumption at all. Why do you that if a dealer prices a CACG 58 at the same price as a PCGS 64/5 that the collector would prefer the CACG 58? If I see two identical coins in a dealer inventory at the same price, I’m going to buy the nicer of the two - it might be the PCGS 64/65 (or not). If CACG 58 = PCGS 64/65, buyers should be indifferent on a sight unseen basis - why would CACG 58 be the preferred plastic over PCGS 64/65?

    I didn't make an assumption. I'm simply pointing out that the market will sort it out.

    @Project Numismatics said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @wondercoin said:
    ‘’Walker's that were graded MS64 that have rub/wear along the hip and leg should not be graded MS and that these coins would be graded AU58 at CACG.’’

    If this is the case, why were they graded this way in the first place for DECADES by some or all (or even a few) of the very graders now potentially taking this very position? Is this just further proof of the “hired gun” reality of a “world class grader”? Basically “grade as you are told”.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Wondercoin.

    Agreed.

    It's also a little odd to hear David Hall opining in what TPGs are doing incorrectly since he was running one not so long ago. If he felt it was so wrong to grade SLQs that way, I'd like to know why he chose to grade SLQs that way.

    The major TPGs have been engaging in market grading up to this point which is an exercise in pricing coins not an exercise in technical grading.

    I think you both are well aware of this, so not sure why you are expressing confusion.

    The problem with CACG calling all the current PCGS/NGC AU58 - MS64 coins AU58 is that the price spread within the AU58 grade will be huge - some coins will look like the old PCGS MS64 and some will have very obvious wear. For a coin where the spread between 58 and 62/3/4 is huge, this will create collector confusion. Why is one dealer pricing their AU58 at $1,000 and the next dealer at $5,000 (e.g. 1934-S Peace $1).

    I'm not expressing confusion nor, I think, is @Wondercoin. He's simply pointing out that the change in attitude by the same people indicates that the graders are "hired guns" who will grade according to any standard they are handed. I agreed with him.

    And in the case of David Hall, he could have implemented any standard he wanted. Yet he sounds like he chose one that he doesn't agree with. That emphasizes the fact that, perhaps, standards are just marketing ploys. That should concern you a little, market grading or not.

    You did make an assumption: "If a CACG AU58 sells for more than a PCGS 64/65, CACG will be the preferred plastic - at least at the time of sale." Your assumption is that if a 58 sells for more than a 64/65 that CACG will be preferred.

    It does get tiresome that when challenged, you have a tendency to claim that other have somehow misread the plain text your posts.

    The plain text in the post you quoted included “at least at the time of sale”.

    Mark, you have to compare apples to apples. It's entirely too early to say that if 58 = 65, that collectors will prefer CACG.

    The comparison of CACG and PCGS cross should be apples to apples.

    The value of a TPG is in consistency (not conservatism or liberalism) because consistency is what facilitates trading based on photos and/or sight unseen. If an AU58 1934-S Peace dollar in a CACG holder could equate to anything from an AU58 to an ~MS63 at PCGS, how do I get comfortable bidding? The value could be $1,000 to $5,000+ in today's market.

    I get it, I llove CAC too. I highly prefer stickered coins and CAC has added a ton of value and reassurance in the market. That doesn't mean that CACG is going to dominate the market or be successful. There is a lot of criticism and confusion in the market right now. Very experienced veterans of the market are submitting coins with disappointing results. It remains to be seen how the average collector will respond. For example, I am skeptical collectors will pay today's straight-grade money for all of the PCGS/NGC coins that are coming back in CACG details holders.

    The comment made by @jmlanzaf wasn’t as broad as you’re taking to to be. As I mentioned previously, he included the words “at least at the time of sale”.

    I wholeheartedly agree about consistency. And while I have my own guesses, I’m not making any assumptions about the future success of CACG.

    I also think that most of the current criticism and confusion will dissipate. It’s likely not nearly as pervasive as one would think from reading posts here.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,170 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Project Numismatics said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    That's fine, but it would be more polite to simply ask for clarification rather than making some kind of criticism.

    I can agree to this part - apologies sir.

    It's all good, we're still forum friends.

  • Manifest_DestinyManifest_Destiny Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @DollarAfterDollar said:
    Because the major TPG's invented market grading, that was the game we all became accustom to. Now CACG comes along and says that won't fly, if there's any rub on the leg of a Walker we're assigning AU 58 to it. OK, fair enough.
    What that tells me is to gobble up as many AU 58 Walkers as I can find in CACG plastic if I can get them at AU 58 money and let the crackouts begin. My suspicion is that the value of CACG AU 58 Walkers will explode once the market place knows to scoop. I still think that the hammer is where the free money will be at on all but the most common dates.

    Gresham's Slab.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,170 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 11, 2024 11:36AM

    @MFeld said:

    @Project Numismatics said:

    @MFeld said:

    @Project Numismatics said:
    @jmlanzaf said:

    @Project Numismatics said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @logger7 said:

    @wondercoin said:
    ‘’Walker's(sic) that were graded MS64 that have rub/wear along the hip and leg should not be graded MS and that these coins would be graded AU58 at CACG.’’

    If this is the case, why were they graded this way in the first place for DECADES by some or all (or even a few) of the very graders now potentially taking this very position? Is this just further proof of the “hired gun” reality of a “world class grader”? Basically “grade as you are told”.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Wondercoin.

    The mainstream grading companies know what they are doing. If a new company wants to adhere to supremely nitpicking, legalistic and frankly petty bright lines between AU and BU that's up to them; but the economic consequences will not be in their favor.

    It depends on what the marketplace decides. If a CACG AU58 sells for more than a PCGS 64/65, CACG will be the preferred plastic - at least at the time of sale.

    I don’t think that’s a safe assumption at all. Why do you that if a dealer prices a CACG 58 at the same price as a PCGS 64/5 that the collector would prefer the CACG 58? If I see two identical coins in a dealer inventory at the same price, I’m going to buy the nicer of the two - it might be the PCGS 64/65 (or not). If CACG 58 = PCGS 64/65, buyers should be indifferent on a sight unseen basis - why would CACG 58 be the preferred plastic over PCGS 64/65?

    I didn't make an assumption. I'm simply pointing out that the market will sort it out.

    @Project Numismatics said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @wondercoin said:
    ‘’Walker's that were graded MS64 that have rub/wear along the hip and leg should not be graded MS and that these coins would be graded AU58 at CACG.’’

    If this is the case, why were they graded this way in the first place for DECADES by some or all (or even a few) of the very graders now potentially taking this very position? Is this just further proof of the “hired gun” reality of a “world class grader”? Basically “grade as you are told”.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Wondercoin.

    Agreed.

    It's also a little odd to hear David Hall opining in what TPGs are doing incorrectly since he was running one not so long ago. If he felt it was so wrong to grade SLQs that way, I'd like to know why he chose to grade SLQs that way.

    The major TPGs have been engaging in market grading up to this point which is an exercise in pricing coins not an exercise in technical grading.

    I think you both are well aware of this, so not sure why you are expressing confusion.

    The problem with CACG calling all the current PCGS/NGC AU58 - MS64 coins AU58 is that the price spread within the AU58 grade will be huge - some coins will look like the old PCGS MS64 and some will have very obvious wear. For a coin where the spread between 58 and 62/3/4 is huge, this will create collector confusion. Why is one dealer pricing their AU58 at $1,000 and the next dealer at $5,000 (e.g. 1934-S Peace $1).

    I'm not expressing confusion nor, I think, is @Wondercoin. He's simply pointing out that the change in attitude by the same people indicates that the graders are "hired guns" who will grade according to any standard they are handed. I agreed with him.

    And in the case of David Hall, he could have implemented any standard he wanted. Yet he sounds like he chose one that he doesn't agree with. That emphasizes the fact that, perhaps, standards are just marketing ploys. That should concern you a little, market grading or not.

    You did make an assumption: "If a CACG AU58 sells for more than a PCGS 64/65, CACG will be the preferred plastic - at least at the time of sale." Your assumption is that if a 58 sells for more than a 64/65 that CACG will be preferred.

    It does get tiresome that when challenged, you have a tendency to claim that other have somehow misread the plain text your posts.

    The plain text in the post you quoted included “at least at the time of sale”.

    Mark, you have to compare apples to apples. It's entirely too early to say that if 58 = 65, that collectors will prefer CACG.

    The comparison of CACG and PCGS cross should be apples to apples.

    The value of a TPG is in consistency (not conservatism or liberalism) because consistency is what facilitates trading based on photos and/or sight unseen. If an AU58 1934-S Peace dollar in a CACG holder could equate to anything from an AU58 to an ~MS63 at PCGS, how do I get comfortable bidding? The value could be $1,000 to $5,000+ in today's market.

    I get it, I llove CAC too. I highly prefer stickered coins and CAC has added a ton of value and reassurance in the market. That doesn't mean that CACG is going to dominate the market or be successful. There is a lot of criticism and confusion in the market right now. Very experienced veterans of the market are submitting coins with disappointing results. It remains to be seen how the average collector will respond. For example, I am skeptical collectors will pay today's straight-grade money for all of the PCGS/NGC coins that are coming back in CACG details holders.

    The comment made by @jmlanzaf wasn’t as broad as you’re taking to to be. As I mentioned previously, he included the words “at least at the time of sale”.

    I wholeheartedly agree about consistency. And while I have my own guesses, I’m not making any assumptions about the future success of CACG.

    I also think that most of the current criticism and confusion will dissipate. It’s likely not nearly as pervasive as one would think from reading posts here.

    Yes.

    And not to cut too fine a line, "time of sale" is different than "time of purchase". Dealers, auction houses or even individual collectors will try to get it in the holder/sticker combination that maximizes returns. There's a recent thread on this forum about a member starting to submit his entire raw collection to help his heirs.

    "At the time of purchase" is different. Some people have specific preferences that aren't always aligned with the "ideal plastic". They only buy NGC or they only buy PCGS or they only buy it if it will cross, etc. There are even people who avoid CAC coins, probably because they object to the premium.

    I'm not sure how it will sort out, but the market will figure it out. CACG does need, I think, to pay some attention to the "tyranny of the number". Trophy coins really don't need a number. The finest 1913 Liberty Nickel is still the finest, even if you slap a 58 on it. And for a $5000 coin at auction, you want a slab that creates the highest return at sale and the buyer can cross it if they wish.

    It becomes trickier for things like 65 Walkers, the example in the other thread, or most coins $200 or less. The coins are too cheap to be crossing and people are going to want the "65" on the slab even if it looks like a "58". That can affect the volume of submissions. They may not care now as they are starting out, but the volume at a TPG is widgets not higher end coins. I don't know if you can survive if you are only the service of choice for premium coins.

    It will be interesting to watch.

  • mtn_scoutmtn_scout Posts: 96 ✭✭✭
    edited January 11, 2024 11:49AM

    @FredS said:
    So what happens if the rubbed Walker is in a 64 holder with a sticker, and they want to cross to CACG? Is that not supposed to be an automatic cross?

    This is the real question because if CACG is applying a different standard to WLH and SLQ how will CAC bean WLH and SLQ cross. Will they or won't they cross at grade? This then makes L-designated CACG slabs in these series a hot potato until the market figures out what to do with them.

  • jkrkjkrk Posts: 945 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 11, 2024 12:52PM

    IMO: Uncertainty creates confusion and stifles many peoples desire to make new additions. The market will adjust over time. In the short term, Until we see more pricing data, I'm not sure how the debate is good for any firm connected to hobby?

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,170 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jkrk said:
    IMO: Uncertainty creates confusion and stifles many peoples desire to make new additions. The market will adjust over time. In the short term, Until we see more pricing data, I'm not sure how the debate is good for any firm connected to hobby?

    @jkrk said:
    IMO: Uncertainty creates confusion and stifles many peoples desire to make new additions. The market will adjust over time. In the short term, Until we see more pricing data, I'm not sure how the debate is good for any firm connected to hobby?

    I really don't see any uncertainty in the pricing of PCGS or NGC material. The market has seen enough of both to establish the values. Even if there is a CAC premium, there is no reason in the near term for their to be a PCGS penalty.

  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 22,653 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 11, 2024 1:11PM

    Did everyone maintain a straight face during the entire panel discussion... including those in the audience?

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

  • jkrkjkrk Posts: 945 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @jkrk said:
    IMO: Uncertainty creates confusion and stifles many peoples desire to make new additions. The market will adjust over time. In the short term, Until we see more pricing data, I'm not sure how the debate is good for any firm connected to hobby?

    @jkrk said:
    IMO: Uncertainty creates confusion and stifles many peoples desire to make new additions. The market will adjust over time. In the short term, Until we see more pricing data, I'm not sure how the debate is good for any firm connected to hobby?

    I really don't see any uncertainty in the pricing of PCGS or NGC material. The market has seen enough of both to establish the values. Even if there is a CAC premium, there is no reason in the near term for their to be a PCGS penalty.

    A CAC premium for coins with the same grade? Yes.

    How many TPG coins receive lower grades than the slab they're in now? How many 65's will become 64's or 63's or 58's?

    Maybe a CACG 63 will sell for the same price as a PCGS 64? Probably but ...We don't know? How will an NGC 64 match up in price with a CACG 62?

    We can make assumptions, since we are all guessing but we currently have too little data to have a firm understanding.

  • logger7logger7 Posts: 7,927 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Cuprinkor said:
    What about 1884-S Morgan Dollars in lower MS (60-63) grade holders?
    Especially those in major auctions?

    That's a good example. The grading services exercise increased vigilance whenever there is a huge jump in one grade to the next. On the 84-s the AU58 specimens have more than doubled in just a few years, and clearly PCGS is very tight on AU58s and good luck crossing a 55 into a 58 holder. And anything in the BU grades they will be quite strict. It all depends on what's reasonable and what their standards are.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,170 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jkrk said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @jkrk said:
    IMO: Uncertainty creates confusion and stifles many peoples desire to make new additions. The market will adjust over time. In the short term, Until we see more pricing data, I'm not sure how the debate is good for any firm connected to hobby?

    @jkrk said:
    IMO: Uncertainty creates confusion and stifles many peoples desire to make new additions. The market will adjust over time. In the short term, Until we see more pricing data, I'm not sure how the debate is good for any firm connected to hobby?

    I really don't see any uncertainty in the pricing of PCGS or NGC material. The market has seen enough of both to establish the values. Even if there is a CAC premium, there is no reason in the near term for their to be a PCGS penalty.

    A CAC premium for coins with the same grade? Yes.

    How many TPG coins receive lower grades than the slab they're in now? How many 65's will become 64's or 63's or 58's?

    Maybe a CACG 63 will sell for the same price as a PCGS 64? Probably but ...We don't know? How will an NGC 64 match up in price with a CACG 62?

    We can make assumptions, since we are all guessing but we currently have too little data to have a firm understanding.

    My point was that it is speculative to buy/sell CACG coins right now. There is no uncertainty in the price of NGC, PCGS, NGC/CAC or PCGS/CAC coins. The market is mature for those. So I feel 100% confident buying and selling those coins, but I really don't have a good handle on what to pay for a CACG coin at this time.

  • jkrkjkrk Posts: 945 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 11, 2024 6:15PM

    WE each have our opinions and yours might be spot on?

    You believe that TPG's coins have been around long enough that everyone understands where they should be priced. Makes sense. I would be in full agreement if I was sure that CACG (non CAC coins) would probably grade one grade lower.
    If I need to mark down some percentage of coins, 2 or more grades, then I become suspect of all coins in slabs. Remember,
    this is all relatively new to me so my concerns might be totally overblown? Am I unique? My point is I am unsure how CACG entrance into the biz affects the hobby? Until I can gather more data, I'm still interested in buying coins but at a somewhat lower price.

    All i am saying is if others are equally uncertain there may be some slowdown in demand and prices will slip a bit.

  • silviosisilviosi Posts: 444 ✭✭✭

    For me something smell bad. How come my friend coin MS 65 PCGS CAC stiker come back AU 58??? Are two entities?

    NEVER ARGUE WITH AN IDIOT.FIRST THEY WILL DRAG YOU DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL.THEN, THEY WILL BEAT YOU WITH EXPERIENCE. MARK TWAIN

  • CoinscratchCoinscratch Posts: 7,663 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @DollarAfterDollar said: Now CACG comes along and says that won't fly.

    They didn’t just come along right they’ve been turning down grades since their inception. So anything other than what they’re currently doing would only undermine their whole strategy in the first place.

    This is going to be bigger than what a lot of people may think. As long as they keep the pedal down it will be a slow motion checkmate. At least upon a niche portion of the market.

Leave a Comment

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