CAC Registry - Thoughts Comments?

gschwernk

I am considering adding some of my coins to the new CAC registry. Do members have experience with using it? What is its chance for success? Will it be active enough to be worthy of competing there.

Thanks,
George

Goldminers

Ask the moderator

lermish

My initial thought is that it's fine. I like that you can use P, N, or C coins in there. I don't think it will replace the PCGS registry as the premier registry. The technology gap between C and P is still massive and likely will be for some time.

coinkat

No

golden

No. PCGS Registry is just fine, thank you.

PeakRarities

They don’t have type set options or pioneer gold yet, so my hands are tied 🤷.

coinbuf

I like it very much, it is as @lermish wrote the most inclusive TPG registry. I have sets on all three registries but with the PCGS registry being the most restrictive I really only use it as an afterthought and mostly as a third inventory backup, I will never be interested in being a serious competitor at PCGS unless they drop the silly PCGS only bit.

I think it has lots of great features and the staff at CACG are still building out the sets and tinkering with the sets that are currently available. If I have any complaint with the CACG registry it would be that there are too many sets for the same type of coins with very minor differences between the sets.

Will it be successful you ask, only time can answer that question, Mr. Hanson has been moving some of his sets over to the CACG registry. I don't know how many he plans to move, maybe just some maybe all, CACG is still in its infancy so the sky is the limit and I for one will enjoy seeing it grow and flourish.

shish

It has several features that I love. It's the most inclusive TPG registry, it's user friendly, very well structured, and it has the most accurate weighting by far. There are several important features that should be added in the next few months.

I look forward to participating as new ideas are implemented and membership grows.

ColoradoCoinGuy

As others have said, it is the most inclusive. I added a couple of Peace dollar sets as I had most coins in P, N, and C slabs. I also had a couple of ANACS slabs which I can't show in the sets. I think it would be great if you could list ANACS slabs in your sets even if you get no points for them.

winesteven

@ColoradoCoinGuy said:
As others have said, it is the most inclusive. I added a couple of Peace dollar sets as I had most coins in P, N, and C slabs. I also had a couple of ANACS slabs which I can't show in the sets. I think it would be great if you could list ANACS slabs in your sets even if you get no points for them.

So what’s the point? 😂

Steve

alaura22

Too show you have a coin for that slot?

winesteven

Mike - It was my attempt at a joke, with his and my use of the word “point”. Apparently less funny than I thought.

Steve

ColoradoCoinGuy

as @alaura22 said, "Too show you have a coin for that slot?"
Exactly. I may have a coin in and ANACS MS65 slab that I don't want to spend the time and money to get into a different slab just so it gets points. I am not interested in where I am ranked, just want to show others what I have in a collection. The CACG registry comes closest to letting me do that.

Cougar1978

No - Prefer PCGS Registry for me.

EastonCollection

i have very few sets listed on the P registry site and currently none listed on the C site. Yes. I do intend to list a few of my sets on the C registry site in very short order. Only thing stopping me, need some personal time too do so. Life commitments get in my way.

Walkerfan

I like the CAC registry, as it is very inclusive, just like the NGC registry, but even more so. It is also a good pricing/inventory tool. I hope that it catches on in popularity. It’s much too early to tell, right now.

MFeld

@Cougar1978 said:
No - Prefer PCGS Registry for me.

Do you even have any PCGS registry sets? If so, by all means, please post them.😉

lermish

@MFeld said:

@Cougar1978 said:
No - Prefer PCGS Registry for me.

Do you even have any PCGS registry sets? If so, by all means, please post them.😉

We've talked about betting a few times over the last week. Here's a bet that doesn't rely on pictures. I bet he doesn't post any sets registered to him. Do you want the other side? Please? I could use the cash

braddick

As far as I can navigate, no Ike lowball or Everyman Ike sets over there.

MFeld

@lermish said:

@MFeld said:

@Cougar1978 said:
No - Prefer PCGS Registry for me.

Do you even have any PCGS registry sets? If so, by all means, please post them.😉

We've talked about betting a few times over the last week. Here's a bet that doesn't rely on pictures. I bet he doesn't post any sets registered to him. Do you want the other side? Please? I could use the cash

I’m seeing a crystal clear picture of someone posting “No - Prefer PCGS Registry for me.” But that someone having no personal experience with registry sets. Still, even if I were a betting man, I wouldn’t take the other side of your action.😀

OnlyGoldIsMoney

My Lib $2.50's are posted on both the PCGS and CAC registries. So far I have not seem many competing sets at CAC.

I do like the variety of set configurations CAC offers, for example short sets by decade.

breakdown

CACG’s registry is off to a good start but will require more participation to accomplish what they seek: more big-time coins in CACG holders.

PCGS’s registry is well-administered and has a professional presentation. But it requires absolute fealty and ignores some percentage (20%? 30%?) of registry- quality coins in NGC and CACG holders.

wondercoin

I am now down to just 48 PCGS Registry sets at this very moment for which the majority of those sets are ranked #1 or #2. I have nearly no reason to do anything outside of the PCGS Registry format (with the possible exception of supporting NGC on select sets I feel they do a good job with). But, others might have many valid reasons to move over to another company’s Registry. These other reasons include, but are not limited to, choosing a different company registry so one doesn’t need to compete with the strength of the PCGS players. Ex: if one wanted to build a #1 set of pattern Liberty nickels, it would cost a heck of a lot less money (IMHO) to do that somewhere other than the PCGS Set Registry. Tons of other set examples apply as well. Second, if you were a partial owner of another grading service, it might make total sense to support that company’s registry.

Just my 2 cents.

Wondercoin.

winesteven

@wondercoin said:
I am now down to just 48 PCGS Registry sets at this very moment for which the majority of those sets are ranked #1 or #2. I have nearly no reason to do anything outside of the PCGS Registry format (with the possible exception of supporting NGC on select sets I feel they do a good job with). But, others might have many valid reasons to move over to another company’s Registry. These other reasons include, but are not limited to, choosing a different company registry so one doesn’t need to compete with the strength of the PCGS players. Ex: if one wanted to build a #1 set of pattern Liberty nickels, it would cost a heck of a lot less money (IMHO) to do that somewhere other than the PCGS Set Registry. Tons of other set examples apply as well. Second, if you were a partial owner of another grading service, it might make total sense to support that company’s registry.

Just my 2 cents.

Wondercoin.

A disagreement on your use of the term/phrase “reasons to move over to another company’s Registry.”

One does not give up their participation in the PCGS Registry when they choose to also participate in the new CACG Registry with their PCGS holdered coins. “Move over” clearly implies “leaving” the Registry one is currently participating in, which is not the case if you are not crossing your coins, which is a completely different subject.

I participate in the PCGS Registry, as 100% of my coins are graded by PCGS. I choose to also participate in BOTH of the CACG Registries with these PCGS holdered coins - their “Universal” Registries, for coins graded by CACG, PCGS, NGC (with or without CAC stickers), as well their “CAC Only” Registries, for coins graded by CACG or PCGS and NGC that merit CAC stickers.

Just out of curiosity, you indicate you are now “down to just 48 PCGS Registry sets”. Why did you drop out of the others you were in?

My final curiosity question - are you choosing to not also participate in the two styles of CACG Registries due to the potential of not being ranked with the majority of your sets as #1 or #2 in their “CAC Only” version?

By the way, your coins are absolutely GORGEOUS, and I fully agree you should be VERY proud of your collection. I’m proud that my collection includes a few wonderful Kennedy Halves and Ike Dollars that I bought from you!

Steve

Cougar1978

I use the Pcgs inventory app but not a registry hobbyist. My excel inventory WS does just fine lol.

MFeld

@Cougar1978 said:
I use the Pcgs inventory app but not a registry hobbyist. My excel inventory WS does just fine lol.

No surprise there, despite your earlier post on the subject:
@Cougar1978 said:
No - Prefer PCGS Registry for me.

gschwernk

BTW. It was not my intention to move my sets to the CAC registry. My question is should I duplicate some of my PCGS sets on the CAC registry? I wouldn't want to do this unless enough collectors use the CAC registry to make competing there a challenge. I haven't yet studied their sets but it is possible they might have a set that fits my collection better than PCGS.

winesteven

CACG has a LOT more subsets in their two Registries than PCGS or NGC. No harm in taking a look, no harm in participating. No doubt "the competition" will increase over time as more collectors participate, especially if D.L. Hansen participates. But now, while there is "some" competition, admittedly there is not a lot.

They do not yet have any real Type Sets, and they do not yet have 1936 - 1942 U.S. Proof Sets, both of which I have strength. But due to their many subsets and two Registries, I currently participate in 146 of their sets. Of those, my rank is #6 on one of those, five are #4, nine are #3, 37 are #2, and the remaining 94 are ranked #1. But DON'T be impressed, since as you correctly say, the competition is not yet great. Additionally, of those 94 sets and subsets of mine currently ranked #1, roughly half are the same sets/subsets, but just shown separately as "Universal", with the same sets/subsets shown separately in their "CAC Only" category. Take a look a few months from now, and chances are high my current rankings will have dropped like a hot knife through butter!

Steve

Manifest_Destiny

@wondercoin said:
.......... Second, if you were a partial owner of another grading service, it might make total sense to support that company’s registry.

Hansen

MFeld

@gschwernk said:
BTW. It was not my intention to move my sets to the CAC registry. My question is should I duplicate some of my PCGS sets on the CAC registry? I wouldn't want to do this unless enough collectors use the CAC registry to make competing there a challenge. I haven't yet studied their sets but it is possible they might have a set that fits my collection better than PCGS.

If you post sets on the other site it might encourage others to do the same. And that, in turn, could lead to the greater challenge that you’re apparently seeking.😉

oldUScoins

I collect for fun. I started a new series and am trying to get all cacg graded coins and using their registry.

Some things I liked about it:
1. Allows PCGS and ngc coins.
2. Fresh - what I mean is on the PCGS registry you have sets that have been there for 15 years and haven’t changed.

Again I do it for fun not to make money or even to have the highest set. Top 25 is where I want to end up.

winesteven

@gschwernk said:
BTW. It was not my intention to move my sets to the CAC registry. My question is should I duplicate some of my PCGS sets on the CAC registry? I wouldn't want to do this unless enough collectors use the CAC registry to make competing there a challenge. I haven't yet studied their sets but it is possible they might have a set that fits my collection better than PCGS.

I was referring to another collector who said he won't move his Registry sets at this time.

Steve

Barberian

@winesteven said:
CACG has a LOT more subsets in their two Registries than PCGS or NGC. No harm in taking a look, no harm in participating. No doubt "the competition" will increase over time as more collectors participate, especially if D.L. Hansen participates. But now, while there is "some" competition, admittedly there is not a lot.

They do not yet have any real Type Sets, and they do not yet have 1936 - 1942 U.S. Proof Sets, both of which I have strength. But due to their many subsets and two Registries, I currently participate in 146 of their sets. Of those, my rank is #6 on one of those, five are #4, nine are #3, 37 are #2, and the remaining 94 are ranked #1. But DON'T be impressed, since as you correctly say, the competition is not yet great. Additionally, of those 94 sets and subsets of mine currently ranked #1, roughly half are the same sets/subsets, but just shown separately as "Universal", with the same sets/subsets shown separately in their "CAC Only" category. Take a look a few months from now, and chances are high my current rankings will have dropped like a hot knife through butter!

Steve

"Ouch! OK. I will 'dial down' the enthusiasm for your coins until CAC gets more competition."

-- stoner flunking the Registry

Manifest_Destiny

I know I'm in the minority but I don't get why any company would allow other company's slabs in their registry. It's an admission that your registry isn't leading. On that note, I'll be glad when PCGS dumps CAC.

Gerry Fortin has an open registry for people who have multiple company slabs.

wondercoin

Steve. To answer your questions asked of me - first, I am personally down to 48 sets because at one point I had 70+ sets and just wanted to streamline all the sets to not have to collect things I really had little interest in at all. As an example, even though I won the Hall of Fame award for my MS Washington quarter set 1932-date, I decided I had no interest in collecting the MN tree varieties. So, I closed certain sets (some of them minor variety sets) while maintaining my core collecting interests. Second, as far as not participating in the other registries, it wasn’t because of a concern that my #1 or #2 sets might not be ranked as high as at PCGS. I have never even visited the CAC set registry as far as I recall. I might be #1 or #2 in most of my sets over there as well. I truly have no idea.

As far as I know, PCGS has the toughest and best competition in all of Registry. So, there is really no reason to post my sets elsewhere (thank you for correcting me in my inaccurate use of the word “move”). Why post them in 2 or 3 other places? For what purpose? Bragging rights? Maybe in 5-10 years things will be different - we shall see.

I was in Yokahama, Japan last week and my hotel was right down the street from that city’s baseball stadium. I could literally see inside the baseball park from my hotel room when a game was underway. I thought to myself “I should really catch a game in Japan and see why they love baseball so much”. I then saw the team had basically a “500” record and I thought to myself “if I want to see great and exciting baseball I should catch a Yankees, Cubs or Red Sox game this year”. I had plenty to do in Japan so I passed for the moment on the baseball game in Yokohama. It’s kind of the same thing (but I know a little different) regarding posting my coins in other registries. I spend most of my days (roughly 365 days a year) studying/collecting/selling coins. My Registry sets are already posted at the “Fenway Park of Registry”. It’s enough for now.

Wondercoin.

winesteven

@Manifest_Destiny said:
I know I'm in the minority but I don't get why any company would allow other company's slabs in their registry. It's an admission that your registry isn't leading. On that note, I'll be glad when PCGS dumps CAC.

Gerry Fortin has an open registry for people who have multiple company slabs.

As does NGC and MyCollect (an affiliation with GC, an auction company, not a TPG).

Steve

winesteven

Every point you make, @wondercoin makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

By the way, not that it matters, but I'm convinced your sets would also rank #1 and #2 over at the CACG Registry, at least in their "Universal" Registry sets, and quite possibly their other type as well.

Safe and uneventful travels home.

Steve

wondercoin

‘’Safe and uneventful travels home.’’

From 40,000 feet as we speak, as the entire biz class, but me, sleeps on this wonderful Singapore Air plane! 🤣

Wondercoin.

MFeld

@wondercoin said:
Steve. To answer your questions asked of me - first, I am personally down to 48 sets because at one point I had 70+ sets and just wanted to streamline all the sets to not have to collect things I really had little interest in at all. As an example, even though I won the Hall of Fame award for my MS Washington quarter set 1932-date, I decided I had no interest in collecting the MN tree varieties. So, I closed certain sets (some of them minor variety sets) while maintaining my core collecting interests. Second, as far as not participating in the other registries, it wasn’t because of a concern that my #1 or #2 sets might not be ranked as high as at PCGS. I have never even visited the CAC set registry as far as I recall. I might be #1 or #2 in most of my sets over there as well. I truly have no idea.

As far as I know, PCGS has the toughest and best competition in all of Registry. So, there is really no reason to post my sets elsewhere (thank you for correcting me in my inaccurate use of the word “move”). Why post them in 2 or 3 other places? For what purpose? Bragging rights? Maybe in 5-10 years things will be different - we shall see.

I was in Yokahama, Japan last week and my hotel was right down the street from that city’s baseball stadium. I could literally see inside the baseball park from my hotel room when a game was underway. I thought to myself “I should really catch a game in Japan and see why they love baseball so much”. I then saw the team had basically a “500” record and I thought to myself “if I want to see great and exciting baseball I should catch a Yankees, Cubs or Red Sox game this year”. I had plenty to do in Japan so I passed for the moment on the baseball game in Yokohama. It’s kind of the same thing (but I know a little different) regarding posting my coins in other registries. I spend most of my days (roughly 365 days a year) studying/collecting/selling coins. My Registry sets are already posted at the “Fenway Park of Registry”. It’s enough for now.

Wondercoin.

Mitch, the Yankees and the Red Sox are 2 and 7 1/2 games respectively, behind the Orioles. Maybe you should move your sets to the “Camden Yards of Registry”. Just saying…

wondercoin

Mark- Those 3 years in Baltimore (Maryland Law School) I spent at Memorial Park Baseball Stadium took their toll on me. Tough years (1980-83). One cool thing. I attended opening day when Cal Ripken, Jr. stepped up to the plate for his first at bat. HOME RUN!!

Wondercoin.

coinbuf

@Manifest_Destiny said:
Gerry Fortin has an open registry for people who have multiple company slabs.

Very true, however, Gerry's registry is extremely limited in overall size and the scope of coins, limited to mostly seated dimes, half dimes, and a 7070 type set. If he was ever to expand his registry it might become quite popular, but that would require quite a lot of time and money on his part, not to mention the increased time to monitor and manage a large registry going forward.

Catbert

I exported my PCGS inventory file to create a CACG registry. Unfortunately, it automatically created 100 + sets that I haven't gotten around to deleting. I wish that this process was inverted where one would need to opt in rather than opt out of a set. Biggest turn off for me.

winesteven

@Catbert said:
I exported my PCGS inventory file to create a CACG registry. Unfortunately, it automatically created 100 + sets that I haven't gotten around to deleting. I wish that this process was inverted where one would need to opt in rather than opt out of a set. Biggest turn off for me.

You don't have to delete the ones you don't want - just categorize the ones you want to "competing" vs "Not Competing". it's quick and easy. For me, it gave me a total of 1,402 sets (and there are sets my inventory would be eligible for that they don't yet offer, like many Type Sets, 1939-1942 U.S. Proof Sets, etc.), but I easily marked "146" of those sets to "Competing".

Steve

Catbert

Thanks Steve. Yet, my point remains that the export process defaulted to competing.

winesteven

@Catbert said:
Thanks Steve. Yet, my point remains that the export process defaulted to competing.

If you go to your sets, assuming the majority are not wanted to compete, go to “Bulk Actions” and change them all to “Stop Competing”. Then once they are all that way, sort the % Complete column from highest to lowest. Then select the sets presumably near the top that you want to compete that probably have the high completion percentages.

Good luck.

Steve

ReadyFireAim

I'm going to wait for JA's 4th TPG company.

winesteven

@ReadyFireAim said:
I'm going to wait for JA's 4th TPG company.

I’m pretty sure you’ll bash that one too 😂

Steve

Coin Finder

PCGS is to far ahead in the registry set business. It would take a lot to convert them. It would take a well publicized CACG registry set sale to boost participation in the CAC one I think.

I for one wonder how long CACG will last....

winesteven

@Coin Finder said:
PCGS is to far ahead in the registry set business. It would take a lot to convert them. It would take a well publicized CACG registry set sale to boost participation in the CAC one I think.

I for one wonder how long CACG will last....

CACG is not looking to have more participants in their Registry than PCGS, even in the long term, just as they’re not trying to grade more coins than PCGS in the long term. What they ARE trying to do is what CACG believes is a better job in both the design of their Registry, and consistency with their view of grading.

Separately, I don’t believe CACG is looking to have collectors convert from the PCGS Registry to the CACG Registry. I believe they’re just looking to have collectors partake, which could very well be in addition to partaking in the PCGS Registry, just as I’m doing! 100% of my coins are graded by PCGS, and I partake in the PCGS Registry and both CACG Registries with my PCGS coins!

I’m not prepared at this stage of the CACG Registry to say their finished product is best, as it’s still rolling out and tweaks are being made, as needed.

Steve

Coin Finder

@winesteven I appreciate your comments, thank you.

wondercoin

‘’CACG is not looking to have more participants in their Registry than PCGS, even in the long term, just as they’re not trying to grade more coins than PCGS in the long term.’’

Source?

Wondercoin