A True Test To See If CACG Is As Strict As Perceived

Walkerlover

The best way to see if CACG is as conservative in their grading as people are perceiving. Take a sample of at least 100 PCGS/CAC coins. Of course preferably 500 or so. Crack them out and resubmitt them to CACG raw for regrading. For test purposes cheaper coins can be used to minimize submitter risk.

I think at least 85-90% would need to attain at least the same grade or better. If a higher percentage of coins grade LOWER than one can infer that CACG is indeed using a stricter set of standards than even CAC. I am allowing for a 10-15% variance from 100% to account for chance and the tastes of the different sets of graders from each service. Care to agree or disagree?

IkesT

@Walkerlover said:
The best way to see if CACG is as conservative in their grading as people are perceiving. Take a sample of at least 100 PCGS/CAC coins. Of course preferably 500 or so. Crack them out and resubmitt them to CACG raw for regrading. For test purposes cheaper coins can be used to minimize submitter risk.

No way you'd ever amass that number - you'd get cold feet and return them before they ever got to CACG.

coinkat

Disagree- Grading is subjective and the same coin submitted multiple times will likely produce different results- even from the same TPG Co. A grade- regardless of which company- is merely an opinion at that moment the coin is graded. And graders and collectors can change their minds and often do- So being strict or conservative really cannot measured as it is likely within the margin of subjectivity can vary.

braddick

McDonald's now is offering juicier double cheese burgers with fluffier and softer buns.
I haven't tried them yet.
If 500 consumers try them and compare them to the older style of cheeseburgers I wonder if the consensus is they're now better?

https://www.allrecipes.com/mcdonalds-making-burgers-bigger-and-better-8416918

I would imagine the success rate would match that of the OP's question, but I am not sure.

habaraca

@braddick said:
McDonald's now is offering juicier double cheese burgers with fluffier and softer buns.
I haven't tried them yet.
If 500 consumers try them and compare them to the older style of cheeseburgers I wonder if the consensus is they're now better?

https://www.allrecipes.com/mcdonalds-making-burgers-bigger-and-better-8416918

I would imagine the success rate would match that of the OP's question, but I am not sure.

so if 100 people replied to this thread what percentage will be SNIPPY????

PeakRarities

Sounds like a great idea, keep us posted with the results.

coinkat

Cheeseburger
Cheeseburger
Cheeseburger... No Coke... Pepsi

jmlanzaf

@coinkat said:
Disagree- Grading is subjective and the same coin submitted multiple times will likely produce different results- even from the same TPG Co. A grade- regardless of which company- is merely an opinion at that moment the coin is graded. And graders and collectors can change their minds and often do- So being strict or conservative really cannot measured as it is likely within the margin of subjectivity can vary.

That would be included in the variance of the 500 coins. For a large sample size, consistently higher or lower grades cannot be pure chance. [If such a trend existed. ]

lilolme

Another CAC thread - reminded me of Angle, On And On.

Chorus:

So it goes on and on and on
Never saying how I feel
It goes on and on and on
Why won't I heal??
Said it goes on and on and on
Like a violent summer rain
It goes on and on and on
Can you feel my pain??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkLeQxN9JJM

BStrauss3

@braddick said:
McDonald's now is offering juicier double cheese burgers with fluffier and softer buns.
I haven't tried them yet.
If 500 consumers try them and compare them to the older style of cheeseburgers I wonder if the consensus is they're now better?

That's a specious comparison since you are comparing the new item to your memory of the old one.

With coins, you have the written record in the form of the old slab label.

johnny9434

I'd just like my food served hot at Micky D's

FlyingAl

At CACs forums, there was a group of 20 MS66 coins submitted to CACG.

Here was the grade distribution:
MS66:0
MS65+:0
MS65:3
MS64+:15
MS64:1
Details:1

I’d say they’re pretty tough.

jmlanzaf

@FlyingAl said:
At CACs forums, there was a group of 20 MS66 coins submitted to CACG.

Here was the grade distribution:
MS66:0
MS65+:0
MS65:3
MS64+:15
MS64:1
Details:1

I’d say they’re pretty tough.

Were the originals NGC, PCGS, both?

jacrispies

Goes both ways, I've seen some brutally overgraded coins by CACG. Mostly undergraded or undeserving details grades. Inconsistency is what I see.

Walkerlover

@jacrispies said:
Goes both ways, I've seen some brutally overgraded coins by CACG. Mostly undergraded or undeserving details grades. Inconsistency is what I see.

Can you please post a few that you claim are brutally overgraded

FlyingAl

@jmlanzaf said:

@FlyingAl said:
At CACs forums, there was a group of 20 MS66 coins submitted to CACG.

Here was the grade distribution:
MS66:0
MS65+:0
MS65:3
MS64+:15
MS64:1
Details:1

I’d say they’re pretty tough.

Were the originals NGC, PCGS, both?

Wasn’t specified.

jacrispies

@Walkerlover said:

@jacrispies said:
Goes both ways, I've seen some brutally overgraded coins by CACG. Mostly undergraded or undeserving details grades. Inconsistency is what I see.

Can you please post a few that you claim are brutally overgraded

The only one I have specific record of is a superb+ proof walker that has a clear wipe in the right obverse field. Should be a 63 max, if straight graded.

Walkerlover

@FlyingAl said:
At CACs forums, there was a group of 20 MS66 coins submitted to CACG.

Here was the grade distribution:
MS66:0
MS65+:0
MS65:3
MS64+:15
MS64:1
Details:1

I’d say they’re pretty tough.

@jmlanzaf said:

@FlyingAl said:
At CACs forums, there was a group of 20 MS66 coins submitted to CACG.

Here was the grade distribution:
MS66:0
MS65+:0
MS65:3
MS64+:15
MS64:1
Details:1

I’d say they’re pretty tough.

Were the originals NGC, PCGS, both?

@jmlanzaf said:

@FlyingAl said:
At CACs forums, there was a group of 20 MS66 coins submitted to CACG.

Here was the grade distribution:
MS66:0
MS65+:0
MS65:3
MS64+:15
MS64:1
Details:1

I’d say they’re pretty tough.

Were the originals NGC, PCGS, both?

That tells you something. It’s a statistical improbability that 15 coin were overgraded to such a large extent. 66 to 64+!!! Possible but unlikely. There is something wrong here

PerryHall

@Walkerlover said:

@FlyingAl said:
At CACs forums, there was a group of 20 MS66 coins submitted to CACG.

Here was the grade distribution:
MS66:0
MS65+:0
MS65:3
MS64+:15
MS64:1
Details:1

I’d say they’re pretty tough.

@jmlanzaf said:

@FlyingAl said:
At CACs forums, there was a group of 20 MS66 coins submitted to CACG.

Here was the grade distribution:
MS66:0
MS65+:0
MS65:3
MS64+:15
MS64:1
Details:1

I’d say they’re pretty tough.

Were the originals NGC, PCGS, both?

@jmlanzaf said:

@FlyingAl said:
At CACs forums, there was a group of 20 MS66 coins submitted to CACG.

Here was the grade distribution:
MS66:0
MS65+:0
MS65:3
MS64+:15
MS64:1
Details:1

I’d say they’re pretty tough.

Were the originals NGC, PCGS, both?

That tells you something. It’s a statistical improbability that 15 coin were overgraded to such a large extent. 66 to 64+!!! Possible but unlikely. There is something wrong here

Agree. I would have to see pic of the coins in their original slabs and in their CACG slabs before I would lend any credence to this study.

jacrispies

@PerryHall said:

@Walkerlover said:

@FlyingAl said:
At CACs forums, there was a group of 20 MS66 coins submitted to CACG.

Here was the grade distribution:
MS66:0
MS65+:0
MS65:3
MS64+:15
MS64:1
Details:1

I’d say they’re pretty tough.

@jmlanzaf said:

@FlyingAl said:
At CACs forums, there was a group of 20 MS66 coins submitted to CACG.

Here was the grade distribution:
MS66:0
MS65+:0
MS65:3
MS64+:15
MS64:1
Details:1

I’d say they’re pretty tough.

Were the originals NGC, PCGS, both?

@jmlanzaf said:

@FlyingAl said:
At CACs forums, there was a group of 20 MS66 coins submitted to CACG.

Here was the grade distribution:
MS66:0
MS65+:0
MS65:3
MS64+:15
MS64:1
Details:1

I’d say they’re pretty tough.

Were the originals NGC, PCGS, both?

That tells you something. It’s a statistical improbability that 15 coin were overgraded to such a large extent. 66 to 64+!!! Possible but unlikely. There is something wrong here

Agree. I would have to see pic of the coins in their original slabs and in their CACG slabs before I would lend any credence to this study.

I personally would not discredit the study simply because the data appears a little unusual. I believe the original submitter would have no reason to spread misinformation unless there was some seriously deep coin politics involved.

Recently saw a common 1885-CC as a solid 64 that was CACG details wiped because there were roller lines. Seen some crazy things thus far.

gtstang

You could always send the CACG coins thought to be undergraded to CMQ for a sticker.

PeakRarities

@Walkerlover said:

@FlyingAl said:
At CACs forums, there was a group of 20 MS66 coins submitted to CACG.

Here was the grade distribution:
MS66:0
MS65+:0
MS65:3
MS64+:15
MS64:1
Details:1

I’d say they’re pretty tough.

@jmlanzaf said:

@FlyingAl said:
At CACs forums, there was a group of 20 MS66 coins submitted to CACG.

Here was the grade distribution:
MS66:0
MS65+:0
MS65:3
MS64+:15
MS64:1
Details:1

I’d say they’re pretty tough.

Were the originals NGC, PCGS, both?

@jmlanzaf said:

@FlyingAl said:
At CACs forums, there was a group of 20 MS66 coins submitted to CACG.

Here was the grade distribution:
MS66:0
MS65+:0
MS65:3
MS64+:15
MS64:1
Details:1

I’d say they’re pretty tough.

Were the originals NGC, PCGS, both?

That tells you something. It’s a statistical improbability that 15 coin were overgraded to such a large extent. 66 to 64+!!! Possible but unlikely. There is something wrong here

Not necessarily, but I’d really love to know what they were. If one sent in a bunch of wholesale shrapnel like that other video I would not be surprised. I also wondered if it was 20 Wells Fargo saints in 66.

1775

I sent a 1911 $10 Indian to CACG ' came back AU58; Cracked it out ( which by the way is extremely difficult)sent to PCGS came back MS63; no-one had graded it raw ,less than 63. Am now going to send it to CAC Sticker (probably will come back with a Green Sticker!!

Smudge

Pretty expensive test.

krueger

Each TPG service has different standards. Hello-- And different graders/ opinions apply those.
Why do we think they are the same?
And provide the same results?

Your grading ability and tastes will determine which you prefer.
The Marketplace will determine who the collectors prefer as a whole.
Arbitrage / crackout will be the game for awhile to those who can see a profit and have the means and the time.
And can manage the risks. Same games as before. On and on it goes.
Maybe some day all TPG's will have the same standards and all graders will require the same accepted training and certification.
Am I dreaming?
The TPG's are each a separate business trying to make a profit providing a competitive product and grow their market share and perseptions
In the marketplace.

RLSnapper

When I taught 7th grade the first few weeks of each school year you were a real SOB. Then after say Thanksgiving you could begin to loosen up. The theory was the kids won't accept a loose teacher getting stricter but would embrace a strict teacher getting looser.
JA is playing this game now.......in the beginning he is strict.....loose coins have the scarlet "L" to let you know they are not CACG graded. He is establighing his brand....this is purposeful and part of his business model. Random serial numbers so there will be no market for early CACG material once he loosens the screws. Two years from now everyone will be all cheerful with their CACG grades and submissions will be thru the roof with the $$$ pouring in for JA. CACG will be the prime TPG and JA will ride off into the sunset having manipulated everyone.
Open your eyes.

MFeld

@RLSnapper said:
When I taught 7th grade the first few weeks of each school year you were a real SOB. Then after say Thanksgiving you could begin to loosen up. The theory was the kids won't accept a loose teacher getting stricter but would embrace a strict teacher getting looser.
JA is playing this game now.......in the beginning he is strict.....loose coins have the scarlet "L" to let you know they are not CACG graded. He is establighing his brand....this is purposeful and part of his business model. Random serial numbers so there will be no market for early CACG material once he loosens the screws. Two years from now everyone will be all cheerful with their CACG grades and submissions will be thru the roof with the $$$ pouring in for JA. CACG will be the prime TPG and JA will ride off into the sunset having manipulated everyone.
Open your eyes.

Open your eyes and mind. If J.A. was just interested in riding off into the sunset, he could have done that a long time ago, without anywhere near the commitment and effort he’s undertaken now.

Luxor

<<< Can you please post a few that you claim are brutally overgraded >>>

Here's one in a non legacy CACG holder. Does this look like a strictly graded MS65 coin to anyone?

RLSnapper

@MFeld perhaps I was a bit over the top....but you don't dispute the business model that I have laid out for CACG seems to be playing out. Scarlet "L"....random serial numbers are factual and done so for a reason. Only JA knows the true reason....seems his early effort to make a market in details coins would have fit nicely into his business model of strict grading....CACG details coins would have been marketable to registry players according to his CACG point system....brilliant idea but the blowback ruined that market. I have nothing but admiration for JA the business man......

Typekat

@FlyingAl said:
At CACs forums, there was a group of 20 MS66 coins submitted to CACG.

Here was the grade distribution:
MS66:0
MS65+:0
MS65:3
MS64+:15
MS64:1
Details:1

I’d say they’re pretty tough.

One question: were any of those MS66s CAC stickered?
If not, it only proved that coins not of CAC quality were also not of CACG quality

MFeld

@RLSnapper said:
@MFeld perhaps I was a bit over the top....but you don't dispute the business model that I have laid out for CACG seems to be playing out. Scarlet "L"....random serial numbers are factual and done so for a reason. Only JA knows the true reason....seems his early effort to make a market in details coins would have fit nicely into his business model of strict grading....CACG details coins would have been marketable to registry players according to his CACG point system....brilliant idea but the blowback ruined that market. I have nothing but admiration for JA the business man......

Yes, perhaps you were a bit over the top. 😉

As far as I know, NGC and PCGS both use random serial numbers, too.

I don’t think of “L” coins as loose and am not convinced that CACG will be stricter than CAC has been. Time will tell on that.

Keep in mind that many (former PCGS and NGC) coins being graded noticeably lower by CACG might very well have been seen by CAC previously and failed to sticker. So CAC and CACG could be seeing the coins the same way, with the only difference being a CAC reject, then vs. a lower CACG assigned grade, now.

Lastly, if CACG is unreasonably strict, they won’t get sufficient business for anyone to be able to ride off into the sunset.

jonruns

A submission of 200 would be enough to be statistically significant.

MFeld

@Typekat said:

@FlyingAl said:
At CACs forums, there was a group of 20 MS66 coins submitted to CACG.

Here was the grade distribution:
MS66:0
MS65+:0
MS65:3
MS64+:15
MS64:1
Details:1

I’d say they’re pretty tough.

One question: were any of those MS66s CAC stickered?
If not, it only proved that coins not of CAC quality were also not of CACG quality

Perhaps the coins hadn’t been submitted to CAC. So it would need to be known that they had been to CAC and failed to sticker, not just that they weren’t stickered.

wondercoin

‘’Each TPG service has different standards. Hello-- And different graders/ opinions apply those.’’

Not necessarily- the same “hired gun” (world class) graders can work for multiple grading services over the years and grade the very same coins differently for each company as they are told to grade them by “their master” at the time.

Wondercoin.

Jcc1876

Here's my question. Has anyone submitted to CACG a previously CAC stickered coin and had it come back at a lower grade or with a "Details" or "Cleaned" grade? To me that's a good test of how legit CACG really is. Better yet, has anyone tried to submit a gold CAC stickered coin to CACG and had it come back at the same grade or lower?

wondercoin

‘’JA is playing this game now….”

I have personally seen no evidence to date that would lead me to this conclusion. But, if I ever do see such evidence in the future, couldn’t the same argument be made of the “early days” at other top grading services? But, was it a “game” or the simple evolution of understanding the expanded grading scale as countless more coins were seen by these services? Intentional or the unintended consequence of seeing millions of additional grading events?

Wondercoin.

Insider3

@Walkerlover said:
The best way to see if CACG is as conservative in their grading as people are perceiving. Take a sample of at least 100 PCGS/CAC coins. Of course preferably 500 or so. Crack them out and resubmitt them to CACG raw for regrading. For test purposes cheaper coins can be used to minimize submitter risk.

I think at least 85-90% would need to attain at least the same grade or better. If a higher percentage of coins grade LOWER than one can infer that CACG is indeed using a stricter set of standards than even CAC. I am allowing for a 10-15% variance from 100% to account for chance and the tastes of the different sets of graders from each service. Care to agree or disagree?

Great idea! Any TPGS would appreciate the revenue.

Typekat

@MFeld

So since we know nothing about how the MS66s were chosen for this experiment, I would regard the ‘results’ as, to put it kindly, inconclusive.

Insider3

@Jcc1876 said:
Here's my question. Has anyone submitted to CACG a previously CAC stickered coin and had it come back at a lower grade or with a "Details" or "Cleaned" grade? To me that's a good test of how legit CACG really is. Better yet, has anyone tried to submit a gold CAC stickered coin to CACG and had it come back at the same grade or lower?

You must be a YN. EVERYONE with a little experience buying coins KNOWS that some coins are over graded, under graded, and correctly graded. The grades of a particular coin can and do change at the same grading service when sent in raw. TPGS are not perfect. If the graders miss a patch of hairlines the first go around and the grade gets lowered on the second that should please me BECAUSE NOW THAT COIN IS MORE CORRECTLY GRADED!!! Does that make sense to you?

Manifest_Destiny

Thanks, I just bought 100 PCGS/CAC coins!

spacehayduke

@Walkerlover said:

That tells you something. It’s a statistical improbability that 15 coin were overgraded to such a large extent. 66 to 64+!!! Possible but unlikely. There is something wrong here

Yup, what us wrong is grade inflation..............

spacehayduke

@jonruns said:
A submission of 200 would be enough to be statistically significant.

Er, where does this magical number come from? Statistical theory? Do you have refs to back it up or your personal preference? If the former, please provide links to the paper(s)..................

Typekat

Bold
BOLD ALL CAPS

I’m new around here, do those mean ‘sarcasm’ or ‘raging belief?’

alaura22

@Manifest_Destiny said:
Thanks, I just bought 100 PCGS/CAC coins!

Congratulations on your purchase of 100 properly graded and verified by a third party to confirm quality

gtstang

I guess you can ponder this. What exactly do they mean by "unparalleled level of expertise "?
If it means they will grade at a stricter level than pcgs or ngc then of course cacg will be undergraded compared to the "other" grading standards.

jmlanzaf

@spacehayduke said:

@jonruns said:
A submission of 200 would be enough to be statistically significant.

Er, where does this magical number come from? Statistical theory? Do you have refs to back it up or your personal preference? If the former, please provide links to the paper(s)..................

https://www.qualtrics.com/experience-management/research/margin-of-error/#:~:text=How sample size affects margin,of error%2C and vice versa.

BStrauss3

@Smudge said:
Pretty expensive test.

Maybe that's the whole idea. Skim off the cream of people willing to pay crazy money in grading fees. Then do a rug pull and fold up shop.

TomB

The CACG thread is linked below-

https://forum.cacgrading.com/discussion/1192/cac-grading-plus-coin-percentage-misconceptions

The major points in that thread-
1) The coins were all graded MS66 by another service.
2) The service was not identified by the CACG representative.
3) The submitter put them in for crossover with a minimum acceptable grade of MS65.
4) None of the coins previously had a CAC sticker.
5) Three coins were returned to the submitter in CACG MS65 holders and the remainder were returned in their original holders.

FlyingAl

@MFeld said:

@RLSnapper said:
@MFeld perhaps I was a bit over the top....but you don't dispute the business model that I have laid out for CACG seems to be playing out. Scarlet "L"....random serial numbers are factual and done so for a reason. Only JA knows the true reason....seems his early effort to make a market in details coins would have fit nicely into his business model of strict grading....CACG details coins would have been marketable to registry players according to his CACG point system....brilliant idea but the blowback ruined that market. I have nothing but admiration for JA the business man......

As far as I know, NGC and PCGS both use random serial numbers, too.

Mark, both PCGS and NGC do not use random serial numbers.

PCGS uses a series of numbers that is constantly increasing at a pretty normal rate based upon submissions. Currently that number is in the 485000000 or so range.

NGC uses the submission form numbers as the serial numbers, with the three digits after the dash representing the line number on the submission. This is also increasing linearly.

As such, both of these are fairly predictable. CACG appears to be entirely and completely random.

MFeld

@FlyingAl said:

@MFeld said:

@RLSnapper said:
@MFeld perhaps I was a bit over the top....but you don't dispute the business model that I have laid out for CACG seems to be playing out. Scarlet "L"....random serial numbers are factual and done so for a reason. Only JA knows the true reason....seems his early effort to make a market in details coins would have fit nicely into his business model of strict grading....CACG details coins would have been marketable to registry players according to his CACG point system....brilliant idea but the blowback ruined that market. I have nothing but admiration for JA the business man......

As far as I know, NGC and PCGS both use random serial numbers, too.

Mark, both PCGS and NGC do not use random serial numbers.

PCGS uses a series of numbers that is constantly increasing at a pretty normal rate based upon submissions. Currently that number is in the 485000000 or so range.

NGC uses the submission form numbers as the serial numbers, with the three digits after the dash representing the line number on the submission. This is also increasing linearly.

As such, both of these are fairly predictable. CACG appears to be entirely and completely random.

Alex, if that’s the case, thank you for setting the record straight.

Walkerguy21D

** As such, both of these are fairly predictable. CACG appears to be entirely and completely random.**

I wonder how they ensure they don’t get duplicate serial numbers? Even if the probability is low, it could still happen. I suppose they could have software that would flag if a generated random series of numbers had been used previously.