@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.
One has a reasonable expectation when dealing with the top 3 graders of consistency. That is being tossed in the air like a Monopoly board after the guy holding Boardwalk and Park Place goes bust.
Rules keep changing as the players enter and exit. Not good for the collector.
I am a seven figure buyer with one of the major auction houses (and will prove it by PM if asked) and will no longer pay over a hundred bucks or two for numismatic premium over melt. That is how far my trust of grading, counterfeit protection and guarantee have diminished. Is none of that of concern to you?
I am a seven figure buyer with one of the major auction houses (and will prove it by PM if asked) and will no longer pay over a hundred bucks or two for numismatic premium over melt. That is how far my trust of grading, counterfeit protection and guarantee have diminished. Is none of that of concern to you?
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Please expound.
@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.
One has a reasonable expectation when dealing with the top 3 graders of consistency. That is being tossed in the air like a Monopoly board after the guy holding Boardwalk and Park Place goes bust.
Rules keep changing as the players enter and exit. Not good for the collector.
I am a seven figure buyer with one of the major auction houses (and will prove it by PM if asked) and will no longer pay over a hundred bucks or two for numismatic premium over melt. That is how far my trust of grading, counterfeit protection and guarantee have diminished. Is none of that of concern to you?
Again, what does any of that or your previous reply have to do with scam?
No need to prove your auction buying to me. Are you even able to send private messages with your profile being hidden?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@BigDowgie said:
I am saving my money, sorry CAC Crew.
I suggest that you do save your money, because after a brief look through your post history, it appears that your primary focus is Jefferson Nickels. Not series where surface manipulation is prevalent.
I’m a CAC fan, thus a CACG fan. I’m not confused by the use of the logo for coins not previously stickered as I can read. Buying CACG or CAC coins is a choice. There are many other choices. Not sure why one would complain if there are plenty of other choices. Do you naysayers go out of your way to bitch about Ford if you prefer a Chevy? I suppose it’s human nature to seek validation if one isn’t confident of their own decisions.
@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.
Your quote in the OP: " It's a plastic brick, way too thick, and doesn't fit in any standard slab box.”
I use Intercept Shield boxes where the perfectly stackable, excellent optics, CACG slabs fit in perfectly. And I interpret it to be a ‘standard slab box’. So you are still incorrect bc some Intercept Shield ‘standard slab boxes’ work, as do NGC boxes that are slotted. NGC fatties don’t fit in Intercept Shield slotted boxes also. So Two key types of important slabs do not fit in them. I would not call that ‘standard’ LOL as I would not call PCGS slotted boxes standard but instead specific to only one type of slab. Not very useful IMO and LOL………..
@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.
I and many others perfectly understand the details CACG coins and that the logo goes on every slab. However, there is a consequential number of people that don't or at least give the impression that they don't. While there will always be something to complain about, the way details coins have been labeled might just rise high enough to being an issue with CACG. And that issue also leads some to claim that there is dreck in CACG holders because there are details coins with a "sticker" (even though it is simple enough to learn that CACG is not stickering details coins or any coins for that matter). Expanding to moderns and "non-numismatic" coins also gives the impression that there is now dreck in CACG slabs since the sticker company did not accept those coins at all. I personally have no issue with moderns (I'm actually a fan of some) and understand the need to be a "full service" TPG. However, the established brand that CAC built with its sticker has caused enough people to be confused or unhappy with the new grading wing of the company. And it has opened the door to detractors to lodge some more credible critiques than were previously possible.
@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.
I and many others perfectly understand the details CACG coins and that the logo goes on every slab. However, there is a consequential number of people that don't or at least give the impression that they don't. While there will always be something to complain about, the way details coins have been labeled might just rise high enough to being an issue with CACG. And that issue also leads some to claim that there is dreck in CACG holders because there are details coins with a "sticker" (even though it is simple enough to learn that CACG is not stickering details coins or any coins for that matter). Expanding to moderns and "non-numismatic" coins also gives the impression that there is now dreck in CACG slabs since the sticker company did not accept those coins at all. I personally have no issue with moderns (I'm actually a fan of some) and understand the need to be a "full service" TPG. However, the established brand that CAC built with its sticker has caused enough people to be confused or unhappy with the new grading wing of the company. And it has opened the door to detractors to lodge some more credible critiques than were previously possible.
So you are saying folks can’t understand what a ‘details’ grade is? Give folks a little credit, as I doubt that no one is confused about CAC/CACG. If they are, they can go to their website and be fully informed of what they do with both stickering and grading. You make it sound much more complicated than it really is:
CAC stickers coins in other TPG slabs that are strong for the grade.
CACG grades coins, there is no confusion there, they also put ‘details’ coins in their holders, just like all of the other TPG’s do
@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.
I and many others perfectly understand the details CACG coins and that the logo goes on every slab. However, there is a consequential number of people that don't or at least give the impression that they don't. While there will always be something to complain about, the way details coins have been labeled might just rise high enough to being an issue with CACG. And that issue also leads some to claim that there is dreck in CACG holders because there are details coins with a "sticker" (even though it is simple enough to learn that CACG is not stickering details coins or any coins for that matter). Expanding to moderns and "non-numismatic" coins also gives the impression that there is now dreck in CACG slabs since the sticker company did not accept those coins at all. I personally have no issue with moderns (I'm actually a fan of some) and understand the need to be a "full service" TPG. However, the established brand that CAC built with its sticker has caused enough people to be confused or unhappy with the new grading wing of the company. And it has opened the door to detractors to lodge some more credible critiques than were previously possible.
So you are saying folks can’t understand what a ‘details’ grade is? Give folks a little credit, as I doubt that no one is confused about CAC/CACG. If they are, they can go to their website and be fully informed of what they do with both stickering and grading. You make it sound much more complicated than it really is:
CAC stickers coins in other TPG slabs that are strong for the grade.
CACG grades coins, there is no confusion there, they also put ‘details’ coins in their holders, just like all of the other TPG’s do
I have had more than one person ask why is there a sticker on a CACG details slab I had. And I have seen people mention having stickers on their CACG coins. It's not everyone but it is enough people that it is an issue.
Well. talk about confusion. I'm a big fan of CAC and I'm perfectly happy with my PCGS CAC stickered coins and don't want to change that
BUT
I believe that things could have been done a lot better to avoid all this confusion.
If you're starting a new business of grading coins why not just choose to have the name different then the sticker companies name?
Instead of having CAC on the label of the coin why isn't it CACG?
And the same on the sticker, it should be CACG NOT CAC on the bean.
Now I see that they put a CAC in front of the cert # to say that it is a CAC coin. WOW, just keep us guessing
Rant over
Thank you
@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
Sure, just add a little mortar and you could build a house.
@alaura22 said:
Well. talk about confusion. I'm a big fan of CAC and I'm perfectly happy with my PCGS CAC stickered coins and don't want to change that
BUT
I believe that things could have been done a lot better to avoid all this confusion.
If you're starting a new business of grading coins why not just choose to have the name different then the sticker companies name?
Instead of having CAC on the label of the coin why isn't it CACG?
And the same on the sticker, it should be CACG NOT CAC on the bean.
Now I see that they put a CAC in front of the cert # to say that it is a CAC coin. WOW, just keep us guessing
Rant over
Thank you
I respectively disagree with you and U1Chicago, there is no confusion, CAC is their BRANDING, it is the company logo. Really folks, this is not rocket science………………. So you are saying the CAC should not use their logo on their product? Hmm……..
But the reality is this. Anyone who collects coins in slabs understands the difference between a details grade and a numeric grade. There is no mystery here. If not please go educate yourself on this as there are many options to learn in books and on websites. If having a company logo on a slab with a coin inside it is a challenge to interpret, I recommend collecting something else.
@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.
Your quote in the OP: " It's a plastic brick, way too thick, and doesn't fit in any standard slab box.”
I use Intercept Shield boxes where the perfectly stackable, excellent optics, CACG slabs fit in perfectly. And I interpret it to be a ‘standard slab box’. So you are still incorrect bc some Intercept Shield ‘standard slab boxes’ work, as do NGC boxes that are slotted. NGC fatties don’t fit in Intercept Shield slotted boxes also. So Two key types of important slabs do not fit in them. I would not call that ‘standard’ LOL as I would not call PCGS slotted boxes standard but instead specific to only one type of slab. Not very useful IMO and LOL………..
Sure, I figured it was obvious I meant slotted boxes as "slab" boxes. Absent that, it's just a cardboard box. I agree, they probably fit in your cardboard boxes just fine.
@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
Sure, just add a little mortar and you could build a house.
Then why did you buy a coin in a CACG slab if you are so against them enough to start a negative thread like this?
@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
Sure, just add a little mortar and you could build a house.
Anyone cracked one open yet? They seem pretty secure.
@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.
Your quote in the OP: " It's a plastic brick, way too thick, and doesn't fit in any standard slab box.”
I use Intercept Shield boxes where the perfectly stackable, excellent optics, CACG slabs fit in perfectly. And I interpret it to be a ‘standard slab box’. So you are still incorrect bc some Intercept Shield ‘standard slab boxes’ work, as do NGC boxes that are slotted. NGC fatties don’t fit in Intercept Shield slotted boxes also. So Two key types of important slabs do not fit in them. I would not call that ‘standard’ LOL as I would not call PCGS slotted boxes standard but instead specific to only one type of slab. Not very useful IMO and LOL………..
Sure, I figured it was obvious I meant slotted boxes as "slab" boxes. Absent that, it's just a cardboard box. I agree, they probably fit in your cardboard boxes just fine. @Manifest_Destiny 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.
Your quote in the OP: " It's a plastic brick, way too thick, and doesn't fit in any standard slab box.”
I use Intercept Shield boxes where the perfectly stackable, excellent optics, CACG slabs fit in perfectly. And I interpret it to be a ‘standard slab box’. So you are still incorrect bc some Intercept Shield ‘standard slab boxes’ work, as do NGC boxes that are slotted. NGC fatties don’t fit in Intercept Shield slotted boxes also. So Two key types of important slabs do not fit in them. I would not call that ‘standard’ LOL as I would not call PCGS slotted boxes standard but instead specific to only one type of slab. Not very useful IMO and LOL………..
Sure, I figured it was obvious I meant slotted boxes as "slab" boxes. Absent that, it's just a cardboard box. I agree, they probably fit in your cardboard boxes just fine.
But you said ‘any standard slab box’. Why would anyone assume that it must be slotted to be standard?
@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
Sure, just add a little mortar and you could build a house.
Then why did you buy a coin in a CACG slab if you are so against them enough to start a negative thread like this?
Because I buy coins, not plastic.
And, the thread wasn't "negative", it was my assessment of what I thought about their grading (the coin) and the physical slab. FWIW, I do agree with you about the optics of the slab. You shouldn't get so emotionally invested in it though. Enjoy your coins.
@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
Sure, just add a little mortar and you could build a house.
Then why did you buy a coin in a CACG slab if you are so against them enough to start a negative thread like this?
Because I buy coins, not plastic.
And, the thread wasn't "negative", it was my assessment of what I thought about their grading (the coin) and the physical slab. FWIW, I do agree with you about the optics of the slab. You shouldn't get so emotionally invested in it though. Enjoy your coins.
@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.
Your quote in the OP: " It's a plastic brick, way too thick, and doesn't fit in any standard slab box.”
I use Intercept Shield boxes where the perfectly stackable, excellent optics, CACG slabs fit in perfectly. And I interpret it to be a ‘standard slab box’. So you are still incorrect bc some Intercept Shield ‘standard slab boxes’ work, as do NGC boxes that are slotted. NGC fatties don’t fit in Intercept Shield slotted boxes also. So Two key types of important slabs do not fit in them. I would not call that ‘standard’ LOL as I would not call PCGS slotted boxes standard but instead specific to only one type of slab. Not very useful IMO and LOL………..
Sure, I figured it was obvious I meant slotted boxes as "slab" boxes. Absent that, it's just a cardboard box. I agree, they probably fit in your cardboard boxes just fine. @Manifest_Destiny 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.
Your quote in the OP: " It's a plastic brick, way too thick, and doesn't fit in any standard slab box.”
I use Intercept Shield boxes where the perfectly stackable, excellent optics, CACG slabs fit in perfectly. And I interpret it to be a ‘standard slab box’. So you are still incorrect bc some Intercept Shield ‘standard slab boxes’ work, as do NGC boxes that are slotted. NGC fatties don’t fit in Intercept Shield slotted boxes also. So Two key types of important slabs do not fit in them. I would not call that ‘standard’ LOL as I would not call PCGS slotted boxes standard but instead specific to only one type of slab. Not very useful IMO and LOL………..
Sure, I figured it was obvious I meant slotted boxes as "slab" boxes. Absent that, it's just a cardboard box. I agree, they probably fit in your cardboard boxes just fine.
But you said ‘any standard slab box’. Why would anyone assume that it must be slotted to be standard?
The operative word is "slab" not "standard".
I assumed it was slotted in order to be a "slab" box, not a "standard" box - Think rattler box, I don't consider that a standard slab box.
@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
Sure, just add a little mortar and you could build a house.
Then why did you buy a coin in a CACG slab if you are so against them enough to start a negative thread like this?
Because I buy coins, not plastic.
And, the thread wasn't "negative", it was my assessment of what I thought about their grading (the coin) and the physical slab. FWIW, I do agree with you about the optics of the slab. You shouldn't get so emotionally invested in it though. Enjoy your coins.
I give up this is going in circles…………….
That happens when you become emotionally invested in something and lose your objectivity.
@alaura22 said:
Well. talk about confusion. I'm a big fan of CAC and I'm perfectly happy with my PCGS CAC stickered coins and don't want to change that
BUT
I believe that things could have been done a lot better to avoid all this confusion.
If you're starting a new business of grading coins why not just choose to have the name different then the sticker companies name?
Instead of having CAC on the label of the coin why isn't it CACG?
And the same on the sticker, it should be CACG NOT CAC on the bean.
Now I see that they put a CAC in front of the cert # to say that it is a CAC coin. WOW, just keep us guessing
Rant over
Thank you
I respectively disagree with you and U1Chicago, there is no confusion, CAC is their BRANDING, it is the company logo. Really folks, this is not rocket science………………. So you are saying the CAC should not use their logo on their product? Hmm……..
But the reality is this. Anyone who collects coins in slabs understands the difference between a details grade and a numeric grade. There is no mystery here. If not please go educate yourself on this as there are many options to learn in books and on websites. If having a company logo on a slab with a coin inside it is a challenge to interpret, I recommend collecting something else.
Rant over
Thank you
Like it or not, there clearly is confusion among some collectors.
Different collectors have different levels of awareness and some of them don’t participate on the various coin forums and/or don’t see some of the explanations/clarifications that are posted.
The logo of the company that appears on CACG slabs is the same logo used by a company that doesn’t sticker detail coins. To me, that, alone, can understandably lead to some confusion.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@alaura22 said:
Well. talk about confusion. I'm a big fan of CAC and I'm perfectly happy with my PCGS CAC stickered coins and don't want to change that
BUT
I believe that things could have been done a lot better to avoid all this confusion.
If you're starting a new business of grading coins why not just choose to have the name different then the sticker companies name?
Instead of having CAC on the label of the coin why isn't it CACG?
And the same on the sticker, it should be CACG NOT CAC on the bean.
Now I see that they put a CAC in front of the cert # to say that it is a CAC coin. WOW, just keep us guessing
Rant over
Thank you
I respectively disagree with you and U1Chicago, there is no confusion, CAC is their BRANDING, it is the company logo. Really folks, this is not rocket science………………. So you are saying the CAC should not use their logo on their product? Hmm……..
But the reality is this. Anyone who collects coins in slabs understands the difference between a details grade and a numeric grade. There is no mystery here. If not please go educate yourself on this as there are many options to learn in books and on websites. If having a company logo on a slab with a coin inside it is a challenge to interpret, I recommend collecting something else.
Rant over
Thank you
Like it or not, there clearly is confusion among some collectors.
Different collectors have different levels of awareness and some of them don’t participate on the various coin forums and/or don’t see some of the explanations/clarifications that are posted.
The logo of the company that appears on CACG slabs is the same logo used by a company that doesn’t sticker detail coins. To me, that, alone, can understandably lead to some confusion.
Seriously Mark, there is no confusion, anyone can go to their website and get any information they want about this. But I am done with this thread and won’t comment any more. The CAC ellipse is their BRANDING, it is their logo, so you like several here are saying they should not use their definable logo on all slabs they put out? Hmm…….. Really?
@alaura22 said:
Well. talk about confusion. I'm a big fan of CAC and I'm perfectly happy with my PCGS CAC stickered coins and don't want to change that
BUT
I believe that things could have been done a lot better to avoid all this confusion.
If you're starting a new business of grading coins why not just choose to have the name different then the sticker companies name?
Instead of having CAC on the label of the coin why isn't it CACG?
And the same on the sticker, it should be CACG NOT CAC on the bean.
Now I see that they put a CAC in front of the cert # to say that it is a CAC coin. WOW, just keep us guessing
Rant over
Thank you
Mike, I agree with the overall sentiment of your comment. In my opinion, CACG made numerous mis-steps in the rollout and there are about a dozen things that I could criticize or admit that could have been done so much better.
If you notice, @mfeld and I are not defending CACG against general criticisms regarding the marketing, the label and slab design, or the decision to holder details coins with the same label as the straight grade coins. It's when these newcomers come to the forum with an axe to grind, often with private profiles and scant post history, accusing CACG of having an incompetent grading team or having inconsistent grading standards that we have to step in and sort through all the nonsense and make clear to readers what is fact and what is fiction.
CACG has made many mistakes in the rollout, and there's been an abundance of confusion about the services provided. I'm personally not a huge fan of the slab and label design, and the lack of a complete registry leaves much to be desired. However, their turnaround times have been great, their imaging is fantastic and has been improving, and as best as I can tell, the grading has been pretty darn good.
Simply put, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that CACG is....
@alaura22 said:
Well. talk about confusion. I'm a big fan of CAC and I'm perfectly happy with my PCGS CAC stickered coins and don't want to change that
BUT
I believe that things could have been done a lot better to avoid all this confusion.
If you're starting a new business of grading coins why not just choose to have the name different then the sticker companies name?
Instead of having CAC on the label of the coin why isn't it CACG?
And the same on the sticker, it should be CACG NOT CAC on the bean.
Now I see that they put a CAC in front of the cert # to say that it is a CAC coin. WOW, just keep us guessing
Rant over
Thank you
Mike, I agree with the overall sentiment of your comment. In my opinion, CACG made numerous mis-steps in the rollout and there are about a dozen things that I could criticize or admit that could have been done so much better.
If you notice, @mfeld and I are not defending CACG against general criticisms regarding the marketing, the label and slab design, or the decision to holder details coins with the same label as the straight grade coins. It's when these newcomers come to the forum with an axe to grind, often with private profiles and scant post history, accusing CACG of having an incompetent grading team or having inconsistent grading standards that we have to step in and sort through all the nonsense and make clear to readers what is fact and what is fiction.
CACG has made many mistakes in the rollout, and there's been an abundance of confusion about the services provided. I'm personally not a huge fan of the slab and label design, and the lack of a complete registry leaves much to be desired. However, their turnaround times have been great, their imaging is fantastic and has been improving, and as best as I can tell, the grading has been pretty darn good.
Simply put, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that CACG is....
@alaura22 said:
Well. talk about confusion. I'm a big fan of CAC and I'm perfectly happy with my PCGS CAC stickered coins and don't want to change that
BUT
I believe that things could have been done a lot better to avoid all this confusion.
If you're starting a new business of grading coins why not just choose to have the name different then the sticker companies name?
Instead of having CAC on the label of the coin why isn't it CACG?
And the same on the sticker, it should be CACG NOT CAC on the bean.
Now I see that they put a CAC in front of the cert # to say that it is a CAC coin. WOW, just keep us guessing
Rant over
Thank you
Mike, I agree with the overall sentiment of your comment. In my opinion, CACG made numerous mis-steps in the rollout and there are about a dozen things that I could criticize or admit that could have been done so much better.
If you notice, @mfeld and I are not defending CACG against general criticisms regarding the marketing, the label and slab design, or the decision to holder details coins with the same label as the straight grade coins. It's when these newcomers come to the forum with an axe to grind, often with private profiles and scant post history, accusing CACG of having an incompetent grading team or having inconsistent grading standards that we have to step in and sort through all the nonsense and make clear to readers what is fact and what is fiction.
CACG has made many mistakes in the rollout, and there's been an abundance of confusion about the services provided. I'm personally not a huge fan of the slab and label design, and the lack of a complete registry leaves much to be desired. However, their turnaround times have been great, their imaging is fantastic and has been improving, and as best as I can tell, the grading has been pretty darn good.
Simply put, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that CACG is....
unburdened, by what has been.
New here does not mean new to numismatics. But please clarify this point to me.
Is a coin in a CACG grade (let us say an MS64 Morgan.) Would that coin be worthy of a CAC sticker if it were in a PCGS slab, or might it be a "C" coin that would have failed a sticker submission.
@alaura22 said:
Well. talk about confusion. I'm a big fan of CAC and I'm perfectly happy with my PCGS CAC stickered coins and don't want to change that
BUT
I believe that things could have been done a lot better to avoid all this confusion.
If you're starting a new business of grading coins why not just choose to have the name different then the sticker companies name?
Instead of having CAC on the label of the coin why isn't it CACG?
And the same on the sticker, it should be CACG NOT CAC on the bean.
Now I see that they put a CAC in front of the cert # to say that it is a CAC coin. WOW, just keep us guessing
Rant over
Thank you
I respectively disagree with you and U1Chicago, there is no confusion, CAC is their BRANDING, it is the company logo. Really folks, this is not rocket science………………. So you are saying the CAC should not use their logo on their product? Hmm……..
But the reality is this. Anyone who collects coins in slabs understands the difference between a details grade and a numeric grade. There is no mystery here. If not please go educate yourself on this as there are many options to learn in books and on websites. If having a company logo on a slab with a coin inside it is a challenge to interpret, I recommend collecting something else.
Rant over
Thank you
Like it or not, there clearly is confusion among some collectors.
Different collectors have different levels of awareness and some of them don’t participate on the various coin forums and/or don’t see some of the explanations/clarifications that are posted.
The logo of the company that appears on CACG slabs is the same logo used by a company that doesn’t sticker detail coins. To me, that, alone, can understandably lead to some confusion.
Seriously Mark, there is no confusion, anyone can go to their website and get any information they want about this. But I am done with this thread and won’t comment any more. The CAC ellipse is their BRANDING, it is their logo, so you like several here are saying they should not use their definable logo on all slabs they put out? Hmm…….. Really?
Done.
What's funny is that some people on the forum get upset when anyone suggests that CAC/CACG are the same company. This is exactly why PCGS should eliminate CAC sticker sets from their registries.
@alaura22 said:
Well. talk about confusion. I'm a big fan of CAC and I'm perfectly happy with my PCGS CAC stickered coins and don't want to change that
BUT
I believe that things could have been done a lot better to avoid all this confusion.
If you're starting a new business of grading coins why not just choose to have the name different then the sticker companies name?
Instead of having CAC on the label of the coin why isn't it CACG?
And the same on the sticker, it should be CACG NOT CAC on the bean.
Now I see that they put a CAC in front of the cert # to say that it is a CAC coin. WOW, just keep us guessing
Rant over
Thank you
Mike, I agree with the overall sentiment of your comment. In my opinion, CACG made numerous mis-steps in the rollout and there are about a dozen things that I could criticize or admit that could have been done so much better.
If you notice, @mfeld and I are not defending CACG against general criticisms regarding the marketing, the label and slab design, or the decision to holder details coins with the same label as the straight grade coins. It's when these newcomers come to the forum with an axe to grind, often with private profiles and scant post history, accusing CACG of having an incompetent grading team or having inconsistent grading standards that we have to step in and sort through all the nonsense and make clear to readers what is fact and what is fiction.
CACG has made many mistakes in the rollout, and there's been an abundance of confusion about the services provided. I'm personally not a huge fan of the slab and label design, and the lack of a complete registry leaves much to be desired. However, their turnaround times have been great, their imaging is fantastic and has been improving, and as best as I can tell, the grading has been pretty darn good.
Simply put, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that CACG is....
unburdened, by what has been.
New here does not mean new to numismatics. But please clarify this point to me.
Is a coin in a CACG grade (let us say an MS64 Morgan.) Would that coin be worthy of a CAC sticker if it were in a PCGS slab, or might it be a "C" coin that would have failed a sticker submission.
I never said you were new to numismatics.
Based on the mission statement of CACG, no it would not be. The grading service standards are intended to be a mirror image of the sticker stands.
@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
Sure, just add a little mortar and you could build a house.
Anyone cracked one open yet? They seem pretty secure.
They're tough slabs, but a good pair of tile nippers making a cut right near the center of the gasket should do the trick. Sometimes it takes a few cuts.
Apparently some people are easily confused. Sadly, the world isn’t a very welcoming place for such people. As a businessman I found it impossible to reach everyone, which is why I had a sympathetic and responsive customer service team and a well-designed website. Even then it was impossible to please everyone. I believe CAC has done what is reasonable.
@alaura22 said:
Well. talk about confusion. I'm a big fan of CAC and I'm perfectly happy with my PCGS CAC stickered coins and don't want to change that
BUT
I believe that things could have been done a lot better to avoid all this confusion.
If you're starting a new business of grading coins why not just choose to have the name different then the sticker companies name?
Instead of having CAC on the label of the coin why isn't it CACG?
And the same on the sticker, it should be CACG NOT CAC on the bean.
Now I see that they put a CAC in front of the cert # to say that it is a CAC coin. WOW, just keep us guessing
Rant over
Thank you
Mike, I agree with the overall sentiment of your comment. In my opinion, CACG made numerous mis-steps in the rollout and there are about a dozen things that I could criticize or admit that could have been done so much better.
If you notice, @mfeld and I are not defending CACG against general criticisms regarding the marketing, the label and slab design, or the decision to holder details coins with the same label as the straight grade coins. It's when these newcomers come to the forum with an axe to grind, often with private profiles and scant post history, accusing CACG of having an incompetent grading team or having inconsistent grading standards that we have to step in and sort through all the nonsense and make clear to readers what is fact and what is fiction.
CACG has made many mistakes in the rollout, and there's been an abundance of confusion about the services provided. I'm personally not a huge fan of the slab and label design, and the lack of a complete registry leaves much to be desired. However, their turnaround times have been great, their imaging is fantastic and has been improving, and as best as I can tell, the grading has been pretty darn good.
Simply put, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that CACG is....
unburdened, by what has been.
New here does not mean new to numismatics. But please clarify this point to me.
Is a coin in a CACG grade (let us say an MS64 Morgan.) Would that coin be worthy of a CAC sticker if it were in a PCGS slab, or might it be a "C" coin that would have failed a sticker submission.
I’ll answer that. While I don’t agree with this policy, CACG has indicated that their intent is not to recognize/grade C (low-end) quality coins as such, but rather, to grade them the next grade down with a plus.
By way of example, if they’re assessing a coin and think it’s a 65 C, they’re likely to grade it 64 plus, not 65.
Thus, in theory, if CAC were stickering CACG coins, all MS65’s would deserve to be stickered. As the low- end (C) quality coins would be in 64+ holders. This concept makes CACG grading consistent with CAC stickering of only mid-range and high-end coins, but not low-end ones.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@alaura22 said:
Well. talk about confusion. I'm a big fan of CAC and I'm perfectly happy with my PCGS CAC stickered coins and don't want to change that
BUT
I believe that things could have been done a lot better to avoid all this confusion.
If you're starting a new business of grading coins why not just choose to have the name different then the sticker companies name?
Instead of having CAC on the label of the coin why isn't it CACG?
And the same on the sticker, it should be CACG NOT CAC on the bean.
Now I see that they put a CAC in front of the cert # to say that it is a CAC coin. WOW, just keep us guessing
Rant over
Thank you
Mike, I agree with the overall sentiment of your comment. In my opinion, CACG made numerous mis-steps in the rollout and there are about a dozen things that I could criticize or admit that could have been done so much better.
If you notice, @mfeld and I are not defending CACG against general criticisms regarding the marketing, the label and slab design, or the decision to holder details coins with the same label as the straight grade coins. It's when these newcomers come to the forum with an axe to grind, often with private profiles and scant post history, accusing CACG of having an incompetent grading team or having inconsistent grading standards that we have to step in and sort through all the nonsense and make clear to readers what is fact and what is fiction.
CACG has made many mistakes in the rollout, and there's been an abundance of confusion about the services provided. I'm personally not a huge fan of the slab and label design, and the lack of a complete registry leaves much to be desired. However, their turnaround times have been great, their imaging is fantastic and has been improving, and as best as I can tell, the grading has been pretty darn good.
Simply put, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that CACG is....
unburdened, by what has been.
New here does not mean new to numismatics. But please clarify this point to me.
Is a coin in a CACG grade (let us say an MS64 Morgan.) Would that coin be worthy of a CAC sticker if it were in a PCGS slab, or might it be a "C" coin that would have failed a sticker submission.
I’ll answer that. While I don’t agree with this policy, CACG has indicated that their intent is not to recognize/grade C (low-end) quality coins as such, but rather, to grade them the next grade down with a plus.
By way of example, if they’re assessing a coin and think it’s a 65 C, they’re likely to grade it 64 plus, not 65.
Thus, in theory, if CAC were stickering CACG coins, all MS65’s would deserve to be stickered. As the low- end (C) quality coins would be in 64+ holders. This concept makes CACG grading consistent with CAC stickering of only mid-range and high-end coins, but not low-end ones.
And we are waiting for @PeakRarities to get a definitive answer from JA since a CACG employee (who is also a grader there) said something that differed from that long standing thinking earlier this year.
Edit: the employee being the same CascadeChris whose post I put up earlier. I checked on LinkedIn and there he does list himself as both a grader and founding member.
@oldabeintx said:
Apparently some people are easily confused. Sadly, the world isn’t a very welcoming place for such people. As a businessman I found it impossible to reach everyone, which is why I had a sympathetic and responsive customer service team and a well-designed website. Even then it was impossible to please everyone. I believe CAC has done what is reasonable.
That is me. In football the sudden death overtime rule was easy. First to score wins the game. Now it is a 7 page explanation by the ref.
@alaura22 said:
Well. talk about confusion. I'm a big fan of CAC and I'm perfectly happy with my PCGS CAC stickered coins and don't want to change that
BUT
I believe that things could have been done a lot better to avoid all this confusion.
If you're starting a new business of grading coins why not just choose to have the name different then the sticker companies name?
Instead of having CAC on the label of the coin why isn't it CACG?
And the same on the sticker, it should be CACG NOT CAC on the bean.
Now I see that they put a CAC in front of the cert # to say that it is a CAC coin. WOW, just keep us guessing
Rant over
Thank you
Mike, I agree with the overall sentiment of your comment. In my opinion, CACG made numerous mis-steps in the rollout and there are about a dozen things that I could criticize or admit that could have been done so much better.
If you notice, @mfeld and I are not defending CACG against general criticisms regarding the marketing, the label and slab design, or the decision to holder details coins with the same label as the straight grade coins. It's when these newcomers come to the forum with an axe to grind, often with private profiles and scant post history, accusing CACG of having an incompetent grading team or having inconsistent grading standards that we have to step in and sort through all the nonsense and make clear to readers what is fact and what is fiction.
CACG has made many mistakes in the rollout, and there's been an abundance of confusion about the services provided. I'm personally not a huge fan of the slab and label design, and the lack of a complete registry leaves much to be desired. However, their turnaround times have been great, their imaging is fantastic and has been improving, and as best as I can tell, the grading has been pretty darn good.
Simply put, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that CACG is....
unburdened, by what has been.
New here does not mean new to numismatics. But please clarify this point to me.
Is a coin in a CACG grade (let us say an MS64 Morgan.) Would that coin be worthy of a CAC sticker if it were in a PCGS slab, or might it be a "C" coin that would have failed a sticker submission.
I’ll answer that. While I don’t agree with this policy, CACG has indicated that their intent is not to recognize/grade C (low-end) quality coins as such, but rather, to grade them the next grade down with a plus.
By way of example, if they’re assessing a coin and think it’s a 65 C, they’re likely to grade it 64 plus, not 65.
Thus, in theory, if CAC were stickering CACG coins, all MS65’s would deserve to be stickered. As the low- end (C) quality coins would be in 64+ holders. This concept makes CACG grading consistent with CAC stickering of only mid-range and high-end coins, but not low-end ones.
And we are waiting for @PeakRarities to get a definitive answer from JA since a CACG employee (who is also a grader there) said something that differed from that long standing thinking earlier this year.
Edit: the employee being the same CascadeChris whose post I put up earlier. I checked on LinkedIn and there he does list himself as both a grader and founding member.
Paging @spacehayduke, who said there’s no confusion.
Edited to add: To be fair, maybe that was just about the CAC logo.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@alaura22 said:
Well. talk about confusion. I'm a big fan of CAC and I'm perfectly happy with my PCGS CAC stickered coins and don't want to change that
BUT
I believe that things could have been done a lot better to avoid all this confusion.
If you're starting a new business of grading coins why not just choose to have the name different then the sticker companies name?
Instead of having CAC on the label of the coin why isn't it CACG?
And the same on the sticker, it should be CACG NOT CAC on the bean.
Now I see that they put a CAC in front of the cert # to say that it is a CAC coin. WOW, just keep us guessing
Rant over
Thank you
Mike, I agree with the overall sentiment of your comment. In my opinion, CACG made numerous mis-steps in the rollout and there are about a dozen things that I could criticize or admit that could have been done so much better.
If you notice, @mfeld and I are not defending CACG against general criticisms regarding the marketing, the label and slab design, or the decision to holder details coins with the same label as the straight grade coins. It's when these newcomers come to the forum with an axe to grind, often with private profiles and scant post history, accusing CACG of having an incompetent grading team or having inconsistent grading standards that we have to step in and sort through all the nonsense and make clear to readers what is fact and what is fiction.
CACG has made many mistakes in the rollout, and there's been an abundance of confusion about the services provided. I'm personally not a huge fan of the slab and label design, and the lack of a complete registry leaves much to be desired. However, their turnaround times have been great, their imaging is fantastic and has been improving, and as best as I can tell, the grading has been pretty darn good.
Simply put, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that CACG is....
unburdened, by what has been.
New here does not mean new to numismatics. But please clarify this point to me.
Is a coin in a CACG grade (let us say an MS64 Morgan.) Would that coin be worthy of a CAC sticker if it were in a PCGS slab, or might it be a "C" coin that would have failed a sticker submission.
I’ll answer that. While I don’t agree with this policy, CACG has indicated that their intent is not to recognize/grade C (low-end) quality coins as such, but rather, to grade them the next grade down with a plus.
By way of example, if they’re assessing a coin and think it’s a 65 C, they’re likely to grade it 64 plus, not 65.
Thus, in theory, if CAC were stickering CACG coins, all MS65’s would deserve to be stickered. As the low- end (C) quality coins would be in 64+ holders. This concept makes CACG grading consistent with CAC stickering of only mid-range and high-end coins, but not low-end ones.
And we are waiting for @PeakRarities to get a definitive answer from JA since a CACG employee (who is also a grader there) said something that differed from that long standing thinking earlier this year.
Edit: the employee being the same CascadeChris whose post I put up earlier. I checked on LinkedIn and there he does list himself as both a grader and founding member.
I will certainly let everyone know, but I can already say for certain that the answer will be that CACG grading will not be holdering any coins as a 65, intentionally, that JA would not sticker as a 65.
The whole purpose of CACG is likely an exit plan for John to retire and ride off into the sunset. I don't believe the sticker operation would ever be able to go on without JA, and JA knows that. So, the grading service essentially can pcik up where he left off, and he can finally retire and pass the torch. IF the two companies were not aligned, that would completely dismantle the mission statement and the stated purpose of the grading service.
@MFeld, I dont recall hearing you comment on this subject. Care to share your thoughts here?
I’ll answer that. While I don’t agree with this policy, CACG has indicated that their intent is not to recognize/grade C (low-end) quality coins as such, but rather, to grade them the next grade down with a plus.
By way of example, if they’re assessing a coin and think it’s a 65 C, they’re likely to grade it 64 plus, not 65.
Thus, in theory, if CAC were stickering CACG coins, all MS65’s would deserve to be stickered. As the low- end (C) quality coins would be in 64+ holders. This concept makes CACG grading consistent with CAC stickering of only mid-range and high-end coins, but not low-end ones...
Closed auction search of dollars in CACG holders shows 192 items with 22 graded plus.
That works perhaps if most of the submissions were already beaned, but 12% on random stuff seems low based on Mark's understanding of the ABC breakdown.
I’ll answer that. While I don’t agree with this policy, CACG has indicated that their intent is not to recognize/grade C (low-end) quality coins as such, but rather, to grade them the next grade down with a plus.
By way of example, if they’re assessing a coin and think it’s a 65 C, they’re likely to grade it 64 plus, not 65.
Thus, in theory, if CAC were stickering CACG coins, all MS65’s would deserve to be stickered. As the low- end (C) quality coins would be in 64+ holders. This concept makes CACG grading consistent with CAC stickering of only mid-range and high-end coins, but not low-end ones...
in that the low-end ones get no CAC sticker.
This is all hypothetical, since CAC won’t be assessing CACG coins. However, in theory, I believe low end 65 examples would receive stickers at CAC because, as mentioned previously they’d supposedly be in 64+ (not 65) holders.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
We take a break for station identification now. @PeakRarities that's a gorgeous 1822 BH. Love it.
I have not purchased any CACG slabs yet, but the ones I have seen are strictly graded ( which i prefer ). I am certain that in the future if they keep these grading standards that their coins will do just fine in the marketplace. I do wish they would remove the CAC sticker facsimile from the slab thou.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
@alaura22 said:
Well. talk about confusion. I'm a big fan of CAC and I'm perfectly happy with my PCGS CAC stickered coins and don't want to change that
BUT
I believe that things could have been done a lot better to avoid all this confusion.
If you're starting a new business of grading coins why not just choose to have the name different then the sticker companies name?
Instead of having CAC on the label of the coin why isn't it CACG?
And the same on the sticker, it should be CACG NOT CAC on the bean.
Now I see that they put a CAC in front of the cert # to say that it is a CAC coin. WOW, just keep us guessing
Rant over
Thank you
Mike, I agree with the overall sentiment of your comment. In my opinion, CACG made numerous mis-steps in the rollout and there are about a dozen things that I could criticize or admit that could have been done so much better.
If you notice, @mfeld and I are not defending CACG against general criticisms regarding the marketing, the label and slab design, or the decision to holder details coins with the same label as the straight grade coins. It's when these newcomers come to the forum with an axe to grind, often with private profiles and scant post history, accusing CACG of having an incompetent grading team or having inconsistent grading standards that we have to step in and sort through all the nonsense and make clear to readers what is fact and what is fiction.
CACG has made many mistakes in the rollout, and there's been an abundance of confusion about the services provided. I'm personally not a huge fan of the slab and label design, and the lack of a complete registry leaves much to be desired. However, their turnaround times have been great, their imaging is fantastic and has been improving, and as best as I can tell, the grading has been pretty darn good.
Simply put, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that CACG is....
unburdened, by what has been.
New here does not mean new to numismatics. But please clarify this point to me.
Is a coin in a CACG grade (let us say an MS64 Morgan.) Would that coin be worthy of a CAC sticker if it were in a PCGS slab, or might it be a "C" coin that would have failed a sticker submission.
I’ll answer that. While I don’t agree with this policy, CACG has indicated that their intent is not to recognize/grade C (low-end) quality coins as such, but rather, to grade them the next grade down with a plus.
By way of example, if they’re assessing a coin and think it’s a 65 C, they’re likely to grade it 64 plus, not 65.
Thus, in theory, if CAC were stickering CACG coins, all MS65’s would deserve to be stickered. As the low- end (C) quality coins would be in 64+ holders. This concept makes CACG grading consistent with CAC stickering of only mid-range and high-end coins, but not low-end ones.
And we are waiting for @PeakRarities to get a definitive answer from JA since a CACG employee (who is also a grader there) said something that differed from that long standing thinking earlier this year.
Edit: the employee being the same CascadeChris whose post I put up earlier. I checked on LinkedIn and there he does list himself as both a grader and founding member.
I will certainly let everyone know, but I can already say for certain that the answer will be that CACG grading will not be holdering any coins as a 65, intentionally, that JA would not sticker as a 65.
The whole purpose of CACG is likely an exit plan for John to retire and ride off into the sunset. I don't believe the sticker operation would ever be able to go on without JA, and JA knows that. So, the grading service essentially can pcik up where he left off, and he can finally retire and pass the torch. IF the two companies were not aligned, that would completely dismantle the mission statement and the stated purpose of the grading service.
@MFeld, I dont recall hearing you comment on this subject. Care to share your thoughts here?
Dan, I haven’t really thought about it specifically in terms of an exit plan, but your view sounds reasonable. And I certainly agree that John’s goal is to align the grading of the two companies as closely as possible.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@alaura22 said:
Well. talk about confusion. I'm a big fan of CAC and I'm perfectly happy with my PCGS CAC stickered coins and don't want to change that
BUT
I believe that things could have been done a lot better to avoid all this confusion.
If you're starting a new business of grading coins why not just choose to have the name different then the sticker companies name?
Instead of having CAC on the label of the coin why isn't it CACG?
And the same on the sticker, it should be CACG NOT CAC on the bean.
Now I see that they put a CAC in front of the cert # to say that it is a CAC coin. WOW, just keep us guessing
Rant over
Thank you
Mike, I agree with the overall sentiment of your comment. In my opinion, CACG made numerous mis-steps in the rollout and there are about a dozen things that I could criticize or admit that could have been done so much better.
If you notice, @mfeld and I are not defending CACG against general criticisms regarding the marketing, the label and slab design, or the decision to holder details coins with the same label as the straight grade coins. It's when these newcomers come to the forum with an axe to grind, often with private profiles and scant post history, accusing CACG of having an incompetent grading team or having inconsistent grading standards that we have to step in and sort through all the nonsense and make clear to readers what is fact and what is fiction.
CACG has made many mistakes in the rollout, and there's been an abundance of confusion about the services provided. I'm personally not a huge fan of the slab and label design, and the lack of a complete registry leaves much to be desired. However, their turnaround times have been great, their imaging is fantastic and has been improving, and as best as I can tell, the grading has been pretty darn good.
Simply put, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that CACG is....
unburdened, by what has been.
New here does not mean new to numismatics. But please clarify this point to me.
Is a coin in a CACG grade (let us say an MS64 Morgan.) Would that coin be worthy of a CAC sticker if it were in a PCGS slab, or might it be a "C" coin that would have failed a sticker submission.
I’ll answer that. While I don’t agree with this policy, CACG has indicated that their intent is not to recognize/grade C (low-end) quality coins as such, but rather, to grade them the next grade down with a plus.
By way of example, if they’re assessing a coin and think it’s a 65 C, they’re likely to grade it 64 plus, not 65.
Thus, in theory, if CAC were stickering CACG coins, all MS65’s would deserve to be stickered. As the low- end (C) quality coins would be in 64+ holders. This concept makes CACG grading consistent with CAC stickering of only mid-range and high-end coins, but not low-end ones.
And we are waiting for @PeakRarities to get a definitive answer from JA since a CACG employee (who is also a grader there) said something that differed from that long standing thinking earlier this year.
Edit: the employee being the same CascadeChris whose post I put up earlier. I checked on LinkedIn and there he does list himself as both a grader and founding member.
I will certainly let everyone know, but I can already say for certain that the answer will be that CACG grading will not be holdering any coins as a 65, intentionally, that JA would not sticker as a 65.
The whole purpose of CACG is likely an exit plan for John to retire and ride off into the sunset. I don't believe the sticker operation would ever be able to go on without JA, and JA knows that. So, the grading service essentially can pcik up where he left off, and he can finally retire and pass the torch. IF the two companies were not aligned, that would completely dismantle the mission statement and the stated purpose of the grading service.
@MFeld, I dont recall hearing you comment on this subject. Care to share your thoughts here?
Dan, I haven’t really thought about it specifically in terms of an exit plan, but your view sounds reasonable. And I certainly agree that John’s goal is to align the grading of the two companies as closely as possible.
Mark, I wasn't necessarily asking you to opine on my theory of the exit plan, more so the fact that the purpose of CACG was to be a grading service that emulates CAC stickering standards. @U1chicago was concerned that Chris Simpsons' comment inferred that 65 "C" coins would still be holdered as 65s at CACG, because the CACG graders are using the "full spectrum". My position was that Chris had to be either confused or misinformed, or had taken something JA said out of context, because if that were true then the entire purpose of CACG (as spoken by JA) would be null and void.
@Catbert, “would receive” is correct. Please re-read, as I said that if hypothetically, CAC was assessing CACG coins, the low end 65’s would likely be in 64+ holders, so the coins would receive stickers (as 64’s).
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@alaura22 said:
Well. talk about confusion. I'm a big fan of CAC and I'm perfectly happy with my PCGS CAC stickered coins and don't want to change that
BUT
I believe that things could have been done a lot better to avoid all this confusion.
If you're starting a new business of grading coins why not just choose to have the name different then the sticker companies name?
Instead of having CAC on the label of the coin why isn't it CACG?
And the same on the sticker, it should be CACG NOT CAC on the bean.
Now I see that they put a CAC in front of the cert # to say that it is a CAC coin. WOW, just keep us guessing
Rant over
Thank you
Mike, I agree with the overall sentiment of your comment. In my opinion, CACG made numerous mis-steps in the rollout and there are about a dozen things that I could criticize or admit that could have been done so much better.
If you notice, @mfeld and I are not defending CACG against general criticisms regarding the marketing, the label and slab design, or the decision to holder details coins with the same label as the straight grade coins. It's when these newcomers come to the forum with an axe to grind, often with private profiles and scant post history, accusing CACG of having an incompetent grading team or having inconsistent grading standards that we have to step in and sort through all the nonsense and make clear to readers what is fact and what is fiction.
CACG has made many mistakes in the rollout, and there's been an abundance of confusion about the services provided. I'm personally not a huge fan of the slab and label design, and the lack of a complete registry leaves much to be desired. However, their turnaround times have been great, their imaging is fantastic and has been improving, and as best as I can tell, the grading has been pretty darn good.
Simply put, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that CACG is....
unburdened, by what has been.
New here does not mean new to numismatics. But please clarify this point to me.
Is a coin in a CACG grade (let us say an MS64 Morgan.) Would that coin be worthy of a CAC sticker if it were in a PCGS slab, or might it be a "C" coin that would have failed a sticker submission.
I’ll answer that. While I don’t agree with this policy, CACG has indicated that their intent is not to recognize/grade C (low-end) quality coins as such, but rather, to grade them the next grade down with a plus.
By way of example, if they’re assessing a coin and think it’s a 65 C, they’re likely to grade it 64 plus, not 65.
Thus, in theory, if CAC were stickering CACG coins, all MS65’s would deserve to be stickered. As the low- end (C) quality coins would be in 64+ holders. This concept makes CACG grading consistent with CAC stickering of only mid-range and high-end coins, but not low-end ones.
And we are waiting for @PeakRarities to get a definitive answer from JA since a CACG employee (who is also a grader there) said something that differed from that long standing thinking earlier this year.
Edit: the employee being the same CascadeChris whose post I put up earlier. I checked on LinkedIn and there he does list himself as both a grader and founding member.
I will certainly let everyone know, but I can already say for certain that the answer will be that CACG grading will not be holdering any coins as a 65, intentionally, that JA would not sticker as a 65.
The whole purpose of CACG is likely an exit plan for John to retire and ride off into the sunset. I don't believe the sticker operation would ever be able to go on without JA, and JA knows that. So, the grading service essentially can pcik up where he left off, and he can finally retire and pass the torch. IF the two companies were not aligned, that would completely dismantle the mission statement and the stated purpose of the grading service.
@MFeld, I dont recall hearing you comment on this subject. Care to share your thoughts here?
Dan, I haven’t really thought about it specifically in terms of an exit plan, but your view sounds reasonable. And I certainly agree that John’s goal is to align the grading of the two companies as closely as possible.
Mark, I wasn't necessarily asking you to opine on my theory of the exit plan, more so the fact that the purpose of CACG was to be a grading service that emulates CAC stickering standards. @U1chicago was concerned that Chris Simpsons' comment inferred that 65 "C" coins would still be holdered as 65s at CACG, because the CACG graders are using the "full spectrum". My position was that Chris had to be either confused or misinformed, or had taken something JA said out of context, because if that were true then the entire purpose of CACG (as spoken by JA) would be null and void.
Dan, sorry for my misunderstanding. Yes, I fully concur.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@alaura22 said:
Well. talk about confusion. I'm a big fan of CAC and I'm perfectly happy with my PCGS CAC stickered coins and don't want to change that
BUT
I believe that things could have been done a lot better to avoid all this confusion.
If you're starting a new business of grading coins why not just choose to have the name different then the sticker companies name?
Instead of having CAC on the label of the coin why isn't it CACG?
And the same on the sticker, it should be CACG NOT CAC on the bean.
Now I see that they put a CAC in front of the cert # to say that it is a CAC coin. WOW, just keep us guessing
Rant over
Thank you
Mike, I agree with the overall sentiment of your comment. In my opinion, CACG made numerous mis-steps in the rollout and there are about a dozen things that I could criticize or admit that could have been done so much better.
If you notice, @mfeld and I are not defending CACG against general criticisms regarding the marketing, the label and slab design, or the decision to holder details coins with the same label as the straight grade coins. It's when these newcomers come to the forum with an axe to grind, often with private profiles and scant post history, accusing CACG of having an incompetent grading team or having inconsistent grading standards that we have to step in and sort through all the nonsense and make clear to readers what is fact and what is fiction.
CACG has made many mistakes in the rollout, and there's been an abundance of confusion about the services provided. I'm personally not a huge fan of the slab and label design, and the lack of a complete registry leaves much to be desired. However, their turnaround times have been great, their imaging is fantastic and has been improving, and as best as I can tell, the grading has been pretty darn good.
Simply put, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that CACG is....
unburdened, by what has been.
New here does not mean new to numismatics. But please clarify this point to me.
Is a coin in a CACG grade (let us say an MS64 Morgan.) Would that coin be worthy of a CAC sticker if it were in a PCGS slab, or might it be a "C" coin that would have failed a sticker submission.
I’ll answer that. While I don’t agree with this policy, CACG has indicated that their intent is not to recognize/grade C (low-end) quality coins as such, but rather, to grade them the next grade down with a plus.
By way of example, if they’re assessing a coin and think it’s a 65 C, they’re likely to grade it 64 plus, not 65.
Thus, in theory, if CAC were stickering CACG coins, all MS65’s would deserve to be stickered. As the low- end (C) quality coins would be in 64+ holders. This concept makes CACG grading consistent with CAC stickering of only mid-range and high-end coins, but not low-end ones.
And we are waiting for @PeakRarities to get a definitive answer from JA since a CACG employee (who is also a grader there) said something that differed from that long standing thinking earlier this year.
Edit: the employee being the same CascadeChris whose post I put up earlier. I checked on LinkedIn and there he does list himself as both a grader and founding member.
I will certainly let everyone know, but I can already say for certain that the answer will be that CACG grading will not be holdering any coins as a 65, intentionally, that JA would not sticker as a 65.
The whole purpose of CACG is likely an exit plan for John to retire and ride off into the sunset. I don't believe the sticker operation would ever be able to go on without JA, and JA knows that. So, the grading service essentially can pcik up where he left off, and he can finally retire and pass the torch. IF the two companies were not aligned, that would completely dismantle the mission statement and the stated purpose of the grading service.
@MFeld, I dont recall hearing you comment on this subject. Care to share your thoughts here?
Dan, I haven’t really thought about it specifically in terms of an exit plan, but your view sounds reasonable. And I certainly agree that John’s goal is to align the grading of the two companies as closely as possible.
Mark, I wasn't necessarily asking you to opine on my theory of the exit plan, more so the fact that the purpose of CACG was to be a grading service that emulates CAC stickering standards. @U1chicago was concerned that Chris Simpsons' comment inferred that 65 "C" coins would still be holdered as 65s at CACG, because the CACG graders are using the "full spectrum". My position was that Chris had to be either confused or misinformed, or had taken something JA said out of context, because if that were true then the entire purpose of CACG (as spoken by JA) would be null and void.
Or maybe "C" coins...and "A" & "B" coins are an impossible grade split that mere mortals cannot interpret. Or more likely a means to encourage collectors and dealers to over submit for a coveted upgrade.
Comments
One has a reasonable expectation when dealing with the top 3 graders of consistency. That is being tossed in the air like a Monopoly board after the guy holding Boardwalk and Park Place goes bust.
Rules keep changing as the players enter and exit. Not good for the collector.
I am a seven figure buyer with one of the major auction houses (and will prove it by PM if asked) and will no longer pay over a hundred bucks or two for numismatic premium over melt. That is how far my trust of grading, counterfeit protection and guarantee have diminished. Is none of that of concern to you?
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Please expound.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I am saving my money, sorry CAC Crew.
Again, what does any of that or your previous reply have to do with scam?
No need to prove your auction buying to me. Are you even able to send private messages with your profile being hidden?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Imagine I could get it activated
I suggest that you do save your money, because after a brief look through your post history, it appears that your primary focus is Jefferson Nickels. Not series where surface manipulation is prevalent.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Reminds me of earlier PCGS labels.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
I’m a CAC fan, thus a CACG fan. I’m not confused by the use of the logo for coins not previously stickered as I can read. Buying CACG or CAC coins is a choice. There are many other choices. Not sure why one would complain if there are plenty of other choices. Do you naysayers go out of your way to bitch about Ford if you prefer a Chevy? I suppose it’s human nature to seek validation if one isn’t confident of their own decisions.
Your quote in the OP: " It's a plastic brick, way too thick, and doesn't fit in any standard slab box.”
I use Intercept Shield boxes where the perfectly stackable, excellent optics, CACG slabs fit in perfectly. And I interpret it to be a ‘standard slab box’. So you are still incorrect bc some Intercept Shield ‘standard slab boxes’ work, as do NGC boxes that are slotted. NGC fatties don’t fit in Intercept Shield slotted boxes also. So Two key types of important slabs do not fit in them. I would not call that ‘standard’ LOL as I would not call PCGS slotted boxes standard but instead specific to only one type of slab. Not very useful IMO and LOL………..
I and many others perfectly understand the details CACG coins and that the logo goes on every slab. However, there is a consequential number of people that don't or at least give the impression that they don't. While there will always be something to complain about, the way details coins have been labeled might just rise high enough to being an issue with CACG. And that issue also leads some to claim that there is dreck in CACG holders because there are details coins with a "sticker" (even though it is simple enough to learn that CACG is not stickering details coins or any coins for that matter). Expanding to moderns and "non-numismatic" coins also gives the impression that there is now dreck in CACG slabs since the sticker company did not accept those coins at all. I personally have no issue with moderns (I'm actually a fan of some) and understand the need to be a "full service" TPG. However, the established brand that CAC built with its sticker has caused enough people to be confused or unhappy with the new grading wing of the company. And it has opened the door to detractors to lodge some more credible critiques than were previously possible.
So you are saying folks can’t understand what a ‘details’ grade is? Give folks a little credit, as I doubt that no one is confused about CAC/CACG. If they are, they can go to their website and be fully informed of what they do with both stickering and grading. You make it sound much more complicated than it really is:
CAC stickers coins in other TPG slabs that are strong for the grade.
CACG grades coins, there is no confusion there, they also put ‘details’ coins in their holders, just like all of the other TPG’s do
To me it is very simple. CACG coins are accurately graded, warts and all. And coins with PVC are not graded.
I have had more than one person ask why is there a sticker on a CACG details slab I had. And I have seen people mention having stickers on their CACG coins. It's not everyone but it is enough people that it is an issue.
Well. talk about confusion. I'm a big fan of CAC and I'm perfectly happy with my PCGS CAC stickered coins and don't want to change that
BUT
I believe that things could have been done a lot better to avoid all this confusion.
If you're starting a new business of grading coins why not just choose to have the name different then the sticker companies name?
Instead of having CAC on the label of the coin why isn't it CACG?
And the same on the sticker, it should be CACG NOT CAC on the bean.
Now I see that they put a CAC in front of the cert # to say that it is a CAC coin. WOW, just keep us guessing
Rant over
Thank you
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
Sure, just add a little mortar and you could build a house.
I respectively disagree with you and U1Chicago, there is no confusion, CAC is their BRANDING, it is the company logo. Really folks, this is not rocket science………………. So you are saying the CAC should not use their logo on their product? Hmm……..
But the reality is this. Anyone who collects coins in slabs understands the difference between a details grade and a numeric grade. There is no mystery here. If not please go educate yourself on this as there are many options to learn in books and on websites. If having a company logo on a slab with a coin inside it is a challenge to interpret, I recommend collecting something else.
Rant over
Thank you
Sure, I figured it was obvious I meant slotted boxes as "slab" boxes. Absent that, it's just a cardboard box. I agree, they probably fit in your cardboard boxes just fine.
Then why did you buy a coin in a CACG slab if you are so against them enough to start a negative thread like this?
Anyone cracked one open yet? They seem pretty secure.
But you said ‘any standard slab box’. Why would anyone assume that it must be slotted to be standard?
Because I buy coins, not plastic.
And, the thread wasn't "negative", it was my assessment of what I thought about their grading (the coin) and the physical slab. FWIW, I do agree with you about the optics of the slab. You shouldn't get so emotionally invested in it though. Enjoy your coins.
I give up this is going in circles…………….
The operative word is "slab" not "standard".
I assumed it was slotted in order to be a "slab" box, not a "standard" box - Think rattler box, I don't consider that a standard slab box.
That happens when you become emotionally invested in something and lose your objectivity.
Like it or not, there clearly is confusion among some collectors.
Different collectors have different levels of awareness and some of them don’t participate on the various coin forums and/or don’t see some of the explanations/clarifications that are posted.
The logo of the company that appears on CACG slabs is the same logo used by a company that doesn’t sticker detail coins. To me, that, alone, can understandably lead to some confusion.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Seriously Mark, there is no confusion, anyone can go to their website and get any information they want about this. But I am done with this thread and won’t comment any more. The CAC ellipse is their BRANDING, it is their logo, so you like several here are saying they should not use their definable logo on all slabs they put out? Hmm…….. Really?
Done.
Mike, I agree with the overall sentiment of your comment. In my opinion, CACG made numerous mis-steps in the rollout and there are about a dozen things that I could criticize or admit that could have been done so much better.
If you notice, @mfeld and I are not defending CACG against general criticisms regarding the marketing, the label and slab design, or the decision to holder details coins with the same label as the straight grade coins. It's when these newcomers come to the forum with an axe to grind, often with private profiles and scant post history, accusing CACG of having an incompetent grading team or having inconsistent grading standards that we have to step in and sort through all the nonsense and make clear to readers what is fact and what is fiction.
CACG has made many mistakes in the rollout, and there's been an abundance of confusion about the services provided. I'm personally not a huge fan of the slab and label design, and the lack of a complete registry leaves much to be desired. However, their turnaround times have been great, their imaging is fantastic and has been improving, and as best as I can tell, the grading has been pretty darn good.
Simply put, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that CACG is....
unburdened, by what has been.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Ok, that's funny.
New here does not mean new to numismatics. But please clarify this point to me.
Is a coin in a CACG grade (let us say an MS64 Morgan.) Would that coin be worthy of a CAC sticker if it were in a PCGS slab, or might it be a "C" coin that would have failed a sticker submission.
What's funny is that some people on the forum get upset when anyone suggests that CAC/CACG are the same company. This is exactly why PCGS should eliminate CAC sticker sets from their registries.
I never said you were new to numismatics.
Based on the mission statement of CACG, no it would not be. The grading service standards are intended to be a mirror image of the sticker stands.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
They're tough slabs, but a good pair of tile nippers making a cut right near the center of the gasket should do the trick. Sometimes it takes a few cuts.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Apparently some people are easily confused. Sadly, the world isn’t a very welcoming place for such people. As a businessman I found it impossible to reach everyone, which is why I had a sympathetic and responsive customer service team and a well-designed website. Even then it was impossible to please everyone. I believe CAC has done what is reasonable.
I’ll answer that. While I don’t agree with this policy, CACG has indicated that their intent is not to recognize/grade C (low-end) quality coins as such, but rather, to grade them the next grade down with a plus.
By way of example, if they’re assessing a coin and think it’s a 65 C, they’re likely to grade it 64 plus, not 65.
Thus, in theory, if CAC were stickering CACG coins, all MS65’s would deserve to be stickered. As the low- end (C) quality coins would be in 64+ holders. This concept makes CACG grading consistent with CAC stickering of only mid-range and high-end coins, but not low-end ones.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
And we are waiting for @PeakRarities to get a definitive answer from JA since a CACG employee (who is also a grader there) said something that differed from that long standing thinking earlier this year.
Edit: the employee being the same CascadeChris whose post I put up earlier. I checked on LinkedIn and there he does list himself as both a grader and founding member.
That is me. In football the sudden death overtime rule was easy. First to score wins the game. Now it is a 7 page explanation by the ref.
I’m with you there.
Paging @spacehayduke, who said there’s no confusion.
Edited to add: To be fair, maybe that was just about the CAC logo.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I will certainly let everyone know, but I can already say for certain that the answer will be that CACG grading will not be holdering any coins as a 65, intentionally, that JA would not sticker as a 65.
The whole purpose of CACG is likely an exit plan for John to retire and ride off into the sunset. I don't believe the sticker operation would ever be able to go on without JA, and JA knows that. So, the grading service essentially can pcik up where he left off, and he can finally retire and pass the torch. IF the two companies were not aligned, that would completely dismantle the mission statement and the stated purpose of the grading service.
@MFeld, I dont recall hearing you comment on this subject. Care to share your thoughts here?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
in that the low-end ones get no CAC sticker.
Closed auction search of dollars in CACG holders shows 192 items with 22 graded plus.
That works perhaps if most of the submissions were already beaned, but 12% on random stuff seems low based on Mark's understanding of the ABC breakdown.
This is all hypothetical, since CAC won’t be assessing CACG coins. However, in theory, I believe low end 65 examples would receive stickers at CAC because, as mentioned previously they’d supposedly be in 64+ (not 65) holders.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
We take a break for station identification now.
@PeakRarities that's a gorgeous 1822 BH. Love it.
I have not purchased any CACG slabs yet, but the ones I have seen are strictly graded ( which i prefer ). I am certain that in the future if they keep these grading standards that their coins will do just fine in the marketplace. I do wish they would remove the CAC sticker facsimile from the slab thou.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
Dan, I haven’t really thought about it specifically in terms of an exit plan, but your view sounds reasonable. And I certainly agree that John’s goal is to align the grading of the two companies as closely as possible.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Would NOT receive, Mark
I think he is saying they would receive stickers at the 64+ grade (since they would not be graded 65 at CACG).
Mark, I wasn't necessarily asking you to opine on my theory of the exit plan, more so the fact that the purpose of CACG was to be a grading service that emulates CAC stickering standards. @U1chicago was concerned that Chris Simpsons' comment inferred that 65 "C" coins would still be holdered as 65s at CACG, because the CACG graders are using the "full spectrum". My position was that Chris had to be either confused or misinformed, or had taken something JA said out of context, because if that were true then the entire purpose of CACG (as spoken by JA) would be null and void.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
@Catbert, “would receive” is correct. Please re-read, as I said that if hypothetically, CAC was assessing CACG coins, the low end 65’s would likely be in 64+ holders, so the coins would receive stickers (as 64’s).
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Dan, sorry for my misunderstanding. Yes, I fully concur.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Or maybe "C" coins...and "A" & "B" coins are an impossible grade split that mere mortals cannot interpret. Or more likely a means to encourage collectors and dealers to over submit for a coveted upgrade.