Some CACG Statistics

DisneyFan

I had a chance to review the current Classic Commemoratives population statistics for CACG. Given that these numbers don't include those coins "body bagged" for PVC, getting a PLUS grade from CACG is tough!

Total Graded 1215

Less: Details (201)

Straight Graded 1014

Grades Not Eligible for + (58)

Eligible for + 956
Awarded + Grade 102 = 11% of Population

VanHalen

Wouldn't this indicate a lot of "A" coins are not getting a +?

FlyingAl

@VanHalen said:
Wouldn't this indicate a lot of "A" coins are not getting a +?

Basic math would dictate that CACG is incorrectly grading 39% of coins by not awarding them a plus grade. Half of the coins they grade over a large population should be "A" coins, and the other half should be "B" coins. There are supposedly no "C" coins in CACG holders, so long as such a thing ever existed (this is a grey area now).

Of course, this would assume that CACG sees a fairly even distribution of A and B coins, which they generally should over 1000+ coins. This also assumes that CACG doesn't have a higher standard for what is an "A" coin. Without a doubt, the percentage should be nowhere near 11%. I'd say +/- 10% off that 50% mark is the tolerance if someone could truly separate coins into A and B subcategories.

scubafuel

Why should half be A coins? Unless they've stated differently, I don't think it's unusual that only the top ~10% of the coins they're willing to grade get a +. In fact for all we know that could be their target.

winesteven

@scubafuel said:
Why should half be A coins? Unless they've stated differently, I don't think it's unusual that only the top ~10% of the coins they're willing to grade get a +. In fact for all we know that could be their target.

In the past, JA indicated that roughly 25% of stickered coins were “A” coins. As @FlyingAl correctly points out, any TPG non-stickered “C” coins graded by CACG would not be in that same grade, but in theory would be moved to a lower grade (maybe even a “+” in that lower grade). However, that’s not to say the CAC perception is A, B, and C were equally 1/3 each. MAYBE the top 25% were A, the bottom 25% were C, and the middle 50% were B? IF that were the case, and CACG eliminates the C coins from that same grade number, then of the remaining, 1/3 (not 1/2) might be considered former A coins, possibly meriting a plus grade.

However, the “C” coins from the next grade up that move down, could now possibly be “A” coins in this lowered grade, making @FlyingAl ‘s theory of 50/50 more likely!

Steve

TomB

I don't know why anyone would assume that half of all coins within a certain grade at CACG would be their definition of A-coins and half would be their definition of B-coins if we are going by the premise that coins within a grade can be broken into thirds (low, middle and high end).

CACG, PCGS, NGC and others have proprietary grading standards that are similar to published ANA standards and similar to each other's grading standards, but do not have to overlap. For most grades, and for most coins within a given grade, the grade window will overlap, but this does not apply to each individual coin.

If we were to take 99-coins (let's say something generic like MS65-ish 1881-S Morgan dollars) and ask CACG, PCGS and NGC to grade them in order from 1-99 with 99 being the best coin and 1 being the worst coin then we would generate three pools of the same size for A-coins (those given ratings of 67-99), B-coins (34-66) and C-coins (1-33). The pools of coins graded from one TPG to another will largely overlap, but they won't perfectly overlap, and that doesn't matter because we are only analyzing how one company grades coins (CACG) in this experiment.

Those coins that CACG graded MS65, but gave a rating of 1-33 to will be, by CACG definition, C-level coins. It doesn't matter if PCGS or NGC would have graded them all MS64 or MS66; it is not germane to CACG. The group from 34-66 would be B-coins at CACG. Again, they might be MS64, MS66 or some other grade at another TPG, but we are only talking CACG here. Finally, the coins with 67-99 ratings will be A-coins at CACG.

If CACG is consistent with the other TPG-published guidelines for their application of the + designation then CACG should give a + designation to somewhere between 15-30% of their coins within a grade. I use this range because at the advent of the + designation both PCGS and NGC announced that they anticipated 15-20% of coins to be + grade coins and, later, PCGS has stipulated that they expect 30% of coins within a grade to receive the + designation.

PCGS and NGC joint press release at the 2010 ANA National Money Show-
https://www.pcgs.com/news/two-leading-grading-services-announce-plus-grading

Current PCGS Grading Standards page definition-
https://www.pcgs.com/grades

In reality, I believe that both neither PCGS nor NGC typically comes close to awarding 30% of the coins within an eligible grade the + designation and I don't believe either awards even the minimum 15% of coins within an eligible grade the + designation. The experience of others may show something different, but over nearly 14-years in the hobby-industry I just am not seeing it with classic US coinage.

So, CACG is awarding 10.7% of the classic silver commems it sees with the + designation after a rather small sample size. That ins't a large difference from what either PCGS or NGC has likely done since 2010, but I can't prove that.

However, I can do some back of the envelope reckoning to see what PCGS has done with the + designation. The January, 2008 PCGS population report I have in my office shows 334,199 classic silver commems graded MS62-68 and today that total is 463,723 for a net gain of 129,524 coins over the 16-years. This comes out to PCGS having graded, on average, 8,095 classic commems in the MS62-68 window per year in this time frame. Since the PCGS & NGC announcement would have taken effect in mid-2010 we have a time window of 13.5 years that PCGS has used the + designation. Therefore, at 8,095 coins per year over 13.5 years we can safely say PCGS has given out pretty close to 109,286 grades of MS62-68 to classic silver commems. PCGS has also given out 10,389 + designation grades to those coins over that time for a rate of 9.5%.

So, CACG with a small dataset has 10.7% and PCGS with an enormous dataset has 9.5%.

VanHalen

CACG's narrative stated "A" coins would receive a + grade. PCGS has a completely different definition. Many expected a large number of + grades being issued based on direct statements from the company.

Whether it's 30%, 40% or 50% that are "A" coins, (there are no "C" coins per CACG's narrative) really doesn't matter . The grading room at CACG has come up with very few + grades and thus very few "A" coins.

Ubiquitous example: 1881-S Morgans. CACG has graded 297 pieces to date. 30 have received a + grade. You have 267 pieces graded as "B" or solid for the grade coins. 0 "C" coins and 30 "A" coins.

winesteven

Interesting analysis on the Commems @TomB , but I believe you’ve ignored any of the “older” whole graded coins potentially being sent in via Reconsideration, and getting a plus grade. I’ve had some success doing just that with my 50 coin Classic Silver Commem Type Set. Taking that concept into account would reduce the 9.5% result. Only if we knew how many of the older coins now have pluses would we know the reduction of that 9.5% figure.

Steve

291fifth

Nothing but opinions.

winesteven

@291fifth said:
Nothing but opinions.

Absolutely true! But some people's opinions are important to some people, much more so than opinions of some others!

Steve

Typekat

And here’s another opinion:

Even though (almost) every coin I buy is in a slab with a 1 to 70 grade on it, which largely determines the price I’ll have to pay for it, I’ll never buy the idea that grading is a measureable science.

winesteven

@Typekat said:
And here’s another opinion:

Even though (almost) every coin I buy is in a slab with a 1 to 70 grade on it, which largely determines the price I’ll have to pay for it, I’ll never buy the idea that grading is a measureable science.

How about a "somewhat measurable art"?

Steve

Typekat

@winesteven

Sure, ‘a somewhat measurable art’ sounds about right.

For instance, I’m happy to pass on, say, a 19th Century PR65 silver coin with brown and grey toning, in favor of a brilliant PR64. KNOWING that the PR64 was probably dipped at one time.

If my next door neighbor Joe the Plumber would say the toned PR65 looks like it was in a fire, he and I basically see the coin the same way.

DisneyFan

@VanHalen said:
CACG's narrative stated "A" coins would receive a + grade. PCGS has a completely different definition. Many expected a large number of + grades being issued based on direct statements from the company.

Whether it's 30%, 40% or 50% that are "A" coins, (there are no "C" coins per CACG's narrative) really doesn't matter . The grading room at CACG has come up with very few + grades and thus very few "A" coins.

Ubiquitous example: 1881-S Morgans. CACG has graded 297 pieces to date. 30 have received a + grade. You have 267 pieces graded as "B" or solid for the grade coins. 0 "C" coins and 30 "A" coins.

To be precise, of the 297 1881-S Morgans CACG graded to date, 29 were detailed! 30 have received a + grade. Leaving 238 pieces graded as "B" or solid for the grade coins. We don't know how many were downgraded to "C" coins or "passed.".

Cougar1978

There is no doubt they are tough on them. I simply check number of CACG coins on eBay to gauge their market presence vs other TPG. A 10pct details result seems high to me.

I want coins brilliant w super luster (so what if they were conserved / dipped) not the brown tarnished garbage (only gets worse with time).

winesteven

@Cougar1978 said:
There is no doubt they are tough on them. I simply check number of CACG coins on eBay to gauge their market presence vs other TPG.

The "Volume" of CACG slabs compared to the other TPG slabs will always be tiny, so no need to waste your time doing that.

As noted MANY times previously, the goal of CACG is not to compete in market share, but to have a reputation of consistent grading according to CACG standards. Collectors will always choose what to buy. As you continue to mention comparing volume, that will never be linked to the goal of CACG.

Steve

Cougar1978

Sort of like gentlemans club A charging higher entry, drinks, activities etc touting higher quality entertainers vs club b which is more popular, less expensive. In that scenario I would go w club B. Popularity trumps the other clubs sales pitch.

BryceM

Sigh……

MFeld

@Cougar1978 said:
Sort of like gentlemans club A charging higher entry, drinks, lap dances etc touting higher quality entertainers vs club b which is more popular, less expensive. In that scenario I would go w club B. Popularity trumps the other clubs sales pitch.

Wrong forum for you, (again).

winesteven

@Cougar1978 said:
Sort of like gentleman's club A charging higher entry, drinks, lap dances etc. touting higher quality entertainers vs club b which is more popular, less expensive. In that scenario I would go w club B. Popularity trumps the other clubs sales pitch.

I'm glad to hear you enjoy your outings at Gentleman's Clubs

Steve

DisneyFan

@Typekat said:

For instance, I’m happy to pass on, say, a 19th Century PR65 silver coin with brown and grey toning, in favor of a brilliant PR64. KNOWING that the PR64 was probably dipped at one time.

If my next door neighbor Joe the Plumber would say the toned PR65 looks like it was in a fire, he and I basically see the coin the same way.

What CAC & CACG have done is removed the stigma of a coin being dipped by separating carefully, conservatively, and correctly dipped coins from coins that ended up being overdipped over the years.

FrankH

@winesteven said:

@291fifth said:
Nothing but opinions.

Absolutely true! But some people's opinions are important to some people, much more so than opinions of some others!

Steve

The true proof of that is the price of slabbing coins.

winesteven

@FrankH said:

@winesteven said:

@291fifth said:
Nothing but opinions.

Absolutely true! But some people's opinions are important to some people, much more so than opinions of some others!

Steve

The true proof of that is the price of slabbing coins.

Actually, the true proof is the price people pay to buy those slabbed coins!

Steve

oldabeintx

A random thought or two. Would there be a slight bias in these early days from Legacy coins being crossed? Also, given the perceived conservatism of CACG, might not a large number of non-Legacy crosses be submitted with a minimum grade stipulation, or not submitted at all, perhaps introducing a further bias? Said another way, if the quality of submissions is overall higher than the quality of submissions to other TPGs then might not more plusses be expected?

Coin Finder

Interesting thread. I still like the pcgs plus sticker from CAC the best!

winesteven

@Coin Finder said:
Interesting thread. I still like the pcgs plus sticker from CAC the best!

A LOT of collectors agree, as do I. Since the PCGS Registry is important to me, that's how I buy. However, we agree that the sticker only confirms that in CAC's opinion the coin is ONLY solid for the whole grade, not necessarily solid as a plus. We just don't know, even though PCGS's opinion is that the coin merits a plus. As such, a CACG coin with a plus is different, as THAT means that CACG believes that coin is indeed solid as a plus!

Steve

Coin Finder

CACG pops will increase when the sticker goes away. Plus grades are very important for reg sets with pcgs. The can elevate your set two spots in some cases.

winesteven

@Coin Finder said:
CACG pops will increase when the sticker goes away. Plus grades are very important for reg sets with pcgs. The can elevate your set two spots in some cases.

Absolutely true, and that's why many of my Registry sets are ranked as high as they are. Roughly 60% of my coins eligible for a plus have a plus! Many of those I bought with a plus, but many pluses were obtained over the past decade via Reconsideration.

Steve

FrankH

@Coin Finder said:
Interesting thread. I still like the pcgs plus sticker from CAC the best!

Yeh, they're okay.

VanHalen

@DisneyFan said:

@VanHalen said:
CACG's narrative stated "A" coins would receive a + grade. PCGS has a completely different definition. Many expected a large number of + grades being issued based on direct statements from the company.

Whether it's 30%, 40% or 50% that are "A" coins, (there are no "C" coins per CACG's narrative) really doesn't matter . The grading room at CACG has come up with very few + grades and thus very few "A" coins.

Ubiquitous example: 1881-S Morgans. CACG has graded 297 pieces to date. 30 have received a + grade. You have 267 pieces graded as "B" or solid for the grade coins. 0 "C" coins and 30 "A" coins.

To be precise, of the 297 1881-S Morgans CACG graded to date, 29 were detailed! 30 have received a + grade. Leaving 238 pieces graded as "B" or solid for the grade coins. We don't know how many were downgraded to "C" coins or "passed.".

Okay. 268 were + eligible. 30 got a + so 238, or 88.8%, were "B" leaving 11.2% as "A" coins. These type of numbers bear out across many series.

Manifest_Destiny

@Cougar1978 said:
Sort of like gentlemans club A charging higher entry, drinks, activities etc touting higher quality entertainers vs club b which is more popular, less expensive. In that scenario I would go w club B. Popularity trumps the other clubs sales pitch.

And a cover charge to weed out the tire kickers.