Home U.S. Coin Forum

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

135

Comments

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,517 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 25, 2024 10:28AM

    @DisneyFan said:

    @cameonut2011 said:
    Regardless of sample size, 0 out of 20 is a pretty awful number. John Butler goes on in the CAC thread and says that there are many F coins out there and probably more than the CAC ABC language is interpreted by many as implying. Unless CACG 64+ coins (15/20 coins) are selling for non CACG 66 money, CACG will not have a lot of business going forward. Most submitters are going to get the coins in the holder that will yield the highest resale value.

    I wonder if the other grading services are tightening up their grades as a result of CACG being the new boy. Yes, CACG is tough; but, if you are buying coins, wouldn't you want to buy coins in holders from the service that is known for being spot on in terms of grading?

    If it can even be determined, “spot on in terms of grading” isn’t necessarily a matter of the lower grade (or the higher grade) for a given coin. How do you propose people make such a determination?

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

  • LuxorLuxor Posts: 471 ✭✭✭✭✭

    --> @DisneyFan said:

    I wonder if the other grading services are tightening up their grades as a result of CACG being the new boy. Yes, CACG is tough; but, if you are buying coins, wouldn't you want to buy coins in holders from the service that is known for being spot on in terms of grading?

    When was it established that CACG is "spot on" in terms of grading? Grading to a more conservative standard and assigning 'details' grades to coins the other services may consider to have minor issues but are acceptable is clearly NOT being spot on, just more conservative. A large negative factor for inexperienced collectors purchasing solely CACG coins and presumably paying a large premium is that (in my experience) in many cases the actual coins are no more conservatively or spot on or otherwise superior examples for the grade, and they are just paying a large premium for essentially nothing other that a certain brand holder. That's of course fine if you collect stickers and holders and require that warm and fuzzy feeling that all your coins are in the right holders and/or have the right stickers and all the other nonsense because you either don't trust your own judgement or lack grading skills.

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

  • BryceMBryceM Posts: 11,795 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Contemporary grading more or less equals a market appraisal. The trending market price at a certain grade will be unique to each TPG. We already see this.

    Coins don’t “have” a correct grade. This will be true until there is an actual objective grading standard.

  • BryceMBryceM Posts: 11,795 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @BryceM said:
    Threads like this highlight the immense difficulty most people have in understanding the difference between anecdotes and statistically valid information. We humans are incredibly influenced by individual things that have happened to us, both good and bad. With this information, we apply our experiences to predict future events, but we ENORMOUSLY put too much stock in these little bits of information.

    An actual, thorough statistical analysis of coin grading would be worthy of a dissertation-level research project. I have my own suspicions, but likely many of them would prove to be incorrect. You’d need to account for variability in grading today, grading done years earlier, and the various TPGs. You’d also need to account for different series, strike descriptors (FBL, FH, FS, etc.), colors (RD, RB, BN), and proof-like designation (DMPL, PL, etc.). It would be an enormous undertaking.

    Ultimately, I’d think you’d find that grading in general is not consistent over time, that reproducibility of results is quite poor, and that there is enormous variability between the TPGs, and even within the same TPGs over time. The lack of precision works in the favor of TPGs (crackouts, regrades, crossovers) so there’s little incentive to standardize it.

    Can you give me a single example of another area in business where you can pay an expert an additional fee to see if they’ll change their earlier opinion that you already paid for?

    Grading is subjective. Period.

    Medicine. Diagnosis can be iterative. Trial and error sometimes also occurs for illnesses that have no definitive test.

    Well, yes, and no. If I’ve seen your MRI, done a physical exam, reviewed your history, and made a recommendation for surgery, I’m not going to change my opinion unless I’m presented with new information. When it comes to a coin, everything you see on the second look was there the first time.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 34,259 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @BryceM said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @BryceM said:
    Threads like this highlight the immense difficulty most people have in understanding the difference between anecdotes and statistically valid information. We humans are incredibly influenced by individual things that have happened to us, both good and bad. With this information, we apply our experiences to predict future events, but we ENORMOUSLY put too much stock in these little bits of information.

    An actual, thorough statistical analysis of coin grading would be worthy of a dissertation-level research project. I have my own suspicions, but likely many of them would prove to be incorrect. You’d need to account for variability in grading today, grading done years earlier, and the various TPGs. You’d also need to account for different series, strike descriptors (FBL, FH, FS, etc.), colors (RD, RB, BN), and proof-like designation (DMPL, PL, etc.). It would be an enormous undertaking.

    Ultimately, I’d think you’d find that grading in general is not consistent over time, that reproducibility of results is quite poor, and that there is enormous variability between the TPGs, and even within the same TPGs over time. The lack of precision works in the favor of TPGs (crackouts, regrades, crossovers) so there’s little incentive to standardize it.

    Can you give me a single example of another area in business where you can pay an expert an additional fee to see if they’ll change their earlier opinion that you already paid for?

    Grading is subjective. Period.

    Medicine. Diagnosis can be iterative. Trial and error sometimes also occurs for illnesses that have no definitive test.

    Well, yes, and no. If I’ve seen your MRI, done a physical exam, reviewed your history, and made a recommendation for surgery, I’m not going to change my opinion unless I’m presented with new information. When it comes to a coin, everything you see on the second look was there the first time.

    I agree. But when there is no definitive test, you can end up paying for multiple visits as they "try things". Coins sort of always lack for definitive tests as factors like luster, strike, focal points, etc. are subjective. Your actually paying them to either reconsider the subjective or shopping for a different grading team.

    Given the inherently subjective criteria, there should always be a range of possible outcomes in the MS grades. Circ grades can be more definitive. However even in circ, there are going to be coins that are straddling the line.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 34,259 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @TomB said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @MFeld said:

    @PerryHall said:
    I would be willing to bet that these 20 MS66 slabbed coins from an undisclosed grading company are 1908NM Saints from the Wells Fargo hoard which have an unsavory reputation for being overgraded. The results of this test could be vastly different with a different group of 20 coins.

    And even if the coins weren’t 1908 No Motto Saints, the results could (and probably would) be vastly different with another group of 20 coins. I think some people are giving far too much weight to statistically insignificant sample sizes.

    The sample size is adequate IF THE SAMPLING is random. While you require a sample size of 200 for a margin of error of 7% or so, this is a rather definitive result. There isn't disagreement on 1 or 2 coins. There isn't a range of results with some higher and some lower. There is a 100% incidence of grades AT LEAST one grade lower.

    The bigger question is not sample size. It's sampling. You could easily skew the results by choosing the coins rather than randomly sampling them.

    The key here is what @jmlanzaf has pointed out-

    "The bigger question is not sample size. It's sampling."

    We don't know anything about the sampling method. If one doesn't believe that sampling method matters then just think about the difference in results one would get if they submitted 20-coins from the personal collection and picked out by a collector or dealer known for their ability to identify fabulous coinage vs. what the results would be if a pure price-buyer roamed the floor of a major show looking to fill a 20-coin order for an issue as cheaply as possible so as to improve their bottom line.

    Yes. Or they could simply cherry pick the coins to guarantee an outcome. Find 20 coins that are PQ for the grade and submit to watch them upgrade or pick dogs to guarantee downgrades. I'm not saying this was done here, but how the sampling was done is incredibly important.

  • @wondercoin said:
    John is a great guy and did a wonderful job in my opinion at PCGS for years. I would personally like to see John candidly discuss why Walkers and other classics at PCGS received Gem grades while his team was grading them over at PCGS (assuming that was the case) only to now receive AU58+ grades and the like at CAC today. I believe this would help immensely with many collectors understand of what is truly happening- yes? Wondercoin.

    Easy! The standards were different. A professional grader on another site said he had to throw his standards out the window and use the company standards. That's probably why eventually AU's became MS. I was out of coins (still sulking over my former collection) when PCGS started and I have beed told they were very strict in the beginning. That must be true because I've read that from many posters also. I have not heard anyone say they liked strict gradeing by any TPGS.

  • RobertScotLoverRobertScotLover Posts: 943 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @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.

    I have to chime in. JA doesn't need to play games or have any similar nefarious plan hatched, he is a straight shooter and a person who actually cares about the safety/endurance of the hobby.

  • @Luxor said:

    Looks like a common date and the coin must be extremely flashy. I'll remind anyone that by moving the coin into different angles to the light or eotating it we would end up with images looking like entirely different ccoins. Perhaps 80-S don't matter a whole lot. One of my instructors got me to loosen up (I'm the guy that really got burned badly by over graded dollars and left the hobby for years) my grading by telling me over and over there are five more grades between MS-64 and MS-70 when I graded a coin like this MS-64.

    It's amusing how when someone here brings up even the possibility that CACG may have overgraded a coin and posts pics of such coin, that it will be immediately dismissed and CACG absolved with reasons such as "perhaps 80-S don't matter a whole lot", "the coin must be extremely flashy", or that it must be the angle or the lighting or.......... LOL.

    On another note, wondercoin pretty much hit the nail on the head IMO in another thread where he mentioned that these guys regarded as world class graders are simply 'hired guns' and will grade to the standard they're told to.

    No one is dismising anything. I HATE THE FACT that I'm not good enough to have a valid opinion by the Professionals. I hate the fact that I must rely on a TPGS to protect my "inve$tment" for my family. I do know images can be manipulated - thats what I wrote and these coins come with blazing luster.

    I also know that I am intelligent enough not to buy that coin unless it were in an MS-63 slab. That's my PERSONAL STANDARD. It appers it is different than that particular coin and CLOSER TO YOURS!!!

  • @logger7 said:
    I'm curious if there are any legal exposures for the new cac company in litigation nation, as people with multiple submissions of the same coin could claim arbitrary and capricious standards where valuations would be all over the place based on their assigned grade, making consumers getting unreasonably low grades resubmit, pay even more money for their claimed accurate grading standards?

    As I understand it, even Joe's slab service puts the fact that THIS COIN IS GRADED TO JOE'S STANDARDS.

  • DisneyFanDisneyFan Posts: 2,069 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @DisneyFan said:

    @cameonut2011 said:
    Regardless of sample size, 0 out of 20 is a pretty awful number. John Butler goes on in the CAC thread and says that there are many F coins out there and probably more than the CAC ABC language is interpreted by many as implying. Unless CACG 64+ coins (15/20 coins) are selling for non CACG 66 money, CACG will not have a lot of business going forward. Most submitters are going to get the coins in the holder that will yield the highest resale value.

    I wonder if the other grading services are tightening up their grades as a result of CACG being the new boy. Yes, CACG is tough; but, if you are buying coins, wouldn't you want to buy coins in holders from the service that is known for being spot on in terms of grading?

    If it can even be determined, “spot on in terms of grading” isn’t necessarily a matter of the lower grade (or the higher grade) for a given coin. How do you propose people make such a determination?

    By relying on honest dealers like you who are aware of the reputations of the different grading services.

  • FlyingAlFlyingAl Posts: 3,223 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @TomB said:

    @FlyingAl said:

    @winesteven said:

    @DisneyFan said:

    @Cougar1978 said:
    If I sent 20 MS 66 coins to CACG and none 66, just 3 were 65, others lower then that’s the last time they would get my money. A buddy at shows submitted 20 toners to them and none stickered or whatever.

    It could be all the MS66s that were available to your buddy from his/her sources were actually C coins or worse.

    I’m glad, and not surprised, to hear that NONE of those 20 coins in the so-called “Experiment” had a CAC sticker! Matter of fact, while I didn’t read that post from the very top, it sounds like the original presenter of that “experiment” left out that very critical point at the time of the original post. If I’m correct, that shows the bias of that post!

    Now that it’s been confirmed that NONE of those 20 coins had a CAC sticker, my guess is due to the likely value at 66, those coins likely had been submitted at some point to CAC stickering, and FAILED!

    So is it any surprise to see those crossed results on coins that don’t merit CAC stickers? I’m not surprised one bit!

    Steve

    Steve,

    The presenter of the original info was a CACG finalizer, so if there was bias, there's a high probability that it is in the favor of CACG.

    I think we should all be fair to John Butler over at CACG with respect to this thread.

    His thread on the CAC forum was specifically about the theories being thrown out on the PCGS boards about the + designation and + percentages at CACG. He used the 20-coin example as a way to show that 15-of the coins would have received the + designation at CACG as MS64+ if the submitter chose to allow the coins to cross at that level. However, since the submitter chose to cross only at MS65 or higher, the submitter received zero + designation coins out of 20. This made it appear that zero out of 20 would have been + designation at CACG when in reality 15 out of 20 would have been + designation.

    John used this to show that population reports, and other customer facing data, is not always complete and cannot always be used accurately to determine trends or absolute data. That was what much of the thread that John started was about. In that first post he also stated that none of the coins previously had a CAC sticker, which I don't believe was initially mentioned in this thread.

    As for sharing what the coins were and/or images, he is precluded from doing so. No doubt by the submitter, but perhaps also as a company policy.

    All of this is true, but as we've seen that data can also be used in a different setting.

    I agree that this sample is probably not a good one to draw conclusions with. However, it is a point of data, albeit not super useful. I don't believe John had edited his post to include the fact that the coins were not stickered when I posted the info to this thread, so there was no way to include that info.

    Personally, I think we're obsessing over something here that probably won't matter in the long run - the swings of grading will render these points moot. If someone resubmitted 1,000 CACG coins, the chances are pretty low all 1,000 will come back the same grade.

    Coin Photographer.

  • @MFeld said:

    @DisneyFan said:

    @cameonut2011 said:
    Regardless of sample size, 0 out of 20 is a pretty awful number. John Butler goes on in the CAC thread and says that there are many F coins out there and probably more than the CAC ABC language is interpreted by many as implying. Unless CACG 64+ coins (15/20 coins) are selling for non CACG 66 money, CACG will not have a lot of business going forward. Most submitters are going to get the coins in the holder that will yield the highest resale value.

    I wonder if the other grading services are tightening up their grades as a result of CACG being the new boy. Yes, CACG is tough; but, if you are buying coins, wouldn't you want to buy coins in holders from the service that is known for being spot on in terms of grading?

    If it can even be determined, “spot on in terms of grading” isn’t necessarily a matter of the lower grade (or the higher grade) for a given coin. How do you propose people make such a determination?

    "Spot on" is a personal opinion. That's how the determination is made. Your "spon on" is going to be different, and better than mine much of the time since we're not equals in grading experience, Nevertheless, it is my money so it is ONLY my standard that gets applied to a coin in a slab while I'm still learning to approch the level of your standard.

  • DisneyFanDisneyFan Posts: 2,069 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Luxor said:
    --> @DisneyFan said:

    I wonder if the other grading services are tightening up their grades as a result of CACG being the new boy. Yes, CACG is tough; but, if you are buying coins, wouldn't you want to buy coins in holders from the service that is known for being spot on in terms of grading?

    When was it established that CACG is "spot on" in terms of grading? Grading to a more conservative standard and assigning 'details' grades to coins the other services may consider to have minor issues but are acceptable is clearly NOT being spot on, just more conservative.

    I like coins that are conservatively graded. I really don't want coins that have minor issues.

    A large negative factor for inexperienced collectors purchasing solely CACG coins and presumably paying a large premium is that (in my experience) in many cases the actual coins are no more conservatively or spot on or otherwise superior examples for the grade, and they are just paying a large premium for essentially nothing other that a certain brand holder.

    Yes, there are sellers that ask a large premium for CAC & CACG coins and we have the option to not pay their price and keep looking.

  • VanHalenVanHalen Posts: 3,993 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @DisneyFan said:

    @cameonut2011 said:
    Regardless of sample size, 0 out of 20 is a pretty awful number. John Butler goes on in the CAC thread and says that there are many F coins out there and probably more than the CAC ABC language is interpreted by many as implying. Unless CACG 64+ coins (15/20 coins) are selling for non CACG 66 money, CACG will not have a lot of business going forward. Most submitters are going to get the coins in the holder that will yield the highest resale value.

    I wonder if the other grading services are tightening up their grades as a result of CACG being the new boy. Yes, CACG is tough; but, if you are buying coins, wouldn't you want to buy coins in holders from the service that is known for being spot on in terms of grading?

    I sure would. Spot on for grading that's been established and accepted for decades. Ultra-conservative technical grading from CACG is not that.

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,167 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 12, 2024 3:17AM

    @DisneyFan said:

    @MFeld said:

    @DisneyFan said:

    @cameonut2011 said:
    Regardless of sample size, 0 out of 20 is a pretty awful number. John Butler goes on in the CAC thread and says that there are many F coins out there and probably more than the CAC ABC language is interpreted by many as implying. Unless CACG 64+ coins (15/20 coins) are selling for non CACG 66 money, CACG will not have a lot of business going forward. Most submitters are going to get the coins in the holder that will yield the highest resale value.

    I wonder if the other grading services are tightening up their grades as a result of CACG being the new boy. Yes, CACG is tough; but, if you are buying coins, wouldn't you want to buy coins in holders from the service that is known for being spot on in terms of grading?

    If it can even be determined, “spot on in terms of grading” isn’t necessarily a matter of the lower grade (or the higher grade) for a given coin. How do you propose people make such a determination?

    By relying on honest dealers like you who are aware of the reputations of the different grading services.

    Your entire argument assumes there is only one true grade or even true grading scale. Grading is subjective and there is no one true/controlling set of standards. Look at PCGS and NGC. While based on their interpretations of the Sheldon scale, both have proprietary standards. Who is right? Who is the coin god that gets to declare one standard controlling? More conservative does not mean more accurate.

  • @Luxor said:

    When was it established that CACG is "spot on" in terms of grading? Grading to a more conservative standard and assigning 'details' grades to coins the other services may consider to have minor issues but are acceptable is clearly NOT being spot on, _just more conservative. _

    You must be fairly young. Conservative with regard to your standards NOT ones I was taught at ANA. I know, no one uses them anymore so this is what has happend to coin grading in this country during my liftime...The first down markers have been moved. Now, rather than a stricty measured 10 yards, a first down is only EITHER 7 or 8 yards depending on the teams playing. IT HAS CHANGED THE WHOLE GAME yet no one complained. Well, it looks like there is a new Commissioner of Football in office and he is changing the wacky rules closer to what they always were when the "grading game" started: 10 yards! Howeber, it seems many here can't imagine why.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,517 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @DisneyFan said:

    @Luxor said:
    --> @DisneyFan said:

    I wonder if the other grading services are tightening up their grades as a result of CACG being the new boy. Yes, CACG is tough; but, if you are buying coins, wouldn't you want to buy coins in holders from the service that is known for being spot on in terms of grading?

    When was it established that CACG is "spot on" in terms of grading? Grading to a more conservative standard and assigning 'details' grades to coins the other services may consider to have minor issues but are acceptable is clearly NOT being spot on, just more conservative.

    I like coins that are conservatively graded. I really don't want coins that have minor issues.

    A large negative factor for inexperienced collectors purchasing solely CACG coins and presumably paying a large premium is that (in my experience) in many cases the actual coins are no more conservatively or spot on or otherwise superior examples for the grade, and they are just paying a large premium for essentially nothing other that a certain brand holder.

    Yes, there are sellers that ask a large premium for CAC & CACG coins and we have the option to not pay their price and keep looking.

    There are also sellers that ask large premiums for many or most of their coins, regardless of who graded them (or even if they’re not graded) and no matter how undesirable they might be,

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

  • GoldFinger1969GoldFinger1969 Posts: 1,794 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 25, 2024 12:45PM

    @Luxor said:
    On another note, wondercoin pretty much hit the nail on the head IMO in another thread where he mentioned that >these guys regarded as world class graders are simply 'hired guns' and will grade to the standard they're told to.

    FWIW, I have read some of John Butler's posts over at CF, and he sounds nothing like a "hired gun" at all. Sounds very sharp, experienced, and his own man.

    We may have questions or disputes with the standards CACG is employing, but I can't say anything regarding the graders' integrity.

    I agree with MFeld and others here.... we need more time and more coins graded to establish a pattern and see how CACG is going to shake out by itself and relative to other TPGs. And how things are NOW might not be how it is 6-12 months from now for the same coin series...or for others they start to grade.

  • GoldFinger1969GoldFinger1969 Posts: 1,794 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 25, 2024 12:46PM

    @cameonut2011 said:
    My first guess was Saints and Wells Fargo coin hoards are frequently graded optimistically. I think you are likely >right. If not, it was probably a bunch of hoard date Morgans.

    I read on these forums -- before I had joined -- that JA/CAC had not given any coins in the WF Hoard a CAC sticker, but that was in error. Another member here corrected me and I think the original poster meant to say in the MS-68 and MS-69 rankings JA/CAC had not found a single coin worthy of a CAC bean.That still might be the case (have to check, but maybe one of you knows off the top of your heads) or since the original post was years ago the CAC sticker census has changed.

    I know there are plenty of OGH MS-66's that have CAC and I believe I have seen some non-OGH MS-67's.

    But I know from many of you who were active 25-30 years ago with Saints that there were coins that at first glance appeared to be liberally graded from the WF Hoard. Of course, that's where market and/or net grading MAY have entered: the WF Hoard 1908 NM's generally did look much better than the older non-WF 1908 NM's.

    So the problem may have been: you have the non-WF 1908 NM's at 64, 65, 66...whatever....and now you have coins that probably should grade the same (maybe 1 point higher) but they look MUCH better. So they end up 1 or even 2 grades higher for no dastardly reason.

  • TomBTomB Posts: 21,257 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @FlyingAl said:

    @TomB said:

    @FlyingAl said:

    @winesteven said:

    @DisneyFan said:

    @Cougar1978 said:
    If I sent 20 MS 66 coins to CACG and none 66, just 3 were 65, others lower then that’s the last time they would get my money. A buddy at shows submitted 20 toners to them and none stickered or whatever.

    It could be all the MS66s that were available to your buddy from his/her sources were actually C coins or worse.

    I’m glad, and not surprised, to hear that NONE of those 20 coins in the so-called “Experiment” had a CAC sticker! Matter of fact, while I didn’t read that post from the very top, it sounds like the original presenter of that “experiment” left out that very critical point at the time of the original post. If I’m correct, that shows the bias of that post!

    Now that it’s been confirmed that NONE of those 20 coins had a CAC sticker, my guess is due to the likely value at 66, those coins likely had been submitted at some point to CAC stickering, and FAILED!

    So is it any surprise to see those crossed results on coins that don’t merit CAC stickers? I’m not surprised one bit!

    Steve

    Steve,

    The presenter of the original info was a CACG finalizer, so if there was bias, there's a high probability that it is in the favor of CACG.

    I think we should all be fair to John Butler over at CACG with respect to this thread.

    His thread on the CAC forum was specifically about the theories being thrown out on the PCGS boards about the + designation and + percentages at CACG. He used the 20-coin example as a way to show that 15-of the coins would have received the + designation at CACG as MS64+ if the submitter chose to allow the coins to cross at that level. However, since the submitter chose to cross only at MS65 or higher, the submitter received zero + designation coins out of 20. This made it appear that zero out of 20 would have been + designation at CACG when in reality 15 out of 20 would have been + designation.

    John used this to show that population reports, and other customer facing data, is not always complete and cannot always be used accurately to determine trends or absolute data. That was what much of the thread that John started was about. In that first post he also stated that none of the coins previously had a CAC sticker, which I don't believe was initially mentioned in this thread.

    As for sharing what the coins were and/or images, he is precluded from doing so. No doubt by the submitter, but perhaps also as a company policy.

    All of this is true, but as we've seen that data can also be used in a different setting.

    I agree that this sample is probably not a good one to draw conclusions with. However, it is a point of data, albeit not super useful. I don't believe John had edited his post to include the fact that the coins were not stickered when I posted the info to this thread, so there was no way to include that info.

    Personally, I think we're obsessing over something here that probably won't matter in the long run - the swings of grading will render these points moot. If someone resubmitted 1,000 CACG coins, the chances are pretty low all 1,000 will come back the same grade.

    I believe you are wrong about your assertion that John Butler did not include the CAC sticker status of the coins in question. Both @MFeld and another user on the CAC forum quoted John Butler's original post prior to it being edited and both have within their quotes this from John Butler's post-

    "None of the MS66 holder coins had a CAC sticker in case anyone is wondering."

    These quotes were made on February 23 at 6:41AM and 8:42AM while your post was February 23 at 3:54PM. It appears an explanation might be that in the wall of text from John Butler you simply missed the statement, which would be easy to do and can be done without any malicious intent.

    Thomas Bush Numismatics & Numismatic Photography

    In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson

    image
  • GoldFinger1969GoldFinger1969 Posts: 1,794 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @CascadeChris said:
    @wondercoin said:
    John is a great guy and did a wonderful job in my opinion at PCGS for years. I would personally like to see John >candidly discuss why Walkers and other classics at PCGS received Gem grades while his team was grading them >over at PCGS (assuming that was the case) only to now receive AU58+ grades and the like at CAC today. I believe >this would help immensely with many collectors understand of what is truly happening- yes? Wondercoin.
    They speak about it during Scott Travers seminar at FUN on the NNP link

    What year at FUN was that panel discussion ?

  • FlyingAlFlyingAl Posts: 3,223 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @TomB said:

    @FlyingAl said:

    @TomB said:

    @FlyingAl said:

    @winesteven said:

    @DisneyFan said:

    @Cougar1978 said:
    If I sent 20 MS 66 coins to CACG and none 66, just 3 were 65, others lower then that’s the last time they would get my money. A buddy at shows submitted 20 toners to them and none stickered or whatever.

    It could be all the MS66s that were available to your buddy from his/her sources were actually C coins or worse.

    I’m glad, and not surprised, to hear that NONE of those 20 coins in the so-called “Experiment” had a CAC sticker! Matter of fact, while I didn’t read that post from the very top, it sounds like the original presenter of that “experiment” left out that very critical point at the time of the original post. If I’m correct, that shows the bias of that post!

    Now that it’s been confirmed that NONE of those 20 coins had a CAC sticker, my guess is due to the likely value at 66, those coins likely had been submitted at some point to CAC stickering, and FAILED!

    So is it any surprise to see those crossed results on coins that don’t merit CAC stickers? I’m not surprised one bit!

    Steve

    Steve,

    The presenter of the original info was a CACG finalizer, so if there was bias, there's a high probability that it is in the favor of CACG.

    I think we should all be fair to John Butler over at CACG with respect to this thread.

    His thread on the CAC forum was specifically about the theories being thrown out on the PCGS boards about the + designation and + percentages at CACG. He used the 20-coin example as a way to show that 15-of the coins would have received the + designation at CACG as MS64+ if the submitter chose to allow the coins to cross at that level. However, since the submitter chose to cross only at MS65 or higher, the submitter received zero + designation coins out of 20. This made it appear that zero out of 20 would have been + designation at CACG when in reality 15 out of 20 would have been + designation.

    John used this to show that population reports, and other customer facing data, is not always complete and cannot always be used accurately to determine trends or absolute data. That was what much of the thread that John started was about. In that first post he also stated that none of the coins previously had a CAC sticker, which I don't believe was initially mentioned in this thread.

    As for sharing what the coins were and/or images, he is precluded from doing so. No doubt by the submitter, but perhaps also as a company policy.

    All of this is true, but as we've seen that data can also be used in a different setting.

    I agree that this sample is probably not a good one to draw conclusions with. However, it is a point of data, albeit not super useful. I don't believe John had edited his post to include the fact that the coins were not stickered when I posted the info to this thread, so there was no way to include that info.

    Personally, I think we're obsessing over something here that probably won't matter in the long run - the swings of grading will render these points moot. If someone resubmitted 1,000 CACG coins, the chances are pretty low all 1,000 will come back the same grade.

    I believe you are wrong about your assertion that John Butler did not include the CAC sticker status of the coins in question. Both @MFeld and another user on the CAC forum quoted John Butler's original post prior to it being edited and both have within their quotes this from John Butler's post-

    "None of the MS66 holder coins had a CAC sticker in case anyone is wondering."

    These quotes were made on February 23 at 6:41AM and 8:42AM while your post was February 23 at 3:54PM. It appears an explanation might be that in the wall of text from John Butler you simply missed the statement, which would be easy to do and can be done without any malicious intent.

    Yep, that does seem to be the case. I missed it in the first post, my mistake.

    Coin Photographer.

  • JimWJimW Posts: 561 ✭✭✭✭

    @TomB said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @MFeld said:

    @PerryHall said:
    I would be willing to bet that these 20 MS66 slabbed coins from an undisclosed grading company are 1908NM Saints from the Wells Fargo hoard which have an unsavory reputation for being overgraded. The results of this test could be vastly different with a different group of 20 coins.

    And even if the coins weren’t 1908 No Motto Saints, the results could (and probably would) be vastly different with another group of 20 coins. I think some people are giving far too much weight to statistically insignificant sample sizes.

    The sample size is adequate IF THE SAMPLING is random. While you require a sample size of 200 for a margin of error of 7% or so, this is a rather definitive result. There isn't disagreement on 1 or 2 coins. There isn't a range of results with some higher and some lower. There is a 100% incidence of grades AT LEAST one grade lower.

    The bigger question is not sample size. It's sampling. You could easily skew the results by choosing the coins rather than randomly sampling them.

    The key here is what @jmlanzaf has pointed out-

    "The bigger question is not sample size. It's sampling."

    We don't know anything about the sampling method. If one doesn't believe that sampling method matters then just think about the difference in results one would get if they submitted 20-coins from the personal collection and picked out by a collector or dealer known for their ability to identify fabulous coinage vs. what the results would be if a pure price-buyer roamed the floor of a major show looking to fill a 20-coin order for an issue as cheaply as possible so as to improve their bottom line.

    @TomB said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @MFeld said:

    @PerryHall said:
    I would be willing to bet that these 20 MS66 slabbed coins from an undisclosed grading company are 1908NM Saints from the Wells Fargo hoard which have an unsavory reputation for being overgraded. The results of this test could be vastly different with a different group of 20 coins.

    And even if the coins weren’t 1908 No Motto Saints, the results could (and probably would) be vastly different with another group of 20 coins. I think some people are giving far too much weight to statistically insignificant sample sizes.

    The sample size is adequate IF THE SAMPLING is random. While you require a sample size of 200 for a margin of error of 7% or so, this is a rather definitive result. There isn't disagreement on 1 or 2 coins. There isn't a range of results with some higher and some lower. There is a 100% incidence of grades AT LEAST one grade lower.

    The bigger question is not sample size. It's sampling. You could easily skew the results by choosing the coins rather than randomly sampling them.

    The key here is what @jmlanzaf has pointed out-

    "The bigger question is not sample size. It's sampling."

    We don't know anything about the sampling method. If one doesn't believe that sampling method matters then just think about the difference in results one would get if they submitted 20-coins from the personal collection and picked out by a collector or dealer known for their ability to identify fabulous coinage vs. what the results would be if a pure price-buyer roamed the floor of a major show looking to fill a 20-coin order for an issue as cheaply as possible so as to improve their bottom line.

    Apart from the important issue regarding the sample, IMHO we also have a limited inference space, e.g., the conclusions from this experiment cannot be assumed to apply to other grades such as MS65 or MS67, etc.

    Successful BST Transactions: erwindoc, VTchaser, moursund, robkool, RelicKING, Herb_T, Meltdown, ElmerFusterpuck

  • logger7logger7 Posts: 8,522 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @logger7 said:
    I'm curious if there are any legal exposures for the new cac company in litigation nation, as people with multiple submissions of the same coin could claim arbitrary and capricious standards where valuations would be all over the place based on their assigned grade, making consumers getting unreasonably low grades resubmit, pay even more money for their claimed accurate grading standards?

    No. A submitter is paying for their honest opinion, and CACG is giving the submitter just that. That the submitter doesn’t like the result doesn’t change that.

    I probably don't understand the intricacies of the market as it pertains to how the new CACG company's grades are valued; however we've gone from cac stickering PCGS and NGC coins and in many cases being willing to buy coins that met their quality standards, to now their own grading service where those money offers no longer exist with them. The idea that even their standards are subjective and variable, while many expect that their guarantee is the best in the business but you have no recourse with downgrades. So if all the evidence is that on one submission they graded a coin MS64 and the next time AU58 with huge swings in valuations are we to suppose the consumer has no recourse legally or commercially?

  • GoldFinger1969GoldFinger1969 Posts: 1,794 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 25, 2024 9:13PM

    @tradedollarnut said:
    My personal opinion has always been that it’s stupid to put a coin with a microscopic amount of rub into a 58 >holder when the market treats it as a 64. That’s how Pcgs started and I remember buying a group of AU58 wlh that >looked gem - I couldn’t see the rub at all. Years later resubmitted them and got 64s and 65s

    Maybe that was peculiar to WLH's ?

    My understanding was that both PCGS and then NGC were there to prevent extreme outliers like the GROSS abuse of the "high point wear" thing from showing up in 64's and 65's. It's one thing to allow miniscule wear on the high point to throw it out of Mint State to AU, but quite another for more serious wear issues. I think that kind of abuse/outlier which was becoming more and more common was the reason why the attempts at standards started in the 1970's and then took formation in the 1980's with the TPGs.

    And as JA stated...the rapid appreciation in both PMs and numismatics in the decade ending 1981 (and then the commemorative boom) was a contributing factor to market grading, gradeflation, etc.

    Before the TPGs, dealers and expert collectors were the only ones who could really grade on a professional level. If dealers sold at MS and bought at AU, that was part of the problem. Buy OR sell at both -- but not a mixture. That spells R-I-P-O-F-F. :D

  • Jcc1876Jcc1876 Posts: 7
    edited February 26, 2024 2:29PM

    @Insider3 said:

    @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?

    OK, so you completely missed the entire point of my question. I'll try to rephrase it. Assume I have an 1880 Morgan, graded MS-66, in a PCGS holder with a green CAC sticker. Or let's say I have a second 1880 Morgan graded MS-65, in a PCGS holder with a gold CAC sticker. If I submit both coins to CACG (still in their original slabs) for grading, am I guaranteed that the first coin will come back graded MS-66 by CACG, and the other also graded MS-66? After all, both were previously awarded CAC stickers (the first green, the second gold). Does CAC guarantee their original opinion, or could both coins come back with literally any grade CACG saw fit?

  • CascadeChrisCascadeChris Posts: 2,524 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @GoldFinger1969 said:

    @CascadeChris said:
    @wondercoin said:
    John is a great guy and did a wonderful job in my opinion at PCGS for years. I would personally like to see John >candidly discuss why Walkers and other classics at PCGS received Gem grades while his team was grading them >over at PCGS (assuming that was the case) only to now receive AU58+ grades and the like at CAC today. I believe >this would help immensely with many collectors understand of what is truly happening- yes? Wondercoin.
    They speak about it during Scott Travers seminar at FUN on the NNP link

    What year at FUN was that panel discussion ?

    2024 the seminar was titled "Welcome to a stronger coin market" which is available to watch on the NNP page that posts videos of the various FUN seminars

    The more you VAM..
  • DMWJRDMWJR Posts: 6,006 ✭✭✭✭✭

    According to MyCollect “Guess the grade,” I’m a terrible grader already. I must need TPG’s and stickers :)

    Doug
  • alaura22alaura22 Posts: 3,194 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @mattniss said:

    @Jcc1876 said:
    Assume I have an 1880 Morgan, graded MS-66, in a PCGS holder with a green CAC sticker. Or let's say I have a second 1880 Morgan graded MS-65, in a PCGS holder with a gold CAC sticker. If I submit both coins to CACG (still in their original slabs) for grading, am I guaranteed that the first coin will come back graded MS-66 by CACG, and the other also graded MS-66? After all, both were previously awarded CAC stickers (the first green, the second gold). Does CAC guarantee their original opinion, or could both coins come back with literally any grade CACG saw fit?

    The MS66 PCAC in this scenario would be guaranteed to cross to CACG as a 66. It could come back higher (i.e.: 66+), but it's guaranteed to come back at a minimum of 66. If somehow they disagreed with the green bean, I'd assume they'd buy the coin back at CAC retail price for the green beaned grade OR they'd ask you if you would consider a downgrade to the appropriate grade and pay you the difference.

    The MS65 PCAC Gold in this scenario would also be guaranteed to come back with a minimum of at least 66, but also could come back higher (i.e.: 66+ or even 67). Gold beans are market positioned as ~1.5+ grades higher, but are guaranteed to cross at least a grade up from the posted grade.

    So yes, CAC guarantees their original opinion, but the eventual final grade could still differ.

    Only if the coin is a legacy coin

  • Insider3Insider3 Posts: 260 ✭✭✭

    @Typekat said:
    Bold
    BOLD ALL CAPS

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

    I use them to make sure English challenged members from other countries will understand the point I'm making. I think everyone else texting considers Bold to be shouting.

  • Insider3Insider3 Posts: 260 ✭✭✭

    @Married2Coins said:

    @wondercoin said:
    John is a great guy and did a wonderful job in my opinion at PCGS for years. I would personally like to see John candidly discuss why Walkers and other classics at PCGS received Gem grades while his team was grading them over at PCGS (assuming that was the case) only to now receive AU58+ grades and the like at CAC today. I believe this would help immensely with many collectors understand of what is truly happening- yes? Wondercoin.

    Easy! The standards were different. A professional grader on another site said he had to throw his standards out the window and use the company standards. That's probably why eventually AU's became MS. I was out of coins (still sulking over my former collection) when PCGS started and I have beed told they were very strict in the beginning. That must be true because I've read that from many posters also. I have not heard anyone say they liked strict gradeing by any TPGS.

    A professional grader on another site said he had to throw his standards out the window and use the company standards. LOL, I'm guilty. B)

  • Insider3Insider3 Posts: 260 ✭✭✭

    @tradedollarnut said:
    My personal opinion has always been that it’s stupid to put a coin with a microscopic amount of rub into a 58 holder when the market treats it as a 64. That’s how Pcgs started and I remember buying a group of AU58 wlh that looked gem - I couldn’t see the rub at all. Years later resubmitted them and got 64s and 65s

    Looks like you'll agree that the Grading standards changed. From what I'm reading, CACG is doing the same thing as a start. Time will tell if they can hold those standards. I've already posted that to my surprise, me and my TPGS straight graded about a dozen Morgan Dollars that were "detailed" for cleaning. I can't imagine ANYONE alive today could be as strict as I am regarding detailed coins! I guess I was dreaming.

  • Insider3Insider3 Posts: 260 ✭✭✭

    @Jcc1876 said:

    @Insider3 said:

    @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?

    OK, so you completely missed the entire point of my question. I'll try to rephrase it. Assume I have an 1880 Morgan, graded MS-66, in a PCGS holder with a green CAC sticker. Or let's say I have a second 1880 Morgan graded MS-65, in a PCGS holder with a gold CAC sticker. If I submit both coins to CACG (still in their original slabs) for grading, am I guaranteed that the first coin will come back graded MS-66 by CACG, and the other also graded MS-66? After all, both were previously awarded CAC stickers (the first green, the second gold). Does CAC guarantee their original opinion, or could both coins come back with literally any grade CACG saw fit?

    You expressed yourself quite well the first time and I answered you. Now my turn.

    Who do you think I work for? IMO, this is the kind of question that BELONGS ON THE CAC FORUM where the opinions are actually valid because they will be answered by the CACG team who actually grade the coins! See my point? I put in BOLD.

    I'm a member over there also so I'll learn something by your question rather than read speculations. o:)

  • jerseybenjerseyben Posts: 115 ✭✭✭

    Don't most tests involve a "control"?

  • gumby1234gumby1234 Posts: 5,588 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Many people are assuming that PCGS and NGC always accurately grade every coin. This is not the case. Just look at some of the GTG coins on my collect site and you can see for yourself.

    Here is a straight graded Lincoln cent.

    Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 34,259 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jerseyben said:
    Don't most tests involve a "control"?

    There is a "control". You already have the coin grades from either NGC or PCGS

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 34,259 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @slider23 said:
    I find it refreshing that CACG appears to be putting the market acceptable cleaned coins in a details holder. I purchase about 95% of my coins online, and from still photos a market acceptable cleaning often can not be detected until the coin is in hand.

    The conflict is really between the buyers and the owners. As a buyer, I want that information and as conservative a grade as possible. As an owner, I don't want my coins downgraded.

    The people objecting keep referring to their coins being "undergraded". They don't seem to want to acknowledge that the higher number may be overgraded.

Leave a Comment

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