Got My First CACG Coin

Manifest_Destiny

I like the coin. The slab, not so much. It's a plastic brick, way too thick, and doesn't fit in any standard slab box.

Shurke

Nice looking quarter!

One thing I do really like about CACG slabs is the beveled prongs. Gives a nice view of the coin inside.

DocBenjamin

Still not sure what the green bean facsimile means. Is it the equivalent of a CAC green stickered coin or just more contrived confusion from Mr. A?

Manifest_Destiny

@DocBenjamin said:
Still not sure what the green bean facsimile means. Is it the equivalent of a CAC green stickered coin or just more contrived confusion from Mr. A?

In case there was any doubt, the newest label iteration puts "CAC" in front of the grade.

Count the CACs.

Walkerlover

CACG grading is quite impressive but the slab itself is like a miniature coffin, very unappealing. Love my PCGS slabs, especially the older ones without prongs and thinner edges

Jacques_Loungecoque

The green color they use for their slabs always reminds me of NTC.

Desert Moon

@Manifest_Destiny said:
I like the coin. The slab, not so much. It's a plastic brick, way too thick, and doesn't fit in any standard slab box.

Best optics of any ‘slab’ out there for taking great images……………………

Desert Moon

@Jacques_Loungecoque said:
The green color they use for their slabs always reminds me of NTC.

Reminds me of CAC………………...

Desert Moon

@Walkerlover said:
CACG grading is quite impressive but the slab itself is like a miniature coffin, very unappealing. Love my PCGS slabs, especially the older ones without prongs and thinner edges

Best slab on the market easily………………

Desert Moon

@Manifest_Destiny said:

@DocBenjamin said:
Still not sure what the green bean facsimile means. Is it the equivalent of a CAC green stickered coin or just more contrived confusion from Mr. A?

In case there was any doubt, the newest label iteration puts "CAC" in front of the grade.

Count the CACs.

Nevermind, don’t know why folks want to bash a great product and excellent grading.

Desert Moon

@DocBenjamin said:
Still not sure what the green bean facsimile means. Is it the equivalent of a CAC green stickered coin or just more contrived confusion from Mr. A?

Means most accurate and consistent grading in the industry. Which is what we want.

Desert Moon

@Shurke said:
Nice looking quarter!

One thing I do really like about CACG slabs is the beveled prongs. Gives a nice view of the coin inside.

As I note, easily the best designed slab on the market and best for taking accurate images, no bright spots on the plastic, see above image.

Desert Moon

@Walkerlover said:
CACG grading is quite impressive but the slab itself is like a miniature coffin, very unappealing. Love my PCGS slabs, especially the older ones without prongs and thinner edges

And let’s compare that to a Rattler holder, terrible all the way and I don’t mean diamondback, LOL.

Desert Moon

@Manifest_Destiny said:
I like the coin. The slab, not so much. It's a plastic brick, way too thick, and doesn't fit in any standard slab box.

It fits perfectly in my Intercept Shield boxes, and NGC boxes, so you, are incorrect…………..

RobertScotLover

I know its a Beautiful original coin with a lousy photo

Desert Moon

@Manifest_Destiny said:
I like the coin. The slab, not so much. It's a plastic brick, way too thick, and doesn't fit in any standard slab box.

Aslo, the CACG bricks as you call them, fit together perfectly for stacking vertically or horizontally without causing a unstable pile. Best designed slab on the market IMO

U1chicago

@DocBenjamin said:
Still not sure what the green bean facsimile means. Is it the equivalent of a CAC green stickered coin or just more contrived confusion from Mr. A?

It’s just the logo. Unfortunately it seems like that was a poor choice as there are many people that I have seen that ask why is there a sticker on a CACG slab, especially if it’s a details slab.

As far as the issue of if a CACG is equal to a stickered coin, there is still debate on that too. A guy that works/grades for CACG posted on this forum earlier this year that “C” coins can exist in CACG holders as they use the “full scale” (his example was a 65 Morgan can be a C coin). That seems to be in contrast to stickers only being A or B for the grade.

Desert Moon

Herez another one, perfect optics, easy to image. Thumbs up!

U1chicago

Here is the post that is still not fully clear to this day

Catbert

And yet CACG coins get extra point value in their registry over CAC stickered coins.

Manifest_Destiny

@spacehayduke said:

@Manifest_Destiny said:
I like the coin. The slab, not so much. It's a plastic brick, way too thick, and doesn't fit in any standard slab box.

It fits perfectly in my Intercept Shield boxes, and NGC boxes, so you, are incorrect…………..

Nope, I use intercept shield boxes also. They don't fit in the slotted boxes.

bsshog40

Looks like someone in this thread is not able to take criticism very well.

PeakRarities

@U1chicago said:
Here is the post that is still not fully clear to this day

I'm not exactly sure what Chris' role is at CACG, but I wouldn't take that comment as gospel, ...The whole "ABC" thing, which in all reality was just a euphemism created by JA to convey his grading rationale to the general public, is so convoluted at this point that I think even their employees are confused.

All you need to know is that the intended goal, from the horse's mouth, is to mirror the stickering standards exactly, but with slabs. If a 65C fails stickering, It shouldn't, in theory, end up in a 65 CACG holder. In practice, it's much more difficult to make that a reality, but if Chris' comment were true, that would go entirely against everything that JA has ever said about the grading service.

Manifest_Destiny

DocBenjamin

@PeakRarities said:

@U1chicago said:
Here is the post that is still not fully clear to this day

I'm not exactly sure what Chris' role is at CACG, but I wouldn't take that comment as gospel, ...The whole "ABC" thing, which in all reality was just a euphemism created by JA to convey his grading rationale to the general public, is so convoluted at this point that I think even their employees are confused.

All you need to know is that the intended goal, from the horse's mouth, is to mirror the stickering standards exactly, but with slabs. If a 65C fails stickering, It shouldn't, in theory, end up in a 65 CACG holder. In practice, it's much more difficult to make that a reality, but if Chris' comment were true, that would go entirely against everything that JA has ever said about the grading service.

Correct answer is the A,B,C, and plus designations are a scam. Accurately graded coins of a given numeric designation have a different appearance, but that is in the eye of the collector. 20 years ago, Coin World did a 2 year long project sending the same coins to 3 or 4 different houses. Results were eye opening. Would like to do that now with PCGS, NGC and CACG.

Might be worth the couple years and a few thousand bucks. I would limit it a bit more than the CW samples. Probably only 4 coin types.

U1chicago

@PeakRarities said:

@U1chicago said:
Here is the post that is still not fully clear to this day

I'm not exactly sure what Chris' role is at CACG, but I wouldn't take that comment as gospel, ...The whole "ABC" thing, which in all reality was just a euphemism created by JA to convey his grading rationale to the general public, is so convoluted at this point that I think even their employees are confused.

All you need to know is that the intended goal, from the horse's mouth, is to mirror the stickering standards exactly, but with slabs. If a 65C fails stickering, It shouldn't, in theory, end up in a 65 CACG holder. In practice, it's much more difficult to make that a reality, but if Chris' comment were true, that would go entirely against everything that JA has ever said about the grading service.

There is an issue if CACG employees are confused about the concept. That leads to dealers and collectors being confused too, which is not the desired goal.

The comment made by Chris appeared to come directly from JA or at least an understanding of what JA said. So we have contrasting points made by different people involved with the company. Some say there are no "C" coins and some say there are. Theory is one thing but what the actual practice is at CACG is not definitively written.

U1chicago

@DocBenjamin said:

@PeakRarities said:

@U1chicago said:
Here is the post that is still not fully clear to this day

I'm not exactly sure what Chris' role is at CACG, but I wouldn't take that comment as gospel, ...The whole "ABC" thing, which in all reality was just a euphemism created by JA to convey his grading rationale to the general public, is so convoluted at this point that I think even their employees are confused.

All you need to know is that the intended goal, from the horse's mouth, is to mirror the stickering standards exactly, but with slabs. If a 65C fails stickering, It shouldn't, in theory, end up in a 65 CACG holder. In practice, it's much more difficult to make that a reality, but if Chris' comment were true, that would go entirely against everything that JA has ever said about the grading service.

Correct answer is the A,B,C, and plus designations are a scam. Accurately graded coins of a given numeric designation have a different appearance, but that is in the eye of the collector. 20 years ago, Coin World did a 2 year long project sending the same coins to 3 or 4 different houses. Results were eye opening. Would like to do that now with PCGS, NGC and CACG.

Might be worth the couple years and a few thousand bucks. I would limit it a bit more than the CW samples. Probably only 4 coin types.

The results might just as easily be eye opening if you sent the same few coins to the same TPG every few months. It would be a tremendous waste of grading fees but would be interesting to see.

PeakRarities

@U1chicago said:

@PeakRarities said:

@U1chicago said:
Here is the post that is still not fully clear to this day

I'm not exactly sure what Chris' role is at CACG, but I wouldn't take that comment as gospel, ...The whole "ABC" thing, which in all reality was just a euphemism created by JA to convey his grading rationale to the general public, is so convoluted at this point that I think even their employees are confused.

All you need to know is that the intended goal, from the horse's mouth, is to mirror the stickering standards exactly, but with slabs. If a 65C fails stickering, It shouldn't, in theory, end up in a 65 CACG holder. In practice, it's much more difficult to make that a reality, but if Chris' comment were true, that would go entirely against everything that JA has ever said about the grading service.

There is an issue if CACG employees are confused about the concept. That leads to dealers and collectors being confused too, which is not the desired goal.

The comment made by Chris appeared to come directly from JA or at least an understanding of what JA said. So we have contrasting points made by different people involved with the company. Some say there are no "C" coins and some say there are. Theory is one thing but what the actual practice is at CACG is not definitively written.

Thats why I'm saying Chris is either confused or misinformed. Think about it.

If what he was saying is true, and CACG is using the "full spectrum" while CAC isn't, that would mean that a 65 C that fails stickering, gets sent to CACG and gets holdered as a 65. That does NOT resemble anything JA has said at any point in time. From the get-go, it was explained that CACG's standards would be mirroring CAC.

PeakRarities

I'm going to see John at the office on Tuesday, I will bring up the topic with him then and report back.

U1chicago

@PeakRarities said:

@U1chicago said:

@PeakRarities said:

@U1chicago said:
Here is the post that is still not fully clear to this day

I'm not exactly sure what Chris' role is at CACG, but I wouldn't take that comment as gospel, ...The whole "ABC" thing, which in all reality was just a euphemism created by JA to convey his grading rationale to the general public, is so convoluted at this point that I think even their employees are confused.

All you need to know is that the intended goal, from the horse's mouth, is to mirror the stickering standards exactly, but with slabs. If a 65C fails stickering, It shouldn't, in theory, end up in a 65 CACG holder. In practice, it's much more difficult to make that a reality, but if Chris' comment were true, that would go entirely against everything that JA has ever said about the grading service.

There is an issue if CACG employees are confused about the concept. That leads to dealers and collectors being confused too, which is not the desired goal.

The comment made by Chris appeared to come directly from JA or at least an understanding of what JA said. So we have contrasting points made by different people involved with the company. Some say there are no "C" coins and some say there are. Theory is one thing but what the actual practice is at CACG is not definitively written.

Thats why I'm saying Chris is either confused or misinformed. Think about it.

If what he was saying is true, and CACG is using the "full spectrum" while CAC isn't, that would mean that a 65 C that fails stickering, gets sent to CACG and gets holdered as a 65. That does NOT resemble anything JA has said at any point in time. From the get-go, it was explained that CACG's standards would be mirroring CAC.

It was explained that way but it was never confirmed to be that way in official writing. It's possible that Chris was wrong but when he or someone else was given a chance to clarify, the same answer came back (without anyone else correcting the record). No one said CACG was loose; in fact, the general idea is that they are more conservative. So the "C thing" is an oddity but I have no reason to doubt what he said until someone like JA officially writes/publishes on the website that the intention is to have no "C" coins in CACG slabs.

PeakRarities

@DocBenjamin said:

@PeakRarities said:

@U1chicago said:
Here is the post that is still not fully clear to this day

I'm not exactly sure what Chris' role is at CACG, but I wouldn't take that comment as gospel, ...The whole "ABC" thing, which in all reality was just a euphemism created by JA to convey his grading rationale to the general public, is so convoluted at this point that I think even their employees are confused.

All you need to know is that the intended goal, from the horse's mouth, is to mirror the stickering standards exactly, but with slabs. If a 65C fails stickering, It shouldn't, in theory, end up in a 65 CACG holder. In practice, it's much more difficult to make that a reality, but if Chris' comment were true, that would go entirely against everything that JA has ever said about the grading service.

Correct answer is the A,B,C, and plus designations are a scam. Accurately graded coins of a given numeric designation have a different appearance, but that is in the eye of the collector. 20 years ago, Coin World did a 2 year long project sending the same coins to 3 or 4 different houses. Results were eye opening. Would like to do that now with PCGS, NGC and CACG.

Might be worth the couple years and a few thousand bucks. I would limit it a bit more than the CW samples. Probably only 4 coin types.

That doesn’t make sense to me, and your first and second sentences seem to contradict each other.

A,B, and C aren’t “designations”. They are just part of a euphemism for the spectrum of quality within a grade level. I sort of agree with you about the plusses, but that’s only because of the inconsistent application of them.

I’m doing some experimenting myself, I’ll post about it if there’s anything worthy of discussion.

MetroD

@PeakRarities said:
I'm going to see John at the office on Tuesday, I will bring up the topic with him then and report back.

Hi Dan,

Thanks for doing this.

You probably already thought about this, but just in case.
Please consider asking JA to add this information to the CAC website (e.g., FAQ section).

CRHer700

@Manifest_Destiny said:

@DocBenjamin said:
Still not sure what the green bean facsimile means. Is it the equivalent of a CAC green stickered coin or just more contrived confusion from Mr. A?

In case there was any doubt, the newest label iteration puts "CAC" in front of the grade.

Count the CACs.

CAC slab Version 1.1. A future collectable variety.

CRHer700

@Manifest_Destiny said:

I think that you could fit three more on there if you tried.

DocBenjamin

@PeakRarities said:

@DocBenjamin said:

@PeakRarities said:

@U1chicago said:
Here is the post that is still not fully clear to this day

I'm not exactly sure what Chris' role is at CACG, but I wouldn't take that comment as gospel, ...The whole "ABC" thing, which in all reality was just a euphemism created by JA to convey his grading rationale to the general public, is so convoluted at this point that I think even their employees are confused.

All you need to know is that the intended goal, from the horse's mouth, is to mirror the stickering standards exactly, but with slabs. If a 65C fails stickering, It shouldn't, in theory, end up in a 65 CACG holder. In practice, it's much more difficult to make that a reality, but if Chris' comment were true, that would go entirely against everything that JA has ever said about the grading service.

Correct answer is the A,B,C, and plus designations are a scam. Accurately graded coins of a given numeric designation have a different appearance, but that is in the eye of the collector. 20 years ago, Coin World did a 2 year long project sending the same coins to 3 or 4 different houses. Results were eye opening. Would like to do that now with PCGS, NGC and CACG.

Might be worth the couple years and a few thousand bucks. I would limit it a bit more than the CW samples. Probably only 4 coin types.

That doesn’t make sense to me, and your first and second sentences seem to contradict each other.

A,B, and C aren’t “designations”. They are just part of a euphemism for the spectrum of quality within a grade level. I sort of agree with you about the plusses, but that’s only because of the inconsistent application of them.

I’m doing some experimenting myself, I’ll post about it if there’s anything worthy of discussion.

While the ABC's are not on any holder, the CAC rollout indicated that the green sticker represented an accurately graded coin in an NGC or PCGS slab. Over time (to no doubt appease the folks at CU." the CAC green metric now became A&B coins for the grade. So a failed to sticker PCGS/MGC could still be properly graded, albeit at the less desirable "C" tier.

Now green means absolutely nothing as it is on all kinds of dreck in the new CACG slabs. Most here who are serious collectors are tripping over this. The more relaxed hobbyist has no chance.

PeakRarities

@DocBenjamin said:

@PeakRarities said:

@DocBenjamin said:

@PeakRarities said:

@U1chicago said:
Here is the post that is still not fully clear to this day

I'm not exactly sure what Chris' role is at CACG, but I wouldn't take that comment as gospel, ...The whole "ABC" thing, which in all reality was just a euphemism created by JA to convey his grading rationale to the general public, is so convoluted at this point that I think even their employees are confused.

All you need to know is that the intended goal, from the horse's mouth, is to mirror the stickering standards exactly, but with slabs. If a 65C fails stickering, It shouldn't, in theory, end up in a 65 CACG holder. In practice, it's much more difficult to make that a reality, but if Chris' comment were true, that would go entirely against everything that JA has ever said about the grading service.

Correct answer is the A,B,C, and plus designations are a scam. Accurately graded coins of a given numeric designation have a different appearance, but that is in the eye of the collector. 20 years ago, Coin World did a 2 year long project sending the same coins to 3 or 4 different houses. Results were eye opening. Would like to do that now with PCGS, NGC and CACG.

Might be worth the couple years and a few thousand bucks. I would limit it a bit more than the CW samples. Probably only 4 coin types.

That doesn’t make sense to me, and your first and second sentences seem to contradict each other.

A,B, and C aren’t “designations”. They are just part of a euphemism for the spectrum of quality within a grade level. I sort of agree with you about the plusses, but that’s only because of the inconsistent application of them.

I’m doing some experimenting myself, I’ll post about it if there’s anything worthy of discussion.

While the ABC's are not on any holder, the CAC rollout indicated that the green sticker represented an accurately graded coin in an NGC or PCGS slab. Over time (to no doubt appease the folks at CU." the CAC green metric now became A&B coins for the grade. So a failed to sticker PCGS/MGC could still be properly graded, albeit at the less desirable "C" tier.

Now green means absolutely nothing as it is on all kinds of dreck in the new CACG slabs. Most here who are serious collectors are tripping over this. The more relaxed hobbyist has no chance.

“All kinds of dreck in the new CACG slabs”

Can you show me an example? All I’ve heard non stop from collectors is how tight CACG is being and how they are too strict as a grading service. You’re claiming that they’re not strict enough. Which is it?

And with the sticker operation, JA can simply decline to sticker a coin and that’s that. With the grading service, if the coin isnt problematic, then they to put a number on it. Likely what will happen is that the number they put on it will be lower then PCGS’ number, but they can’t simply decline to grade the coin because they don’t like it.

Almost everything I’ve seen in a CACG holder seems to be accurately graded and solid for the grade. I’m not sure about all of the AU58+ coins that are being downgraded from NGC 63, but in the end it seems like a CACG 58+ sells for the same amount of money anyway so does it really matter? I have yet to see a batch of dreck in CACG holders….

DocBenjamin

@PeakRarities

PeakRarities

A silver eagle in a details holder? What’s your point? That’s not a numismatic coin, so by default it’s not “dreck”.

constitutional_halve

58 in a 55 holder...

Last submission to CACG. Now I have to wait/pay for PCGS to upgrade it appropriately.

MFeld

@PeakRarities said:
A silver eagle in a details holder? What’s your point? That’s not a numismatic coin, so by default it’s not “dreck”.

@PeakRarities

@PeakRarities said:
A silver eagle in a details holder? What’s your point? That’s not a numismatic coin, so by default it’s not “dreck”.

>

Forget about whether the coin qualifies as “dreck”. What counts is that it was given a detail grade. And DocBenjamin felt with that example, he was showing readers that there’s “all kinds of dreck in the new CACG slabs.” Talk about really reaching down low to support your own point of view.

PeakRarities

@MFeld said:

@PeakRarities said:
A silver eagle in a details holder? What’s your point? That’s not a numismatic coin, so by default it’s not “dreck”.

@PeakRarities

@PeakRarities said:
A silver eagle in a details holder? What’s your point? That’s not a numismatic coin, so by default it’s not “dreck”.

>

Forget about whether the coin qualifies as “dreck”. What counts is that it was given a detail grade. And DocBenjamin felt with that example, he was showing readers that there’s “all kinds of dreck in the new CACG slabs.” Talk about really reaching down low to support your own point of view.

Seriously, what a poor example.

MFeld

@constitutional_halve said:

58 in a 55 holder...

Last submission to CACG. Now I have to wait/pay for PCGS to upgrade it appropriately.

It looks like a 58 to me, based on slight bit still obvious rub on some upper hair curls. What grade do you feel would be appropriate?

constitutional_halve

58 is what I see as well.

When I get home, I'll take a picture at tilt that shows how little rub there actually is. The coin is dripping in luster, puts most 65 Morgans to shame.

PeakRarities

@constitutional_halve said:

58 in a 55 holder...

Last submission to CACG. Now I have to wait/pay for PCGS to upgrade it appropriately.

You don't HAVE to do anything, and you don't know for a fact that PCGS will upgrade it. In my experience, most bust half collectors are pretty well informed and know how to grade.

The grey bid in 55cac is $480

The grey bid for 58 non cac is $600.

The last non-cac 58 brought $660 on HA

The last 55 CAC brought $780 on HA

If you pretend that its a PCGS 58, and list commensurate with that grade, theres a very high probability that someone will recognize that the coin is graded conservatively, and pay up for it. It's not an expensive coin, so I wouldnt go spending more money on grading when you probably dont have to.

I recently paid $3800 for a coin with a grey bid of $1100. Why? Because its conservatively graded, and I think the coin is worth it.

MFeld

@constitutional_halve said:
58 is what I see as well.

When I get home, I'll take a picture at tilt that shows how little rub there actually is. The coin is dripping in luster, puts most 65 Morgans to shame.

Thank you.

constitutional_halve

@PeakRarities said:

@constitutional_halve said:

58 in a 55 holder...

Last submission to CACG. Now I have to wait/pay for PCGS to upgrade it appropriately.

You don't HAVE to do anything, and you don't know for a fact that PCGS will upgrade it. In my experience, most bust half collectors are pretty well informed and know how to grade.

The grey bid in 55cac is $480

The grey bid for 58 non cac is $600.

The last non-cac 58 brought $660 on HA

The last 55 CAC brought $780 on HA

If you pretend that its a PCGS 58, and list commensurate with that grade, theres a very high probability that someone will recognize that the coin is graded conservatively, and pay up for it. It's not an expensive coin, so I wouldnt go spending more money on grading when you probably dont have to.

I recently paid $3800 for a coin with a grey bid of $1100. Why? Because its conservatively graded, and I think the coin is worth it.

Fair enough, I greatly respect and appreciate your perspective.

Collecting bust halves taught me two things:

A. How to grade
B. Most collectors/dealers can't grade. (Rely far far too much on TPG grades)

Edit: BEAUTIFUL coin!

Also, I have found in my limited inventory (I flip to collect) that PCGS coins are much much more liquid.

DocBenjamin

@MFeld said:

@PeakRarities said:
A silver eagle in a details holder? What’s your point? That’s not a numismatic coin, so by default it’s not “dreck”.

@PeakRarities

@PeakRarities said:
A silver eagle in a details holder? What’s your point? That’s not a numismatic coin, so by default it’s not “dreck”.

>

Forget about whether the coin qualifies as “dreck”. What counts is that it was given a detail grade. And DocBenjamin felt with that example, he was showing readers that there’s “all kinds of dreck in the new CACG slabs.” Talk about really reaching down low to support your own point of view.

Mark, we can have a conversation here without the insults.

The CAC brand has decided to throw away over a decade of "acceptance" by using the brand in a different fashion than what was established and often debated (with a few bannings as well,) on this forum.

Collectors have paid substantial premiums for a green stickered coins and insane multiples for gold stickers. Even PCGS registry (unless a change has been made,) gives extra credit for PCGS graded coins with the coveted emblem.

So in 2024, we have a new (possibly controlling interest) collector, dealer, calling the shots and undoubtedly valuation of these embellished widgets will be jeopardized. If that is a minor issue to you, as an ambassador to the hobby, we travel on a different path.

DocBenjamin

@PeakRarities said:
A silver eagle in a details holder? What’s your point? That’s not a numismatic coin, so by default it’s not “dreck”.

It is a dollar coin produced by the US mint. Examples have sold for over a thousand and likely ten thousand bucks. Call it modern crap if you will, but it certainly qualifies as a numismatic coin!

MFeld

@DocBenjamin said:

@MFeld said:

@PeakRarities said:
A silver eagle in a details holder? What’s your point? That’s not a numismatic coin, so by default it’s not “dreck”.

@PeakRarities

@PeakRarities said:
A silver eagle in a details holder? What’s your point? That’s not a numismatic coin, so by default it’s not “dreck”.

>

Forget about whether the coin qualifies as “dreck”. What counts is that it was given a detail grade. And DocBenjamin felt with that example, he was showing readers that there’s “all kinds of dreck in the new CACG slabs.” Talk about really reaching down low to support your own point of view.

Mark, we can have a conversation here without the insults.

The CAC brand has decided to throw away over a decade of "acceptance" by using the brand in a different fashion than what was established and often debated (with a few bannings as well,) on this forum.

Collectors have paid substantial premiums for a green stickered coins and insane multiples for gold stickers. Even PCGS registry (unless a change has been made,) gives extra credit for PCGS graded coins with the coveted emblem.

So in 2024, we have a new (possibly controlling interest) collector, dealer, calling the shots and undoubtedly valuation of these embellished widgets will be jeopardized. If that is a minor issue to you, as an ambassador to the hobby, we travel on a different path.

On the subject of insults, what does any of that have to do with “scam”?
Neither you, I, nor anyone else knows how CAC or CACG coins will be valued in the future. But I haven’t seen anything in the way of CACG’s grading that causes me concern.

PeakRarities

@constitutional_halve said:

@PeakRarities said:

@constitutional_halve said:

58 in a 55 holder...

Last submission to CACG. Now I have to wait/pay for PCGS to upgrade it appropriately.

You don't HAVE to do anything, and you don't know for a fact that PCGS will upgrade it. In my experience, most bust half collectors are pretty well informed and know how to grade.

The grey bid in 55cac is $480

The grey bid for 58 non cac is $600.

The last non-cac 58 brought $660 on HA

The last 55 CAC brought $780 on HA

If you pretend that its a PCGS 58, and list commensurate with that grade, theres a very high probability that someone will recognize that the coin is graded conservatively, and pay up for it. It's not an expensive coin, so I wouldnt go spending more money on grading when you probably dont have to.

I recently paid $3800 for a coin with a grey bid of $1100. Why? Because its conservatively graded, and I think the coin is worth it.

Fair enough, I greatly respect and appreciate your perspective.

Collecting bust halves taught me two things:

A. How to grade
B. Most collectors/dealers can't grade. (Rely far far too much on TPG grades)

Edit: BEAUTIFUL coin!

Also, I have found in my limited inventory (I flip to collect) that PCGS coins are much much more liquid.

I agree that PCGS coins tend to be much more liquid than NGC, but CACG is still in its infancy. As of now, PCGS is still the most liquid. 5 years from now, we dont know if that will be the case. With that said, despite that CACG isn't exactly off to a strong start with respect to collector demand, their grading is strcit and there are quite a few collectors, including myself, who pay up for nice coins in CACG holders. If you want to quote me on your coin, and price it like a normal non cac 58, I'd probably buy it. I buy coins, the plastic and the price are only secondary.

PeakRarities

@DocBenjamin said:

@PeakRarities said:
A silver eagle in a details holder? What’s your point? That’s not a numismatic coin, so by default it’s not “dreck”.

It is a dollar coin produced by the US mint. Examples have sold for over a thousand and likely ten thousand bucks. Call it modern crap if you will, but it certainly qualifies as a numismatic coin!

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. Its NCLT, so despite it's legal tender status and $1 "value", its not a coin that was meant to circulate and therefore its not numismatic.

Regardless, I still don't see how a details silver eagle helps support your point of "dreck in CACG holders". Do I love the fact that details coins get the same green bean logo as the nice coins? NO, I do not, and I hope that may change eventually. However, it still says DETAILS on the slab, and in no way is a good example to represent their grading standards.