It fits perfectly in my Intercept Shield boxes, and NGC boxes, so you, are incorrect…………..
No disrespect, my CACG coins do not fit in my NGC boxes unless I jamb them down the last quarter inch. And then they are extremely difficult to pull out.
I really hope CACG does not come out with boxes that have the same dimensions as NGC boxes. NGC boxes are 1" longer than PCGS boxes and do not fit in standard bank safe deposit boxes widthwise.
This will Not answer all the questions / discussion here but I didn't want to spend any more time on it searching (videos or prior comments via JA, JB)..
In this video go to about the 21 minute mark and JA describes the A, B, C thing using a 1799 dollar (and a touch on 1893 S) for about 5 to 6 minutes. Of course this description won't necessarily fit for many other series or grades - example a MS Morgan generally won't be split due to cleaning so much but rather maybe contact marks (or luster, strike).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfsSuW6v7TM
.
.
In this video go to the 23 minute mark (for about 2 minutes) and JA mentions the standard to be the 'same' between CAC and CACG. Also how a previous sticker rejected coin could grade the same at CACG but is really a border line or maybe some change involved. Same standard again.
@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
@spacehayduke
Better to go back and read my post again, I have a problem with the LABEL , I never once mentioned anything any grading detailed coins!
Mark mentioned it, it's ALL ABOUT THE LABEL for me, nothing else.
If the grading company is called CACG then put that on the label NOT CAC, CAC is the sticker company.
Would you put a Chevy emblem on a Cadillac? What not same company
And for some that think that people are easily confused we're not, we're not idiots, we've been at this a long time and for some to say that I find offensive.
Forced to continue the rant
@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.
Yes, It was pretty easy to do and came apart pretty cleanly.
@PeakRarities said:
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.
Maybe not anymore. I sent some coins to CAC that arrive last Wednesday and as of COB Friday they still have not been logged into their system. Contrast to my sub to PCGS this week was logged in 2 days after receipt.
@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.
I think what he was getting at is that if CACG is indeed trying to only slab coins that meet their stickering standards (only A and B coins, and no details coins) that they have already failed in their mission by slabbing details coins. However it remains unclear if that is CACG's goal or not, and it seems there is a need for clarification.
Edited to add: I thought the bottom of the first page was the end of the discussion and I didn't realize this had been covered already in the second page
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
@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
@spacehayduke
Better to go back and read my post again, I have a problem with the LABEL , I never once mentioned anything any grading detailed coins!
Mark mentioned it, it's ALL ABOUT THE LABEL for me, nothing else.
If the grading company is called CACG then put that on the label NOT CAC, CAC is the sticker company.
Would you put a Chevy emblem on a Cadillac? What not same company
And for some that think that people are easily confused we're not, we're not idiots, we've been at this a long time and for some to say that I find offensive.
Forced to continue the rant
OK one more.
To All. I will say it again, CAC is a company that does stickering and now grading. So they have a slab/holder. The CAC ellipse is their LOGO. So of course it is going on their slab and CAC is not PCGS, it is not NGC it is CAC.
From their website:
You see where it says CAC has stickered or certified
CAC IS the grading company as well.
From their website:
You see where it says CAC Holder
So of course they are going to put their LOGO on their holder.
No one here called anyone an idiot. If you are implying I did, I instead said if this confuses anyone, go to their website and educate oneself. CAC is the LOGO for CAC which stickers and puts coins in holders. Of course their LOGO should go on their holders.
@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
@spacehayduke
Better to go back and read my post again, I have a problem with the LABEL , I never once mentioned anything any grading detailed coins!
Mark mentioned it, it's ALL ABOUT THE LABEL for me, nothing else.
If the grading company is called CACG then put that on the label NOT CAC, CAC is the sticker company.
Would you put a Chevy emblem on a Cadillac? What not same company
And for some that think that people are easily confused we're not, we're not idiots, we've been at this a long time and for some to say that I find offensive.
Forced to continue the rant
OK one more.
To All. I will say it again, CAC is a company that does stickering and now grading. So they have a slab/holder. The CAC ellipse is their LOGO. So of course it is going on their slab and CAC is not PCGS, it is not NGC it is CAC.
From their website:
You see where it says CAC has stickered or certified
CAC IS the grading company as well.
From their website:
You see where it says CAC Holder
So of course they are going to put their LOGO on their holder.
No one here called anyone an idiot. If you are implying I did, I instead said if this confuses anyone, go to their website and educate oneself. CAC is the LOGO for CAC which stickers and puts coins in holders. Of course their LOGO should go on their holders.
Most of the confusion stems from the fact that for15 years, CAC stickering didn’t evaluate detail grade coins or sticker straight grade coins they felt should have received detail grades. So their logo was associated only with straight grade coins.
Now CACG grading recognizes and holders detail grade coins and uses the same CAC logo on their holders. So the CAC logo doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing it did for 15 years.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The first coin brings up other issues. If CACG is going to assign numerical grades to ASEs, then bullion or not, they are considering them a gradeable coin. Their official policy states that ALL silver eagles with toning will be holdered as "questionable toning". If they don't want to grade toned ASEs, then don't slab them. They could easily return them unslabbed and state their policy of not grading toned ASEs.
If we send in a toned Morgan, we would hope that CACG would not just see toning and say "questionable" without any thought. To slab a coin as "questionable" implies that the coin was examined, evaluated and a determination made as to if the toning is questionable or acceptable, but that's not always the case with CACG.
It fits perfectly in my Intercept Shield boxes, and NGC boxes, so you, are incorrect…………..
No disrespect, my CACG coins do not fit in my NGC boxes unless I jamb them down the last quarter inch. And then they are extremely difficult to pull out.
I really hope CACG does not come out with boxes that have the same dimensions as NGC boxes. NGC boxes are 1" longer than PCGS boxes and do not fit in standard bank safe deposit boxes widthwise.
Thanks for the clarification because I didn't have an NGC box to compare.
So, we're back to @spacehayduke admitting they only fit in unslotted cardboard boxes, not standard slab boxes.
@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.
Here's CAC's problem with that though: They say that "C" coins are "accurately graded".
What do they do with "C" coins? Next grade lower with a plus? If so, that means they weren't accurately graded. Slab them at CACG with the correct grade? That means they aren't mirroring CAC standards.
Either way, it seems like they're in a catch 22 if they claim to be mirroring their stickering standards.
@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.
Here's CAC's problem with that though: They say that "C" coins are "accurately graded".
What do they do with "C" coins? Next grade lower with a plus? If so, that means they weren't accurately graded. Slab them at CACG with the correct grade? That means they aren't mirroring CAC standards.
Either way, it seems like they're in a catch 22 if they claim to be mirroring their stickering standards.
Their decision to grade C quality coins a point lower with a plus doesn’t mean they think such coins were overgraded. It means that like CAC, they’re trying to avoid having low-end coins in their holders. I happen to dislike that way of doing things but I don’t get to call the shots.
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 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.
Here's CAC's problem with that though: They say that "C" coins are "accurately graded".
What do they do with "C" coins? Next grade lower with a plus? If so, that means they weren't accurately graded. Slab them at CACG with the correct grade? That means they aren't mirroring CAC standards.
Either way, it seems like they're in a catch 22 if they claim to be mirroring their stickering standards.
That explanation of C coins is also intended to be a little politically correct. CAC didn't want to slam P&N so directly nor did they want their clients to go away feeling like their C coins are over-graded junk (whether CAC felt that way or not).
@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.
Here's CAC's problem with that though: They say that "C" coins are "accurately graded".
What do they do with "C" coins? Next grade lower with a plus? If so, that means they weren't accurately graded. Slab them at CACG with the correct grade? That means they aren't mirroring CAC standards.
Either way, it seems like they're in a catch 22 if they claim to be mirroring their stickering standards.
That explanation of C coins is also intended to be a little politically correct. CAC didn't want to slam P&N so directly nor did they want their clients to go away feeling like their C coins are over-graded junk (whether CAC felt that way or not).
I tend to think this is the actual explanation for "C" coins. It's not completely transparent though, which is a problem IMO.
It fits perfectly in my Intercept Shield boxes, and NGC boxes, so you, are incorrect…………..
No disrespect, my CACG coins do not fit in my NGC boxes unless I jamb them down the last quarter inch. And then they are extremely difficult to pull out.
I really hope CACG does not come out with boxes that have the same dimensions as NGC boxes. NGC boxes are 1" longer than PCGS boxes and do not fit in standard bank safe deposit boxes widthwise.
NGC boxes with slots. CAC holders fit fine as I just checked again. They are snug, but I don’t have to ‘jam’ them down the last 1/4”, lightly push yes. But they fit fine and easy to remove. Seems a matter of each persons subjective interpretation or technique of insertion.
Intercept Shield boxes with slots. Nope the slots are about 1/2 mm too thin for CAC holders but fine for NGC holders and PCGS holders..
Vault Box boxes with slots (LOL). CAC holders fit in fine, not as snug as old NGC boxes. I suspect newer NGC boxess have the same spacing. If so, no more light push or jamming the last 1/4”.
Intercept Shield boxes w/o slots. Many types of these, all types of slabs fit in them. Best for those who don’t restrict their inventory/collection to a single TPG.
PCGS boxes. The most restricted, only OGH to recent PCGS holders fit in them. Kinda restrictive IMO.
CAC holders thickness: 10 mm
Modern PCGS holders thickness: 9 mm
10% difference, yup that makes the CAC holders a "a plastic brick, way too thick”. LOL
It fits perfectly in my Intercept Shield boxes, and NGC boxes, so you, are incorrect…………..
No disrespect, my CACG coins do not fit in my NGC boxes unless I jamb them down the last quarter inch. And then they are extremely difficult to pull out.
I really hope CACG does not come out with boxes that have the same dimensions as NGC boxes. NGC boxes are 1" longer than PCGS boxes and do not fit in standard bank safe deposit boxes widthwise.
NGC boxes with slots. CAC holders fit fine as I just checked again. They are snug, but I don’t have to ‘jam’ them down the last 1/4”, lightly push yes. But they fit fine and easy to remove. Seems a matter of each persons subjective interpretation ro technique of insertion.
Intercept Shield boxes with slots. Nope the slots are about 1/2 mm too thin for CAC holders but fine for NGC holders and PCGS holders..
Vault Box boxes with slots (LOL). CAC holders fit in fine, not as snug as old NGC boxes. I suspect newer NGC holders have the same spacing. If so, no more light push or jamming the last 1/4”.
Intercept Shield boxes w/o slots. Many types of these, all types of slabs fit in them. Best for those who don’t restrict their inventory/collection to a single TPG.
PCGS boxes. The most restricted, only OGH to recent PCGS holders fit in them. Kinda restrictive IMO.
CAC holders thickness: 10 mm
Modern PCGS holders thickness: 9 mm
10% difference, yup that makes the CAC holders a "a plastic brick, way too thick”. LOL
It's actually an 11.1% increase. It's that extra 1.1% that will get you every time.
@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.
Here's CAC's problem with that though: They say that "C" coins are "accurately graded".
What do they do with "C" coins? Next grade lower with a plus? If so, that means they weren't accurately graded. Slab them at CACG with the correct grade? That means they aren't mirroring CAC standards.
Either way, it seems like they're in a catch 22 if they claim to be mirroring their stickering standards.
That explanation of C coins is also intended to be a little politically correct. CAC didn't want to slam P&N so directly nor did they want their clients to go away feeling like their C coins are over-graded junk (whether CAC felt that way or not).
I tend to think this is the actual explanation for "C" coins. It's not completely transparent though, which is a problem IMO.
I realize that there may be some confusion and a lack of clarity, but everyone is still making this much more difficult than it needs to be.
People forget that in addition to stickering and grading, JA is a market maker who trades in CAC-approved coins.
If you have a coin graded PCGS 65 that gets sent for stickering, JA will sticker the coin if HE would pay 65 money for it.
If you have a coin graded PCGS 65 that gets sent for crossover grading, it will be holdered as a 65 if JA would pay 65 money for it.
That's the bottom line, and the rest is just noise. This is also a good point I forgot to mention in my discussion with @U1chicago, which would completely invalidate the theory posted by Chris Simpson, concerning CACG using the "Full spectrum" while CAC "does not".
JA is an active (but not very aggressive) bidder on anything with CAC approval. He pays the same amount of money for CACG 65 as he does for PCGS 65 CAC so that, in itself, tells us that the standards are supposed to be the same.
It fits perfectly in my Intercept Shield boxes, and NGC boxes, so you, are incorrect…………..
No disrespect, my CACG coins do not fit in my NGC boxes unless I jamb them down the last quarter inch. And then they are extremely difficult to pull out.
I really hope CACG does not come out with boxes that have the same dimensions as NGC boxes. NGC boxes are 1" longer than PCGS boxes and do not fit in standard bank safe deposit boxes widthwise.
NGC boxes with slots. CAC holders fit fine as I just checked again. They are snug, but I don’t have to ‘jam’ them down the last 1/4”, lightly push yes. But they fit fine and easy to remove. Seems a matter of each persons subjective interpretation ro technique of insertion.
Intercept Shield boxes with slots. Nope the slots are about 1/2 mm too thin for CAC holders but fine for NGC holders and PCGS holders..
Vault Box boxes with slots (LOL). CAC holders fit in fine, not as snug as old NGC boxes. I suspect newer NGC holders have the same spacing. If so, no more light push or jamming the last 1/4”.
Intercept Shield boxes w/o slots. Many types of these, all types of slabs fit in them. Best for those who don’t restrict their inventory/collection to a single TPG.
PCGS boxes. The most restricted, only OGH to recent PCGS holders fit in them. Kinda restrictive IMO.
CAC holders thickness: 10 mm
Modern PCGS holders thickness: 9 mm
10% difference, yup that makes the CAC holders a "a plastic brick, way too thick”. LOL
It's actually an 11.1% increase. It's that extra 1.1% that will get you every time.
If JA had a Time Machine I’ll bet he would go back and instead of being polite and saying the original grade is correct, but of “C” quality, rather Just say: “coins that we don’t sticker are over graded”. That seems to be the outcome now that CACG is grading. He was trying not to disrespect PCGS or NGC, hence the current “confusion”. I’m not confused - coins that CAC doesn’t sticker are either over graded or details, by CAC/CACG standards.
@oldabeintx said:
If JA had a Time Machine I’ll bet he would go back and instead of being polite and saying the original grade is correct, but of “C” quality, rather Just say: “coins that we don’t sticker are over graded”. That seems to be the outcome now that CACG is grading. He was trying not to disrespect PCGS or NGC, hence the current “confusion”. I’m not confused - coins that CAC doesn’t sticker are either over graded or details, by CAC/CACG standards.
Believe what you want. JA is not the only one who can grade coins. I'm by no way making any claims about my grading skills, but CAC has declined to sticker many coins that were definitely not over graded.
NGC boxes with slots. CAC holders fit fine as I just checked again. They are snug, but I don’t have to ‘jam’ them down the last 1/4”, lightly push yes. But they fit fine and easy to remove. Seems a matter of each persons subjective interpretation or technique of insertion.
I only checked one NGC box. It is silver gold with Navy blue lettering. There most likely are other versions. My box definitely requires me to jamb CACG holders down the last quarter inch. And then they are extremely difficult to pull out.
My major hope is the new CACG boxes will fit in my safe deposit box.
@oldabeintx said:
If JA had a Time Machine I’ll bet he would go back and instead of being polite and saying the original grade is correct, but of “C” quality, rather Just say: “coins that we don’t sticker are over graded”. That seems to be the outcome now that CACG is grading. He was trying not to disrespect PCGS or NGC, hence the current “confusion”. I’m not confused - coins that CAC doesn’t sticker are either over graded or details, by CAC/CACG standards.
Believe what you want. JA is not the only one who can grade coins. I'm by no way making any claims about my grading skills, but CAC has declined to sticker many coins that were definitely not over graded.
It's much harder to determine whether a coin has been cleaned or has PVC.
@oldabeintx said:
If JA had a Time Machine I’ll bet he would go back and instead of being polite and saying the original grade is correct, but of “C” quality, rather Just say: “coins that we don’t sticker are over graded”. That seems to be the outcome now that CACG is grading. He was trying not to disrespect PCGS or NGC, hence the current “confusion”. I’m not confused - coins that CAC doesn’t sticker are either over graded or details, by CAC/CACG standards.
Problem is...I am not seeing the plus holders that the C coins should be generating. Would expect one in 3 CACG slabs to carry that designation. It is 1 in ten.
Problem is...I am not seeing the plus holders that the C coins should be generating. Would expect one in 3 CACG slabs to carry that designation. It is 1 in ten.
Possibly the coins have been cleaned or have PVC. Also crossover owners won't accept a downgrade.....
@oldabeintx said:
If JA had a Time Machine I’ll bet he would go back and instead of being polite and saying the original grade is correct, but of “C” quality, rather Just say: “coins that we don’t sticker are over graded”. That seems to be the outcome now that CACG is grading. He was trying not to disrespect PCGS or NGC, hence the current “confusion”. I’m not confused - coins that CAC doesn’t sticker are either over graded or details, by CAC/CACG standards.
Believe what you want. JA is not the only one who can grade coins. I'm by no way making any claims about my grading skills, but CAC has declined to sticker many coins that were definitely not over graded.
It's much harder to determine whether a coin has been cleaned or has PVC.
I'm referring to my stickering subs where JA provided feedback and identified the coins with PVC or cleaning so I can make fair assumptions about the other no-stickers without comments.
@oldabeintx said:
If JA had a Time Machine I’ll bet he would go back and instead of being polite and saying the original grade is correct, but of “C” quality, rather Just say: “coins that we don’t sticker are over graded”. That seems to be the outcome now that CACG is grading. He was trying not to disrespect PCGS or NGC, hence the current “confusion”. I’m not confused - coins that CAC doesn’t sticker are either over graded or details, by CAC/CACG standards.
Problem is...I am not seeing the plus holders that the C coins should be generating. Would expect one in 3 CACG slabs to carry that designation. It is 1 in ten.
I was about to mention that. I'm not sure they are getting the + at the lower grade.
Problem is...I am not seeing the plus holders that the C coins should be generating. Would expect one in 3 CACG slabs to carry that designation. It is 1 in ten.
Possibly the coins have been cleaned or have PVC. Also crossover owners won't accept a downgrade.....
There are are many other reasons one may not see a bunch of pluses. Owners of coins that they knew didn’t sticker might very well not submit them to CACG. I won’t. Many coins that one assumes are C might very well be one or more full grade lower by CAC standards. Some coins that one assumes are C coins might have crossed at grade or been submitted raw and graded the same. Fact is, we lack data and may never have it. Move on.
@oldabeintx said:
If JA had a Time Machine I’ll bet he would go back and instead of being polite and saying the original grade is correct, but of “C” quality, rather Just say: “coins that we don’t sticker are over graded”. That seems to be the outcome now that CACG is grading. He was trying not to disrespect PCGS or NGC, hence the current “confusion”. I’m not confused - coins that CAC doesn’t sticker are either over graded or details, by CAC/CACG standards.
Believe what you want. JA is not the only one who can grade coins. I'm by no way making any claims about my grading skills, but CAC has declined to sticker many coins that were definitely not over graded.
I didn’t say that JA was alone, the best or even good at grading. All of us have disagreed with a number of CAC’s decisions, both positive and negative. See my last phrase.
Problem is...I am not seeing the plus holders that the C coins should be generating. Would expect one in 3 CACG slabs to carry that designation. It is 1 in ten.
Possibly the coins have been cleaned or have PVC. Also crossover owners won't accept a downgrade.....
There are are many other reasons one may not see a bunch of pluses. Owners of coins that they knew didn’t sticker might very well not submit them to CACG. I won’t. Many coins that one assumes are C might very well be one or more full grade lower by CAC standards. Some coins that one assumes are C coins might have crossed at grade or been submitted raw and graded the same. Fact is, we lack data and may never have it. Move on.
My guess is the graded Hansen set will be the template of future guidance.
Problem is...I am not seeing the plus holders that the C coins should be generating. Would expect one in 3 CACG slabs to carry that designation. It is 1 in ten.
Possibly the coins have been cleaned or have PVC. Also crossover owners won't accept a downgrade.....
There are are many other reasons one may not see a bunch of pluses. Owners of coins that they knew didn’t sticker might very well not submit them to CACG. I won’t. Many coins that one assumes are C might very well be one or more full grade lower by CAC standards. Some coins that one assumes are C coins might have crossed at grade or been submitted raw and graded the same. Fact is, we lack data and may never have it. Move on.
My guess is the graded Hansen set will be the template of future guidance.
I think it's a big assumption that they would all cross and none are details coins unless JA lets a few things slide to make the crossover happen.
Problem is...I am not seeing the plus holders that the C coins should be generating. Would expect one in 3 CACG slabs to carry that designation. It is 1 in ten.
Possibly the coins have been cleaned or have PVC. Also crossover owners won't accept a downgrade.....
There are are many other reasons one may not see a bunch of pluses. Owners of coins that they knew didn’t sticker might very well not submit them to CACG. I won’t. Many coins that one assumes are C might very well be one or more full grade lower by CAC standards. Some coins that one assumes are C coins might have crossed at grade or been submitted raw and graded the same. Fact is, we lack data and may never have it. Move on.
My guess is the graded Hansen set will be the template of future guidance.
I think it's a big assumption that they would all cross and none are details coins unless JA lets a few things slide to make the crossover happen.
Highly unlikely. Say what you will about John's opinions or decisions, but one thing I've observed about him is his unwavering commitment to integrity. The way it would play out in my opinion, is that he would advise DLH that they're not going to be able to cross, and that he should get rid of them. The coins would then land in a DLRC weekly auction, or be sold wholesale.
With Hansen being a partner in a full-service retail operation such as DLRC, who can easily liquidate any failed crossovers, there's simply no reason to assume that JA would feel obligated to cross every coin and jeopardize the unimpeachable reputation he's built for himself over the past 50 years.
People forget that in addition to stickering and grading, JA is a market maker who trades in CAC-approved coins.
I remember. I also remember he is not alone in his market making.
Logical contortions for a competing plastic service throughout this thread are interesting to read. No conflict of interest too great to excuse. Obvious factual inconsistencies on standards are explained by claims to know the inner mind and motives of the business operators and even how one in particular would act in alternative time line/ H.G. Wells time machine scenarios.
Fact is there has Just crickets from them to date on some important questions of conflict of interest and grading standards…. To borrow your phrase:
People forget that in addition to stickering and grading, JA is a market maker who trades in CAC-approved coins.
I remember. I also remember he is not alone in his market making.
Logical contortions for a competing plastic service throughout this thread are interesting to read. No conflict of interest too great to excuse. Obvious factual inconsistencies on standards are explained by claims to know the inner mind and motives of the business operators and even how one in particular would act in alternative time line/ H.G. Wells time machine scenarios.
Fact is there has Just crickets from them to date on some important questions of conflict of interest and grading standards…. To borrow your phrase:
That's the bottom line, and the rest is just noise
If you wouldn't mind speaking more plainly, I understand the words you're using but your comment reads cryptically.
Why don't you start by giving me an example, each, of a potential conflict of interest, and an inconsistency that you're referring to. Let's start there.
Problem is...I am not seeing the plus holders that the C coins should be generating. Would expect one in 3 CACG slabs to carry that designation. It is 1 in ten.
Possibly the coins have been cleaned or have PVC. Also crossover owners won't accept a downgrade.....
There are are many other reasons one may not see a bunch of pluses. Owners of coins that they knew didn’t sticker might very well not submit them to CACG. I won’t. Many coins that one assumes are C might very well be one or more full grade lower by CAC standards. Some coins that one assumes are C coins might have crossed at grade or been submitted raw and graded the same. Fact is, we lack data and may never have it. Move on.
My guess is the graded Hansen set will be the template of future guidance.
I think it's a big assumption that they would all cross and none are details coins unless JA lets a few things slide to make the crossover happen.
Sold a 66+ dollar to Mr. H which is still in the set. If it upgrades to 67, that is a home run. Slips to 66 and the loss is minor. The latter is expected.
People forget that in addition to stickering and grading, JA is a market maker who trades in CAC-approved coins.
I observe a lot of things. Please, explicitly, tell me where you think there’s a conflict of interest. JA buys and sells coins, and he stickers and grades coins. In what way are you implying that nefarious activity could take place?
People forget that in addition to stickering and grading, JA is a market maker who trades in CAC-approved coins.
I observe a lot of things. Please, explicitly, tell me where you think there’s a conflict of interest. JA buys and sells coins, and he stickers and grades coins. In what way are you implying that nefarious activity could take place?
I did not use the word nefarious.
If you are genuinely asking, I can say that conflicts in general can arise where there are actual--- OR--- even the **potential **for a clash between professional and personal interests. Sure you can run the permutations/scenarios for the potential for a conflict between personal/professional interests of someone who is paid to authenticate and grade a coin-- then is a market maker for them. Conflicts do not necessarily call into question a person's character,and I have not done so, nor will. Suggest you remove J.A.'s name from the equation, substitute a random person X.X. Then consider if grader and market maker X.X. could potentially have a clash between professional and personal interests in those dual roles.
People forget that in addition to stickering and grading, JA is a market maker who trades in CAC-approved coins.
I observe a lot of things. Please, explicitly, tell me where you think there’s a conflict of interest. JA buys and sells coins, and he stickers and grades coins. In what way are you implying that nefarious activity could take place?
I did not use the word nefarious.
If you are genuinely asking, I can say that conflicts in general can arise where there are actual--- OR--- even the **potential **for a clash between professional and personal interests. Sure you can run the permutations/scenarios for the potential for a conflict between personal/professional interests of someone who is paid to authenticate and grade a coin-- then is a market maker for them. Conflicts do not necessarily call into question a person's character,and I have not done so, nor will. Suggest you remove J.A.'s name from the equation, substitute a random person X.X. Then consider if grader and market maker X.X. could potentially have a clash between professional and personal interests in those dual roles.
I am genuinely trying to understand you.
As you say, let's remove all names from the equation and speak in hypotheticals if it makes you more comfortable. Give me an exact scenario that would cause you concern. I know you didn't use the word nefarious, but concerning a numismatic conflict of interest, its implied.
Problem is...I am not seeing the plus holders that the C coins should be generating. Would expect one in 3 CACG slabs to carry that designation. It is 1 in ten.
Possibly the coins have been cleaned or have PVC. Also crossover owners won't accept a downgrade.....
There are are many other reasons one may not see a bunch of pluses. Owners of coins that they knew didn’t sticker might very well not submit them to CACG. I won’t. Many coins that one assumes are C might very well be one or more full grade lower by CAC standards. Some coins that one assumes are C coins might have crossed at grade or been submitted raw and graded the same. Fact is, we lack data and may never have it. Move on.
My guess is the graded Hansen set will be the template of future guidance.
I think it's a big assumption that they would all cross and none are details coins unless JA lets a few things slide to make the crossover happen.
Highly unlikely. Say what you will about John's opinions or decisions, but one thing I've observed about him is his unwavering commitment to integrity. The way it would play out in my opinion, is that he would advise DLH that they're not going to be able to cross, and that he should get rid of them. The coins would then land in a DLRC weekly auction, or be sold wholesale.
With Hansen being a partner in a full-service retail operation such as DLRC, who can easily liquidate any failed crossovers, there's simply no reason to assume that JA would feel obligated to cross every coin and jeopardize the unimpeachable reputation he's built for himself over the past 50 years.
I'm not so sure. I don't doubt JA's integrity but most of Hansen's coins are top pops. Wouldn't look to good if a lot of those top pop 67 "C" coins all wind up in 66 holders (or 68's in a 67, etc)..
It fits perfectly in my Intercept Shield boxes, and NGC boxes, so you, are incorrect…………..
No disrespect, my CACG coins do not fit in my NGC boxes unless I jamb them down the last quarter inch. And then they are extremely difficult to pull out.
I really hope CACG does not come out with boxes that have the same dimensions as NGC boxes. NGC boxes are 1" longer than PCGS boxes and do not fit in standard bank safe deposit boxes widthwise.
NGC boxes with slots. CAC holders fit fine as I just checked again. They are snug, but I don’t have to ‘jam’ them down the last 1/4”, lightly push yes. But they fit fine and easy to remove. Seems a matter of each persons subjective interpretation ro technique of insertion.
Intercept Shield boxes with slots. Nope the slots are about 1/2 mm too thin for CAC holders but fine for NGC holders and PCGS holders..
Vault Box boxes with slots (LOL). CAC holders fit in fine, not as snug as old NGC boxes. I suspect newer NGC holders have the same spacing. If so, no more light push or jamming the last 1/4”.
Intercept Shield boxes w/o slots. Many types of these, all types of slabs fit in them. Best for those who don’t restrict their inventory/collection to a single TPG.
PCGS boxes. The most restricted, only OGH to recent PCGS holders fit in them. Kinda restrictive IMO.
CAC holders thickness: 10 mm
Modern PCGS holders thickness: 9 mm
10% difference, yup that makes the CAC holders a "a plastic brick, way too thick”. LOL
It's actually an 11.1% increase. It's that extra 1.1% that will get you every time.
So?
It's math.
God Bless, CRHer700
Do unto others what you expect to be done to you.
Dubbed a "Committee Secret Agent" by @mr1931S on 7/23/24
I'm not sure about everyone else here, but from what I saw at the FUN show told me that CACG coins have become market acceptable, as in almost every dealer had some and some had lots. This wouldn't be true if there was no demand or people avoided them.
God Bless, CRHer700
Do unto others what you expect to be done to you.
Dubbed a "Committee Secret Agent" by @mr1931S on 7/23/24
It fits perfectly in my Intercept Shield boxes, and NGC boxes, so you, are incorrect…………..
No disrespect, my CACG coins do not fit in my NGC boxes unless I jamb them down the last quarter inch. And then they are extremely difficult to pull out.
I really hope CACG does not come out with boxes that have the same dimensions as NGC boxes. NGC boxes are 1" longer than PCGS boxes and do not fit in standard bank safe deposit boxes widthwise.
NGC boxes with slots. CAC holders fit fine as I just checked again. They are snug, but I don’t have to ‘jam’ them down the last 1/4”, lightly push yes. But they fit fine and easy to remove. Seems a matter of each persons subjective interpretation ro technique of insertion.
Intercept Shield boxes with slots. Nope the slots are about 1/2 mm too thin for CAC holders but fine for NGC holders and PCGS holders..
Vault Box boxes with slots (LOL). CAC holders fit in fine, not as snug as old NGC boxes. I suspect newer NGC holders have the same spacing. If so, no more light push or jamming the last 1/4”.
Intercept Shield boxes w/o slots. Many types of these, all types of slabs fit in them. Best for those who don’t restrict their inventory/collection to a single TPG.
PCGS boxes. The most restricted, only OGH to recent PCGS holders fit in them. Kinda restrictive IMO.
CAC holders thickness: 10 mm
Modern PCGS holders thickness: 9 mm
10% difference, yup that makes the CAC holders a "a plastic brick, way too thick”. LOL
It's actually an 11.1% increase. It's that extra 1.1% that will get you every time.
So?
It's math.
In addition to the math, that difference in size is apparently significant enough to make it difficult to place certain coins in some boxes.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It fits perfectly in my Intercept Shield boxes, and NGC boxes, so you, are incorrect…………..
No disrespect, my CACG coins do not fit in my NGC boxes unless I jamb them down the last quarter inch. And then they are extremely difficult to pull out.
I really hope CACG does not come out with boxes that have the same dimensions as NGC boxes. NGC boxes are 1" longer than PCGS boxes and do not fit in standard bank safe deposit boxes widthwise.
NGC boxes with slots. CAC holders fit fine as I just checked again. They are snug, but I don’t have to ‘jam’ them down the last 1/4”, lightly push yes. But they fit fine and easy to remove. Seems a matter of each persons subjective interpretation ro technique of insertion.
Intercept Shield boxes with slots. Nope the slots are about 1/2 mm too thin for CAC holders but fine for NGC holders and PCGS holders..
Vault Box boxes with slots (LOL). CAC holders fit in fine, not as snug as old NGC boxes. I suspect newer NGC holders have the same spacing. If so, no more light push or jamming the last 1/4”.
Intercept Shield boxes w/o slots. Many types of these, all types of slabs fit in them. Best for those who don’t restrict their inventory/collection to a single TPG.
PCGS boxes. The most restricted, only OGH to recent PCGS holders fit in them. Kinda restrictive IMO.
CAC holders thickness: 10 mm
Modern PCGS holders thickness: 9 mm
10% difference, yup that makes the CAC holders a "a plastic brick, way too thick”. LOL
It's actually an 11.1% increase. It's that extra 1.1% that will get you every time.
So?
It's math.
In addition to the math, that difference in size is apparently significant enough to make it difficult to place certain coins in some boxes.
I don't use boxes, but then again, I have three slabbed coins. However, I like the thicker, heavier design of the NGC slab over my PCGS and ICG.
God Bless, CRHer700
Do unto others what you expect to be done to you.
Dubbed a "Committee Secret Agent" by @mr1931S on 7/23/24
Problem is...I am not seeing the plus holders that the C coins should be generating. Would expect one in 3 CACG slabs to carry that designation. It is 1 in ten.
Possibly the coins have been cleaned or have PVC. Also crossover owners won't accept a downgrade.....
There are are many other reasons one may not see a bunch of pluses. Owners of coins that they knew didn’t sticker might very well not submit them to CACG. I won’t. Many coins that one assumes are C might very well be one or more full grade lower by CAC standards. Some coins that one assumes are C coins might have crossed at grade or been submitted raw and graded the same. Fact is, we lack data and may never have it. Move on.
My guess is the graded Hansen set will be the template of future guidance.
I think it's a big assumption that they would all cross and none are details coins unless JA lets a few things slide to make the crossover happen.
Highly unlikely. Say what you will about John's opinions or decisions, but one thing I've observed about him is his unwavering commitment to integrity. The way it would play out in my opinion, is that he would advise DLH that they're not going to be able to cross, and that he should get rid of them. The coins would then land in a DLRC weekly auction, or be sold wholesale.
With Hansen being a partner in a full-service retail operation such as DLRC, who can easily liquidate any failed crossovers, there's simply no reason to assume that JA would feel obligated to cross every coin and jeopardize the unimpeachable reputation he's built for himself over the past 50 years.
I'm not so sure. I don't doubt JA's integrity but most of Hansen's coins are top pops. Wouldn't look to good if a lot of those top pop 67 "C" coins all wind up in 66 holders (or 68's in a 67, etc)..
Did you even read my comment? His coins, if they aren’t able to cross at grade, will be sold as is in the pcgs holders. Obviously they’re not going to let them downgrade at CACG if they’re on the chopping block.
Problem is...I am not seeing the plus holders that the C coins should be generating. Would expect one in 3 CACG slabs to carry that designation. It is 1 in ten.
Possibly the coins have been cleaned or have PVC. Also crossover owners won't accept a downgrade.....
There are are many other reasons one may not see a bunch of pluses. Owners of coins that they knew didn’t sticker might very well not submit them to CACG. I won’t. Many coins that one assumes are C might very well be one or more full grade lower by CAC standards. Some coins that one assumes are C coins might have crossed at grade or been submitted raw and graded the same. Fact is, we lack data and may never have it. Move on.
My guess is the graded Hansen set will be the template of future guidance.
I think it's a big assumption that they would all cross and none are details coins unless JA lets a few things slide to make the crossover happen.
Highly unlikely. Say what you will about John's opinions or decisions, but one thing I've observed about him is his unwavering commitment to integrity. The way it would play out in my opinion, is that he would advise DLH that they're not going to be able to cross, and that he should get rid of them. The coins would then land in a DLRC weekly auction, or be sold wholesale.
With Hansen being a partner in a full-service retail operation such as DLRC, who can easily liquidate any failed crossovers, there's simply no reason to assume that JA would feel obligated to cross every coin and jeopardize the unimpeachable reputation he's built for himself over the past 50 years.
I'm not so sure. I don't doubt JA's integrity but most of Hansen's coins are top pops. Wouldn't look to good if a lot of those top pop 67 "C" coins all wind up in 66 holders (or 68's in a 67, etc)..
Did you even read my comment? His coins, if they aren’t able to cross at grade, will be sold as is in the pcgs holders. Obviously they’re not going to let them downgrade at CACG if they’re on the chopping block.
I wonder how much this will affect value of Hansen coins in PCGS holders, regardless of whether they had attempted to cross or not (since nobody would be able to know for sure).
I would imagine the market will discount them under the assumption that they are C coins or over graded.
Problem is...I am not seeing the plus holders that the C coins should be generating. Would expect one in 3 CACG slabs to carry that designation. It is 1 in ten.
Possibly the coins have been cleaned or have PVC. Also crossover owners won't accept a downgrade.....
There are are many other reasons one may not see a bunch of pluses. Owners of coins that they knew didn’t sticker might very well not submit them to CACG. I won’t. Many coins that one assumes are C might very well be one or more full grade lower by CAC standards. Some coins that one assumes are C coins might have crossed at grade or been submitted raw and graded the same. Fact is, we lack data and may never have it. Move on.
My guess is the graded Hansen set will be the template of future guidance.
I think it's a big assumption that they would all cross and none are details coins unless JA lets a few things slide to make the crossover happen.
Highly unlikely. Say what you will about John's opinions or decisions, but one thing I've observed about him is his unwavering commitment to integrity. The way it would play out in my opinion, is that he would advise DLH that they're not going to be able to cross, and that he should get rid of them. The coins would then land in a DLRC weekly auction, or be sold wholesale.
With Hansen being a partner in a full-service retail operation such as DLRC, who can easily liquidate any failed crossovers, there's simply no reason to assume that JA would feel obligated to cross every coin and jeopardize the unimpeachable reputation he's built for himself over the past 50 years.
I'm not so sure. I don't doubt JA's integrity but most of Hansen's coins are top pops. Wouldn't look to good if a lot of those top pop 67 "C" coins all wind up in 66 holders (or 68's in a 67, etc)..
Did you even read my comment? His coins, if they aren’t able to cross at grade, will be sold as is in the pcgs holders. Obviously they’re not going to let them downgrade at CACG if they’re on the chopping block.
I did. But how is Hansen going to replace the coin? You don't just go out and acquire the next best coin that easily. Acquiring a suitable replacement could take years.
Comments
No disrespect, my CACG coins do not fit in my NGC boxes unless I jamb them down the last quarter inch. And then they are extremely difficult to pull out.
I really hope CACG does not come out with boxes that have the same dimensions as NGC boxes. NGC boxes are 1" longer than PCGS boxes and do not fit in standard bank safe deposit boxes widthwise.
This will Not answer all the questions / discussion here but I didn't want to spend any more time on it searching (videos or prior comments via JA, JB)..
In this video go to about the 21 minute mark and JA describes the A, B, C thing using a 1799 dollar (and a touch on 1893 S) for about 5 to 6 minutes. Of course this description won't necessarily fit for many other series or grades - example a MS Morgan generally won't be split due to cleaning so much but rather maybe contact marks (or luster, strike).
.
.
In this video go to the 23 minute mark (for about 2 minutes) and JA mentions the standard to be the 'same' between CAC and CACG. Also how a previous sticker rejected coin could grade the same at CACG but is really a border line or maybe some change involved. Same standard again.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023
They stuck CAC stickers all over the thumbnail.
@spacehayduke
Better to go back and read my post again, I have a problem with the LABEL , I never once mentioned anything any grading detailed coins!
Mark mentioned it, it's ALL ABOUT THE LABEL for me, nothing else.
If the grading company is called CACG then put that on the label NOT CAC, CAC is the sticker company.
Would you put a Chevy emblem on a Cadillac? What not same company
And for some that think that people are easily confused we're not, we're not idiots, we've been at this a long time and for some to say that I find offensive.
Forced to continue the rant
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
Yes, It was pretty easy to do and came apart pretty cleanly.
Maybe not anymore. I sent some coins to CAC that arrive last Wednesday and as of COB Friday they still have not been logged into their system. Contrast to my sub to PCGS this week was logged in 2 days after receipt.
I think what he was getting at is that if CACG is indeed trying to only slab coins that meet their stickering standards (only A and B coins, and no details coins) that they have already failed in their mission by slabbing details coins. However it remains unclear if that is CACG's goal or not, and it seems there is a need for clarification.
Edited to add: I thought the bottom of the first page was the end of the discussion and I didn't realize this had been covered already in the second page
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
OK one more.
To All. I will say it again, CAC is a company that does stickering and now grading. So they have a slab/holder. The CAC ellipse is their LOGO. So of course it is going on their slab and CAC is not PCGS, it is not NGC it is CAC.
From their website:
You see where it says CAC has stickered or certified
CAC IS the grading company as well.
From their website:
You see where it says CAC Holder
So of course they are going to put their LOGO on their holder.
No one here called anyone an idiot. If you are implying I did, I instead said if this confuses anyone, go to their website and educate oneself. CAC is the LOGO for CAC which stickers and puts coins in holders. Of course their LOGO should go on their holders.
Most of the confusion stems from the fact that for15 years, CAC stickering didn’t evaluate detail grade coins or sticker straight grade coins they felt should have received detail grades. So their logo was associated only with straight grade coins.
Now CACG grading recognizes and holders detail grade coins and uses the same CAC logo on their holders. So the CAC logo doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing it did for 15 years.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The first coin brings up other issues. If CACG is going to assign numerical grades to ASEs, then bullion or not, they are considering them a gradeable coin. Their official policy states that ALL silver eagles with toning will be holdered as "questionable toning". If they don't want to grade toned ASEs, then don't slab them. They could easily return them unslabbed and state their policy of not grading toned ASEs.
If we send in a toned Morgan, we would hope that CACG would not just see toning and say "questionable" without any thought. To slab a coin as "questionable" implies that the coin was examined, evaluated and a determination made as to if the toning is questionable or acceptable, but that's not always the case with CACG.
Didn't realize that all toned Silver Eagles carry the QT designation.
Maybe need to find another grader to verify the toning.
Yeesh.
Thanks for the clarification because I didn't have an NGC box to compare.
So, we're back to @spacehayduke admitting they only fit in unslotted cardboard boxes, not standard slab boxes.
Here's CAC's problem with that though: They say that "C" coins are "accurately graded".
What do they do with "C" coins? Next grade lower with a plus? If so, that means they weren't accurately graded. Slab them at CACG with the correct grade? That means they aren't mirroring CAC standards.
Either way, it seems like they're in a catch 22 if they claim to be mirroring their stickering standards.
Their decision to grade C quality coins a point lower with a plus doesn’t mean they think such coins were overgraded. It means that like CAC, they’re trying to avoid having low-end coins in their holders. I happen to dislike that way of doing things but I don’t get to call the shots.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That explanation of C coins is also intended to be a little politically correct. CAC didn't want to slam P&N so directly nor did they want their clients to go away feeling like their C coins are over-graded junk (whether CAC felt that way or not).
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
I tend to think this is the actual explanation for "C" coins. It's not completely transparent though, which is a problem IMO.
CAC holders thickness: 10 mm
Modern PCGS holders thickness: 9 mm
10% difference, yup that makes the CAC holders a "a plastic brick, way too thick”. LOL
It's actually an 11.1% increase. It's that extra 1.1% that will get you every time.
Ian Anderson was ahead of the curve.
I realize that there may be some confusion and a lack of clarity, but everyone is still making this much more difficult than it needs to be.
People forget that in addition to stickering and grading, JA is a market maker who trades in CAC-approved coins.
If you have a coin graded PCGS 65 that gets sent for stickering, JA will sticker the coin if HE would pay 65 money for it.
If you have a coin graded PCGS 65 that gets sent for crossover grading, it will be holdered as a 65 if JA would pay 65 money for it.
That's the bottom line, and the rest is just noise. This is also a good point I forgot to mention in my discussion with @U1chicago, which would completely invalidate the theory posted by Chris Simpson, concerning CACG using the "Full spectrum" while CAC "does not".
JA is an active (but not very aggressive) bidder on anything with CAC approval. He pays the same amount of money for CACG 65 as he does for PCGS 65 CAC so that, in itself, tells us that the standards are supposed to be the same.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
So?
If JA had a Time Machine I’ll bet he would go back and instead of being polite and saying the original grade is correct, but of “C” quality, rather Just say: “coins that we don’t sticker are over graded”. That seems to be the outcome now that CACG is grading. He was trying not to disrespect PCGS or NGC, hence the current “confusion”. I’m not confused - coins that CAC doesn’t sticker are either over graded or details, by CAC/CACG standards.
Believe what you want. JA is not the only one who can grade coins. I'm by no way making any claims about my grading skills, but CAC has declined to sticker many coins that were definitely not over graded.
I only checked one NGC box. It is silver gold with Navy blue lettering. There most likely are other versions. My box definitely requires me to jamb CACG holders down the last quarter inch. And then they are extremely difficult to pull out.
My major hope is the new CACG boxes will fit in my safe deposit box.
It's much harder to determine whether a coin has been cleaned or has PVC.
Problem is...I am not seeing the plus holders that the C coins should be generating. Would expect one in 3 CACG slabs to carry that designation. It is 1 in ten.
Possibly the coins have been cleaned or have PVC. Also crossover owners won't accept a downgrade.....
I'm referring to my stickering subs where JA provided feedback and identified the coins with PVC or cleaning so I can make fair assumptions about the other no-stickers without comments.
I was about to mention that. I'm not sure they are getting the + at the lower grade.
I didn’t say that JA was alone, the best or even good at grading. All of us have disagreed with a number of CAC’s decisions, both positive and negative. See my last phrase.
My guess is the graded Hansen set will be the template of future guidance.
I think it's a big assumption that they would all cross and none are details coins unless JA lets a few things slide to make the crossover happen.
My guess is we will always be guessing, but that our guesses should get better. Hansen is a pretty good sample if we get the lowdown.
Highly unlikely. Say what you will about John's opinions or decisions, but one thing I've observed about him is his unwavering commitment to integrity. The way it would play out in my opinion, is that he would advise DLH that they're not going to be able to cross, and that he should get rid of them. The coins would then land in a DLRC weekly auction, or be sold wholesale.
With Hansen being a partner in a full-service retail operation such as DLRC, who can easily liquidate any failed crossovers, there's simply no reason to assume that JA would feel obligated to cross every coin and jeopardize the unimpeachable reputation he's built for himself over the past 50 years.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I remember. I also remember he is not alone in his market making.
Logical contortions for a competing plastic service throughout this thread are interesting to read. No conflict of interest too great to excuse. Obvious factual inconsistencies on standards are explained by claims to know the inner mind and motives of the business operators and even how one in particular would act in alternative time line/ H.G. Wells time machine scenarios.
Fact is there has Just crickets from them to date on some important questions of conflict of interest and grading standards…. To borrow your phrase:
That's the bottom line, and the rest is just noise
If you wouldn't mind speaking more plainly, I understand the words you're using but your comment reads cryptically.
Why don't you start by giving me an example, each, of a potential conflict of interest, and an inconsistency that you're referring to. Let's start there.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Sold a 66+ dollar to Mr. H which is still in the set. If it upgrades to 67, that is a home run. Slips to 66 and the loss is minor. The latter is expected.
Perhaps with your own observation?
I observe a lot of things. Please, explicitly, tell me where you think there’s a conflict of interest. JA buys and sells coins, and he stickers and grades coins. In what way are you implying that nefarious activity could take place?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I did not use the word nefarious.
If you are genuinely asking, I can say that conflicts in general can arise where there are actual--- OR--- even the **potential **for a clash between professional and personal interests. Sure you can run the permutations/scenarios for the potential for a conflict between personal/professional interests of someone who is paid to authenticate and grade a coin-- then is a market maker for them. Conflicts do not necessarily call into question a person's character,and I have not done so, nor will. Suggest you remove J.A.'s name from the equation, substitute a random person X.X. Then consider if grader and market maker X.X. could potentially have a clash between professional and personal interests in those dual roles.
I am genuinely trying to understand you.
As you say, let's remove all names from the equation and speak in hypotheticals if it makes you more comfortable. Give me an exact scenario that would cause you concern. I know you didn't use the word nefarious, but concerning a numismatic conflict of interest, its implied.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I'm not so sure. I don't doubt JA's integrity but most of Hansen's coins are top pops. Wouldn't look to good if a lot of those top pop 67 "C" coins all wind up in 66 holders (or 68's in a 67, etc)..
It's math.
God Bless, CRHer700
Do unto others what you expect to be done to you.
Dubbed a "Committee Secret Agent" by @mr1931S on 7/23/24
I'm not sure about everyone else here, but from what I saw at the FUN show told me that CACG coins have become market acceptable, as in almost every dealer had some and some had lots. This wouldn't be true if there was no demand or people avoided them.
God Bless, CRHer700
Do unto others what you expect to be done to you.
Dubbed a "Committee Secret Agent" by @mr1931S on 7/23/24
In addition to the math, that difference in size is apparently significant enough to make it difficult to place certain coins in some boxes.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I don't use boxes, but then again, I have three slabbed coins. However, I like the thicker, heavier design of the NGC slab over my PCGS and ICG.
God Bless, CRHer700
Do unto others what you expect to be done to you.
Dubbed a "Committee Secret Agent" by @mr1931S on 7/23/24
This clip is quite telling................
Did you even read my comment? His coins, if they aren’t able to cross at grade, will be sold as is in the pcgs holders. Obviously they’re not going to let them downgrade at CACG if they’re on the chopping block.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I wonder how much this will affect value of Hansen coins in PCGS holders, regardless of whether they had attempted to cross or not (since nobody would be able to know for sure).
I would imagine the market will discount them under the assumption that they are C coins or over graded.
I did. But how is Hansen going to replace the coin? You don't just go out and acquire the next best coin that easily. Acquiring a suitable replacement could take years.