Home U.S. Coin Forum

Got My First CACG Coin

1246

Comments

  • DocBenjaminDocBenjamin Posts: 1,492 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @abbyme24 said:

    @PeakRarities said:

    @ProofCollection said:

    @PeakRarities said:

    @ProofCollection said:

    @DocBenjamin said:

    @oldabeintx said:

    @DocBenjamin said:

    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.

    I don't believe that they will be discounted.

  • PeakRaritiesPeakRarities Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @ProofCollection said:

    @PeakRarities said:

    @ProofCollection said:

    @PeakRarities said:

    @ProofCollection said:

    @DocBenjamin said:

    @oldabeintx said:

    @DocBenjamin said:

    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.

    Hansen isn’t going to sell his top coins, only the duplicates. Might John be a tad more lenient, subconsciously, with Hansens collection? Perhaps. But if you think JA would put his entire reputation on the line and holder coins that he wouldn’t buy at that grade level, than you don’t know JA very well at all. He’s one of the most straight up and honest people in the biz.

    Founder- Peak Rarities
    Website
    Instagram
    Facebook

  • ProofCollectionProofCollection Posts: 6,253 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 26, 2024 10:35AM

    @PeakRarities said:
    Remember the man is a Billionaire…he can afford to take a loss or two without crying about it.

    I'm not talking about taking a loss. I'm talking about going from having a top pop PCGS coin to now having a hole in his collection that he just crossed over to CACG in a very public high profile way.

    Edited to add: A theoretical example. The 1894 DMPL Morgan. PCGS Pop of 3. Say Hansen owns the best one, an MS64+, but JA doesn't think the mirrors are good enough for DMPL (as is a fairly common reason he rejected my coins). Is the answer, Sorry Hansen, go try to buy one of the other 2 DMPLs and see if they will cross? How tempting is it for JA just to say, OK, I'll let it slide? And Hansen, now he has to try to acquire one of the 2 remaining examples?

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,617 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @ProofCollection said:

    @PeakRarities said:
    Remember the man is a Billionaire…he can afford to take a loss or two without crying about it.

    I'm not talking about taking a loss. I'm talking about going from having a top pop PCGS coin to now having a hole in his collection that he just crossed over to CACG in a very public high profile way.

    How about if we just wait and see what actually happens? I understand that speculating is more fun (and time consuming). ;)

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

  • JCH22JCH22 Posts: 214 ✭✭✭✭

    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

    Tough to have a discussion when someone avoids an issue by repeatedly turning things into a reverse question, and who has taken repeated liberties with what someone else has written. You latest inference, that my comfort level is the reason for a "hypothetical," is mistaken. When you look to conflicts, you look objectively. That means personalities must be taken out of the equation.

    It is the model where multiple people are wearing multiple hats of buyer, grader(owner)/seller/dealer/ market maker (as you said) which is problematic. You reference to personalities is not relevant to an objective discussion of the model itself.

    Could game out an objective scenario or two where wearing multiple hats could cause a clash of personal/professional interest. Think it best not to given things would likely revert right back to discussions of individuals.

    You seem to claim an insight into Hansen's and other's minds, but I don't see any mention of you having a conversation with him or any one else on the specific points raised in this thread. Correct?

  • PeakRaritiesPeakRarities Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JCH22 said:

    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

    Tough to have a discussion when someone avoids an issue by repeatedly turning things into a reverse question, and who has taken repeated liberties with what someone else has written. You latest inference, that my comfort level is the reason for a "hypothetical," is mistaken. When you look to conflicts, you look objectively. That means personalities must be taken out of the equation.

    It is the model where multiple people are wearing multiple hats of buyer, grader(owner)/seller/dealer/ market maker (as you said) which is problematic. You reference to personalities is not relevant to an objective discussion of the model itself.

    Could game out an objective scenario or two where wearing multiple hats could cause a clash of personal/professional interest. Think it best not to given things would likely revert right back to discussions of individuals.

    You seem to claim an insight into Hansen's and other's minds, but I don't see any mention of you having a conversation with him or any one else on the specific points raised in this thread. Correct?

    Ok, forget about it. I tried to have a reasonable discussion with you, but your self righteous, holier than thou attitude coupled with your propensity to speak as if you’re in front of a jury is making this so much more difficult than it needs to be. You use a lot of words, but you’re not actually saying anything.

    Have a nice day.

    Founder- Peak Rarities
    Website
    Instagram
    Facebook

  • JCH22JCH22 Posts: 214 ✭✭✭✭

    Have a nice day.

    Thank you, and you as well

  • lilolmelilolme Posts: 2,655 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @oldabeintx said:

    @DocBenjamin said:

    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.

    .
    Yes. A previous thread on another forum (link below) JohnB essentially stated that some/many of the CACG graded plus coins do Not show up in their pops because the submitter requested cross at grade (in the case of link below they were actually a grade and a half lower, took a hit on these). So the result is the plus graded coins don't show up but he full grade coins do on this example.
    And also Yes to not having the necessary data (as JB stated).

    https://forum.cacgrading.com/discussion/1192/cac-grading-plus-coin-percentage-misconceptions
    .
    .
    @ProofCollection 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.

    In the video I posted above (first one) JA says a similar thing (about the 25 to 26 minute mark). In summary (and not quoting but can view video above) it is stated that - there is no right or wrong here but it is our (cac) standard. There is nothing wrong with buying a C coin for C coin prices. Just don't pay A money for C coins.

    (and I note that the A to C thing is using their (cac) standard but other standards exist).

    Link to previous thread response with video.

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/13779198/#Comment_13779198

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=_KWVk0XeB9o - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Piece Of My Heart
    .
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed

    RLJ 1958 - 2023

  • Manifest_DestinyManifest_Destiny Posts: 6,896 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @spacehayduke said:

    @Manifest_Destiny said:

    @spacehayduke said:

    @DisneyFan said:

    @spacehayduke said:

    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.

    1. 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.
    2. 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..
    3. 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”.
    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.
    5. 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?

  • CRHer700CRHer700 Posts: 2,004 ✭✭✭✭✭

    We could always ask JA to join CU and ask him his opinion. I sought that he would agree, but maybe.

    God bless all who believe in him. Do unto others what you expect to be done to you. Dubbed a "Committee Secret Agent" by @mr1931S on 7/23/24. Founding member of CU Anti-Troll League since 9/24/24.

  • PeakRaritiesPeakRarities Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭✭✭

    John was swamped today and I didn’t want to take up too much of his time, so we only got to address coins (the reason for my trip was an in person submission of newps), but I mentioned the issue and we are going to discuss it tomorrow.

    Founder- Peak Rarities
    Website
    Instagram
    Facebook

  • Desert MoonDesert Moon Posts: 5,781 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Manifest_Destiny said:

    @spacehayduke said:

    @Manifest_Destiny said:

    @spacehayduke said:

    @DisneyFan said:

    @spacehayduke said:

    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.

    1. 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.
    2. 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..
    3. 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”.
    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.
    5. 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?

    And your point of this is? I guess tryin’ to get the last word so U can be on top. You go with it dude……………….

    My online coin store - https://desertmoonnm.com/
  • Cougar1978Cougar1978 Posts: 8,270 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I have about a dozen CACG coins and may complete a box of 20.

    Coins & Currency
  • Manifest_DestinyManifest_Destiny Posts: 6,896 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @spacehayduke said:

    @Manifest_Destiny said:

    @spacehayduke said:

    @Manifest_Destiny said:

    @spacehayduke said:

    @DisneyFan said:

    @spacehayduke said:

    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.

    1. 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.
    2. 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..
    3. 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”.
    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.
    5. 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?

    And your point of this is? I guess tryin’ to get the last word so U can be on top. You go with it dude……………….

  • U1chicagoU1chicago Posts: 6,085 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PeakRarities said:
    John was swamped today and I didn’t want to take up too much of his time, so we only got to address coins (the reason for my trip was an in person submission of newps), but I mentioned the issue and we are going to discuss it tomorrow.

    Any news to share today?

  • lilolmelilolme Posts: 2,655 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Scanning back through this thread a song came to my head (imagine that :) ).
    The song is Sky High by Jigsaw (I did not know Jigsaw until I looked it up).
    Do others remember this song? This is the line that I thought of :) :

    You've blown it all sky high

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTTHK_sfDlA

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=_KWVk0XeB9o - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Piece Of My Heart
    .
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed

    RLJ 1958 - 2023

  • PeakRaritiesPeakRarities Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭✭✭

    JA confirmed that CAC and CACG are in fact using the same standards, or at the very least, thats how it is by design. He did reiterate that was indeed the main purpose of the grading service, but of course we must not forget that they are humans too. Do take into consideration that he spends one week per month in Virginia Beach, and he does weigh in occasionally when there's a liner/judgement call to be made.

    Founder- Peak Rarities
    Website
    Instagram
    Facebook

  • U1chicagoU1chicago Posts: 6,085 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PeakRarities said:
    JA confirmed that CAC and CACG are in fact using the same standards, or at the very least, thats how it is by design. He did reiterate that was indeed the main purpose of the grading service, but of course we must not forget that they are humans too. Do take into consideration that he spends one week per month in Virginia Beach, and he does weigh in occasionally when there's a liner/judgement call to be made.

    So what did he make of the statement saying that CACG uses the full scale and that there are C coins?
    Do the graders have the ability to make a call if a C coin goes at that grade or becomes a plus coin at the lower grade?

  • ProofCollectionProofCollection Posts: 6,253 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:
    JA confirmed that CAC and CACG are in fact using the same standards, or at the very least, thats how it is by design. He did reiterate that was indeed the main purpose of the grading service, but of course we must not forget that they are humans too. Do take into consideration that he spends one week per month in Virginia Beach, and he does weigh in occasionally when there's a liner/judgement call to be made.

    So what did he make of the statement saying that CACG uses the full scale and that there are C coins?
    Do the graders have the ability to make a call if a C coin goes at that grade or becomes a plus coin at the lower grade?

    We can let Dan answer and I'm not speaking for him, but by using the same standards, he is saying that CACG certifies only A & B coin and C coins are demoted.

  • DocBenjaminDocBenjamin Posts: 1,492 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @lilolme said:
    Scanning back through this thread a song came to my head (imagine that :) ).
    The song is Sky High by Jigsaw (I did not know Jigsaw until I looked it up).
    Do others remember this song? This is the line that I thought of :) :

    You've blown it all sky high

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTTHK_sfDlA

    Sure...that got regular airplay, early 80's I am thinking.

    "Jigsaw" may be the better descriptor than the lyrics.

  • U1chicagoU1chicago Posts: 6,085 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @ProofCollection said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:
    JA confirmed that CAC and CACG are in fact using the same standards, or at the very least, thats how it is by design. He did reiterate that was indeed the main purpose of the grading service, but of course we must not forget that they are humans too. Do take into consideration that he spends one week per month in Virginia Beach, and he does weigh in occasionally when there's a liner/judgement call to be made.

    So what did he make of the statement saying that CACG uses the full scale and that there are C coins?
    Do the graders have the ability to make a call if a C coin goes at that grade or becomes a plus coin at the lower grade?

    We can let Dan answer and I'm not speaking for him, but by using the same standards, he is saying that CACG certifies only A & B coin and C coins are demoted.

    So what do we make of the CACG grader and founder that said otherwise? Is he being retrained? Does he have autonomy to stretch the bounds of what is A, B, and C?

  • U1chicagoU1chicago Posts: 6,085 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 28, 2024 7:11PM

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @ProofCollection said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:
    JA confirmed that CAC and CACG are in fact using the same standards, or at the very least, thats how it is by design. He did reiterate that was indeed the main purpose of the grading service, but of course we must not forget that they are humans too. Do take into consideration that he spends one week per month in Virginia Beach, and he does weigh in occasionally when there's a liner/judgement call to be made.

    So what did he make of the statement saying that CACG uses the full scale and that there are C coins?
    Do the graders have the ability to make a call if a C coin goes at that grade or becomes a plus coin at the lower grade?

    We can let Dan answer and I'm not speaking for him, but by using the same standards, he is saying that CACG certifies only A & B coin and C coins are demoted.

    So what do we make of the CACG grader and founder that said otherwise? Is he being retrained? Does he have autonomy to stretch the bounds of what is A, B, and C?

    Where did you see that he is a founder? I think he has a junior role at the company, he may be a grader but that doesn't mean he's finalizing or calling the shots. It's very easy for someone to have a misunderstanding about this, and thats because the graders are not looking at a coin and deciding if its an A, B, or C coin. John Butler made this very clear on the CAC forum, and so did JA.

    Forget about the alphabet nonsense. There are a number of graders, and there's a hierarchy and at the top of the hierarchy is JA. The "ABC" statement was a way of simplifying how JA grades and making it difestible for the average hobbyist, but thats not literally how he grades. If anything, theyll use decimals but JAs scale is not the same as the other tpgs.

    JA built the grading sets, and hes been grading the same way for almost 4 decades. I've tried to get this point across many times on this forum but the topic always comes back around. They grade similarly to PCGS and NGC, but basically their line is is about 1/3 of a grade back, on average, from the others. It's essentially the same standards as the days of rattlers and fatty's, but standards shift over time. If JA would pay 65 money for the coin, that means it's a 65 according to both CAC and CACG.

    His LinkedIn profile that I showed earlier on the thread had the grader and founding member. Chris has been around for a while and he is well qualified at what he does. I would not assume what he says is wrong or is a misunderstanding.

  • PeakRaritiesPeakRarities Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 28, 2024 8:21PM

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @ProofCollection said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:
    JA confirmed that CAC and CACG are in fact using the same standards, or at the very least, thats how it is by design. He did reiterate that was indeed the main purpose of the grading service, but of course we must not forget that they are humans too. Do take into consideration that he spends one week per month in Virginia Beach, and he does weigh in occasionally when there's a liner/judgement call to be made.

    So what did he make of the statement saying that CACG uses the full scale and that there are C coins?
    Do the graders have the ability to make a call if a C coin goes at that grade or becomes a plus coin at the lower grade?

    We can let Dan answer and I'm not speaking for him, but by using the same standards, he is saying that CACG certifies only A & B coin and C coins are demoted.

    So what do we make of the CACG grader and founder that said otherwise? Is he being retrained? Does he have autonomy to stretch the bounds of what is A, B, and C?

    Where did you see that he is a founder? I think he has a junior role at the company, he may be a grader but that doesn't mean he's finalizing or calling the shots. It's very easy for someone to have a misunderstanding about this, and thats because the graders are not looking at a coin and deciding if its an A, B, or C coin. John Butler made this very clear on the CAC forum, and so did JA.

    Forget about the alphabet nonsense. There are a number of graders, and there's a hierarchy and at the top of the hierarchy is JA. The "ABC" statement was a way of simplifying how JA grades and making it difestible for the average hobbyist, but thats not literally how he grades. If anything, theyll use decimals but JAs scale is not the same as the other tpgs.

    JA built the grading sets, and hes been grading the same way for almost 4 decades. I've tried to get this point across many times on this forum but the topic always comes back around. They grade similarly to PCGS and NGC, but basically their line is is about 1/3 of a grade back, on average, from the others. It's essentially the same standards as the days of rattlers and fatty's, but standards shift over time. If JA would pay 65 money for the coin, that means it's a 65 according to both CAC and CACG.

    His LinkedIn profile that I showed earlier on the thread had the grader and founding member. Chris has been around for a while and he is well qualified at what he does. I would not assume what he says is wrong or is a misunderstanding.

    So you don’t want to take me at my word, relaying what I was told from the horses mouth? “Founder” means investor, there are 150 of them, collectors and dealers alike. Had I been on the scene a few years earlier then I was, I probably would have been a “founder”. It’s easy to have a misunderstanding about this if you’re taking it too literally.

    Basically, CAC and CACG are using standards that may be, on average, 1/3 of a grade tighter than other companies, but grading is simply not that precise, and it never will be if humans are doing the grading. Occasionally, coins that don’t cross at CACG will end up stickering at that grade. Occasionally coins that fail to sticker will end up crossing. The same grader may grade a coin 64 on one instance, and 65 the next. You have to draw a line somewhere, and there are always coins that sit on the line. At the end of the day, they will do the best that they can to be as consistent as possible, which is truly the only thing that matters.

    Here’s a visual representation of what I explained. Each ruled line is 1/3 of a grade, but again, if you take it too literally it will probably make the thread worse. I’ll give it a shot.

    Founder- Peak Rarities
    Website
    Instagram
    Facebook

  • U1chicagoU1chicago Posts: 6,085 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @ProofCollection said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:
    JA confirmed that CAC and CACG are in fact using the same standards, or at the very least, thats how it is by design. He did reiterate that was indeed the main purpose of the grading service, but of course we must not forget that they are humans too. Do take into consideration that he spends one week per month in Virginia Beach, and he does weigh in occasionally when there's a liner/judgement call to be made.

    So what did he make of the statement saying that CACG uses the full scale and that there are C coins?
    Do the graders have the ability to make a call if a C coin goes at that grade or becomes a plus coin at the lower grade?

    We can let Dan answer and I'm not speaking for him, but by using the same standards, he is saying that CACG certifies only A & B coin and C coins are demoted.

    So what do we make of the CACG grader and founder that said otherwise? Is he being retrained? Does he have autonomy to stretch the bounds of what is A, B, and C?

    Where did you see that he is a founder? I think he has a junior role at the company, he may be a grader but that doesn't mean he's finalizing or calling the shots. It's very easy for someone to have a misunderstanding about this, and thats because the graders are not looking at a coin and deciding if its an A, B, or C coin. John Butler made this very clear on the CAC forum, and so did JA.

    Forget about the alphabet nonsense. There are a number of graders, and there's a hierarchy and at the top of the hierarchy is JA. The "ABC" statement was a way of simplifying how JA grades and making it difestible for the average hobbyist, but thats not literally how he grades. If anything, theyll use decimals but JAs scale is not the same as the other tpgs.

    JA built the grading sets, and hes been grading the same way for almost 4 decades. I've tried to get this point across many times on this forum but the topic always comes back around. They grade similarly to PCGS and NGC, but basically their line is is about 1/3 of a grade back, on average, from the others. It's essentially the same standards as the days of rattlers and fatty's, but standards shift over time. If JA would pay 65 money for the coin, that means it's a 65 according to both CAC and CACG.

    His LinkedIn profile that I showed earlier on the thread had the grader and founding member. Chris has been around for a while and he is well qualified at what he does. I would not assume what he says is wrong or is a misunderstanding.

    So you don’t want to take me at my word, relaying what I was told from the horses mouth? “Founder” means investor, there are 150 of them, collectors and dealers alike. Had I been on the scene a few years earlier then I was, I probably would have been a “founder”. It’s easy to have a misunderstanding about this if you’re taking it too literally.

    Basically, CAC and CACG are using standards that may be, on average, 1/3 of a grade tighter than other companies, but grading is simply not that precise, and it never will be if humans are doing the grading. Occasionally, coins that don’t cross at CACG will end up stickering at that grade. Occasionally coins that fail to sticker will end up crossing. The same grader may grade a coin 64 on one instance, and 65 the next. You have to draw a line somewhere, and there are always coins that sit on the line. At the end of the day, they will do the best that they can to be as consistent as possible, which is truly the only thing that matters.

    Here’s a visual representation of what I explained. Each line is 1/3 of a grade, but again, if you take it too literally it will probably make the thread worse. I’ll give it a shot.

    I want to see in writing on the CAC website that grading and stickering use the same standards-that a coin that would not sticker because it was C for the grade would end up in a lower graded holder as the general standard (of course with some leeway if it was determined later that the C rating was off upon closer examination). It is one thing to generally say something in conversation but it's best to back up the standards by having them in writing and making sure that the graders are all on the same page. It is problematic if people at the company have different interpretations of the standards.

  • PeakRaritiesPeakRarities Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 28, 2024 7:58PM

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @ProofCollection said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:
    JA confirmed that CAC and CACG are in fact using the same standards, or at the very least, thats how it is by design. He did reiterate that was indeed the main purpose of the grading service, but of course we must not forget that they are humans too. Do take into consideration that he spends one week per month in Virginia Beach, and he does weigh in occasionally when there's a liner/judgement call to be made.

    So what did he make of the statement saying that CACG uses the full scale and that there are C coins?
    Do the graders have the ability to make a call if a C coin goes at that grade or becomes a plus coin at the lower grade?

    We can let Dan answer and I'm not speaking for him, but by using the same standards, he is saying that CACG certifies only A & B coin and C coins are demoted.

    So what do we make of the CACG grader and founder that said otherwise? Is he being retrained? Does he have autonomy to stretch the bounds of what is A, B, and C?

    Where did you see that he is a founder? I think he has a junior role at the company, he may be a grader but that doesn't mean he's finalizing or calling the shots. It's very easy for someone to have a misunderstanding about this, and thats because the graders are not looking at a coin and deciding if its an A, B, or C coin. John Butler made this very clear on the CAC forum, and so did JA.

    Forget about the alphabet nonsense. There are a number of graders, and there's a hierarchy and at the top of the hierarchy is JA. The "ABC" statement was a way of simplifying how JA grades and making it difestible for the average hobbyist, but thats not literally how he grades. If anything, theyll use decimals but JAs scale is not the same as the other tpgs.

    JA built the grading sets, and hes been grading the same way for almost 4 decades. I've tried to get this point across many times on this forum but the topic always comes back around. They grade similarly to PCGS and NGC, but basically their line is is about 1/3 of a grade back, on average, from the others. It's essentially the same standards as the days of rattlers and fatty's, but standards shift over time. If JA would pay 65 money for the coin, that means it's a 65 according to both CAC and CACG.

    His LinkedIn profile that I showed earlier on the thread had the grader and founding member. Chris has been around for a while and he is well qualified at what he does. I would not assume what he says is wrong or is a misunderstanding.

    So you don’t want to take me at my word, relaying what I was told from the horses mouth? “Founder” means investor, there are 150 of them, collectors and dealers alike. Had I been on the scene a few years earlier then I was, I probably would have been a “founder”. It’s easy to have a misunderstanding about this if you’re taking it too literally.

    Basically, CAC and CACG are using standards that may be, on average, 1/3 of a grade tighter than other companies, but grading is simply not that precise, and it never will be if humans are doing the grading. Occasionally, coins that don’t cross at CACG will end up stickering at that grade. Occasionally coins that fail to sticker will end up crossing. The same grader may grade a coin 64 on one instance, and 65 the next. You have to draw a line somewhere, and there are always coins that sit on the line. At the end of the day, they will do the best that they can to be as consistent as possible, which is truly the only thing that matters.

    Here’s a visual representation of what I explained. Each line is 1/3 of a grade, but again, if you take it too literally it will probably make the thread worse. I’ll give it a shot.

    I want to see in writing on the CAC website that grading and stickering use the same standards-that a coin that would not sticker because it was C for the grade would end up in a lower graded holder as the general standard (of course with some leeway if it was determined later that the C rating was off upon closer examination). It is one thing to generally say something in conversation but it's best to back up the standards by having them in writing and making sure that the graders are all on the same page. It is problematic if people at the company have different interpretations of the standards.

    Youre still not getting it. There is no stone etchings of "the standards". It doesnt matter how good you are at grading, it's simply not possible to grade a coin to the same 1/3 of a grade every time. Why do you think upgrades happen? Why do people make a living cracking out coins? Becuase its an imperfect system, conducted by imperfect humans. I own a coin that once was a 50 CAC, then a 53 that probably would have CAC'd, and now its a 58 that wont CAC. My grade for the coin was 55+. What is the "true grade"? -There isnt one. You have to declutter your logic of the ABC, and the decimals before it can start to make sense.

    You can send CAC an email with your demands, but its been stated ad infinitum on the CAC forum and in many interviews.

    Founder- Peak Rarities
    Website
    Instagram
    Facebook

  • Manifest_DestinyManifest_Destiny Posts: 6,896 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @ProofCollection said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:
    JA confirmed that CAC and CACG are in fact using the same standards, or at the very least, thats how it is by design. He did reiterate that was indeed the main purpose of the grading service, but of course we must not forget that they are humans too. Do take into consideration that he spends one week per month in Virginia Beach, and he does weigh in occasionally when there's a liner/judgement call to be made.

    So what did he make of the statement saying that CACG uses the full scale and that there are C coins?
    Do the graders have the ability to make a call if a C coin goes at that grade or becomes a plus coin at the lower grade?

    We can let Dan answer and I'm not speaking for him, but by using the same standards, he is saying that CACG certifies only A & B coin and C coins are demoted.

    So what do we make of the CACG grader and founder that said otherwise? Is he being retrained? Does he have autonomy to stretch the bounds of what is A, B, and C?

    Where did you see that he is a founder? I think he has a junior role at the company, he may be a grader but that doesn't mean he's finalizing or calling the shots. It's very easy for someone to have a misunderstanding about this, and thats because the graders are not looking at a coin and deciding if its an A, B, or C coin. John Butler made this very clear on the CAC forum, and so did JA.

    Forget about the alphabet nonsense. There are a number of graders, and there's a hierarchy and at the top of the hierarchy is JA. The "ABC" statement was a way of simplifying how JA grades and making it difestible for the average hobbyist, but thats not literally how he grades. If anything, theyll use decimals but JAs scale is not the same as the other tpgs.

    JA built the grading sets, and hes been grading the same way for almost 4 decades. I've tried to get this point across many times on this forum but the topic always comes back around. They grade similarly to PCGS and NGC, but basically their line is is about 1/3 of a grade back, on average, from the others. It's essentially the same standards as the days of rattlers and fatty's, but standards shift over time. If JA would pay 65 money for the coin, that means it's a 65 according to both CAC and CACG.

    Rattlers, Fattys, and Bricks. Oh my!

  • DocBenjaminDocBenjamin Posts: 1,492 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @ProofCollection said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:
    JA confirmed that CAC and CACG are in fact using the same standards, or at the very least, thats how it is by design. He did reiterate that was indeed the main purpose of the grading service, but of course we must not forget that they are humans too. Do take into consideration that he spends one week per month in Virginia Beach, and he does weigh in occasionally when there's a liner/judgement call to be made.

    So what did he make of the statement saying that CACG uses the full scale and that there are C coins?
    Do the graders have the ability to make a call if a C coin goes at that grade or becomes a plus coin at the lower grade?

    We can let Dan answer and I'm not speaking for him, but by using the same standards, he is saying that CACG certifies only A & B coin and C coins are demoted.

    So what do we make of the CACG grader and founder that said otherwise? Is he being retrained? Does he have autonomy to stretch the bounds of what is A, B, and C?

    Where did you see that he is a founder? I think he has a junior role at the company, he may be a grader but that doesn't mean he's finalizing or calling the shots. It's very easy for someone to have a misunderstanding about this, and thats because the graders are not looking at a coin and deciding if its an A, B, or C coin. John Butler made this very clear on the CAC forum, and so did JA.

    Forget about the alphabet nonsense. There are a number of graders, and there's a hierarchy and at the top of the hierarchy is JA. The "ABC" statement was a way of simplifying how JA grades and making it difestible for the average hobbyist, but thats not literally how he grades. If anything, theyll use decimals but JAs scale is not the same as the other tpgs.

    JA built the grading sets, and hes been grading the same way for almost 4 decades. I've tried to get this point across many times on this forum but the topic always comes back around. They grade similarly to PCGS and NGC, but basically their line is is about 1/3 of a grade back, on average, from the others. It's essentially the same standards as the days of rattlers and fatty's, but standards shift over time. If JA would pay 65 money for the coin, that means it's a 65 according to both CAC and CACG.

    His LinkedIn profile that I showed earlier on the thread had the grader and founding member. Chris has been around for a while and he is well qualified at what he does. I would not assume what he says is wrong or is a misunderstanding.

    So you don’t want to take me at my word, relaying what I was told from the horses mouth? “Founder” means investor, there are 150 of them, collectors and dealers alike. Had I been on the scene a few years earlier then I was, I probably would have been a “founder”. It’s easy to have a misunderstanding about this if you’re taking it too literally.

    Basically, CAC and CACG are using standards that may be, on average, 1/3 of a grade tighter than other companies, but grading is simply not that precise, and it never will be if humans are doing the grading. Occasionally, coins that don’t cross at CACG will end up stickering at that grade. Occasionally coins that fail to sticker will end up crossing. The same grader may grade a coin 64 on one instance, and 65 the next. You have to draw a line somewhere, and there are always coins that sit on the line. At the end of the day, they will do the best that they can to be as consistent as possible, which is truly the only thing that matters.

    Here’s a visual representation of what I explained. Each line is 1/3 of a grade, but again, if you take it too literally it will probably make the thread worse. I’ll give it a shot.

    I want to see in writing on the CAC website that grading and stickering use the same standards-that a coin that would not sticker because it was C for the grade would end up in a lower graded holder as the general standard (of course with some leeway if it was determined later that the C rating was off upon closer examination). It is one thing to generally say something in conversation but it's best to back up the standards by having them in writing and making sure that the graders are all on the same page. It is problematic if people at the company have different interpretations of the standards.

    Youre still not getting it. There is no stone etchings of "the standards". It doesnt matter how good you are at grading, it's simply not possible to grade a coin to the same 1/3 of a grade every time. Why do you think upgrades happen? Why do people make a living cracking out coins? Becuase its an imperfect system, conducted by imperfect humans. I own a coin that once was a 50 CAC, then a 53 that probably would have CAC'd, and now its a 58 that wont CAC. My grade for the coin was 55+. What is the "true grade"? -There isnt one. You have to declutter your logic of the ABC, and the decimals before it can start to make sense.

    You can send CAC an email with your demands, but its been stated ad infinitum on the CAC forum and in many interviews.

    Bravo. Those that cling to the concept of a demigod grader are always disappointed. Yet folks will gladly pay exponential sums for a single point upgrade.

  • U1chicagoU1chicago Posts: 6,085 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @ProofCollection said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:
    JA confirmed that CAC and CACG are in fact using the same standards, or at the very least, thats how it is by design. He did reiterate that was indeed the main purpose of the grading service, but of course we must not forget that they are humans too. Do take into consideration that he spends one week per month in Virginia Beach, and he does weigh in occasionally when there's a liner/judgement call to be made.

    So what did he make of the statement saying that CACG uses the full scale and that there are C coins?
    Do the graders have the ability to make a call if a C coin goes at that grade or becomes a plus coin at the lower grade?

    We can let Dan answer and I'm not speaking for him, but by using the same standards, he is saying that CACG certifies only A & B coin and C coins are demoted.

    So what do we make of the CACG grader and founder that said otherwise? Is he being retrained? Does he have autonomy to stretch the bounds of what is A, B, and C?

    Where did you see that he is a founder? I think he has a junior role at the company, he may be a grader but that doesn't mean he's finalizing or calling the shots. It's very easy for someone to have a misunderstanding about this, and thats because the graders are not looking at a coin and deciding if its an A, B, or C coin. John Butler made this very clear on the CAC forum, and so did JA.

    Forget about the alphabet nonsense. There are a number of graders, and there's a hierarchy and at the top of the hierarchy is JA. The "ABC" statement was a way of simplifying how JA grades and making it difestible for the average hobbyist, but thats not literally how he grades. If anything, theyll use decimals but JAs scale is not the same as the other tpgs.

    JA built the grading sets, and hes been grading the same way for almost 4 decades. I've tried to get this point across many times on this forum but the topic always comes back around. They grade similarly to PCGS and NGC, but basically their line is is about 1/3 of a grade back, on average, from the others. It's essentially the same standards as the days of rattlers and fatty's, but standards shift over time. If JA would pay 65 money for the coin, that means it's a 65 according to both CAC and CACG.

    His LinkedIn profile that I showed earlier on the thread had the grader and founding member. Chris has been around for a while and he is well qualified at what he does. I would not assume what he says is wrong or is a misunderstanding.

    So you don’t want to take me at my word, relaying what I was told from the horses mouth? “Founder” means investor, there are 150 of them, collectors and dealers alike. Had I been on the scene a few years earlier then I was, I probably would have been a “founder”. It’s easy to have a misunderstanding about this if you’re taking it too literally.

    Basically, CAC and CACG are using standards that may be, on average, 1/3 of a grade tighter than other companies, but grading is simply not that precise, and it never will be if humans are doing the grading. Occasionally, coins that don’t cross at CACG will end up stickering at that grade. Occasionally coins that fail to sticker will end up crossing. The same grader may grade a coin 64 on one instance, and 65 the next. You have to draw a line somewhere, and there are always coins that sit on the line. At the end of the day, they will do the best that they can to be as consistent as possible, which is truly the only thing that matters.

    Here’s a visual representation of what I explained. Each line is 1/3 of a grade, but again, if you take it too literally it will probably make the thread worse. I’ll give it a shot.

    I want to see in writing on the CAC website that grading and stickering use the same standards-that a coin that would not sticker because it was C for the grade would end up in a lower graded holder as the general standard (of course with some leeway if it was determined later that the C rating was off upon closer examination). It is one thing to generally say something in conversation but it's best to back up the standards by having them in writing and making sure that the graders are all on the same page. It is problematic if people at the company have different interpretations of the standards.

    Youre still not getting it. There is no stone etchings of "the standards". It doesnt matter how good you are at grading, it's simply not possible to grade a coin to the same 1/3 of a grade every time. Why do you think upgrades happen? Why do people make a living cracking out coins? Becuase its an imperfect system, conducted by imperfect humans. I own a coin that once was a 50 CAC, then a 53 that probably would have CAC'd, and now its a 58 that wont CAC. My grade for the coin was 55+. What is the "true grade"? -There isnt one. You have to declutter your logic of the ABC, and the decimals before it can start to make sense.

    You can send CAC an email with your demands, but its been stated ad infinitum on the CAC forum and in many interviews.

    People freely state the standards are the same for the sticker and the grading company but at the same time we hear that there are no etched standards. So then the sticker and grading can't be the same because there is nothing set in stone to compare to. There is a vague idea based on trusting that JA's vision is carried out at both places and enough people are ok with that. Someone can point to an interview or a thread but no one wants to put it in writing on the website. That's fine as well since not enough people care or are fine believing what is passed around by word of mouth.

  • Manifest_DestinyManifest_Destiny Posts: 6,896 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 28, 2024 8:41PM

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @ProofCollection said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:
    JA confirmed that CAC and CACG are in fact using the same standards, or at the very least, thats how it is by design. He did reiterate that was indeed the main purpose of the grading service, but of course we must not forget that they are humans too. Do take into consideration that he spends one week per month in Virginia Beach, and he does weigh in occasionally when there's a liner/judgement call to be made.

    So what did he make of the statement saying that CACG uses the full scale and that there are C coins?
    Do the graders have the ability to make a call if a C coin goes at that grade or becomes a plus coin at the lower grade?

    We can let Dan answer and I'm not speaking for him, but by using the same standards, he is saying that CACG certifies only A & B coin and C coins are demoted.

    So what do we make of the CACG grader and founder that said otherwise? Is he being retrained? Does he have autonomy to stretch the bounds of what is A, B, and C?

    Where did you see that he is a founder? I think he has a junior role at the company, he may be a grader but that doesn't mean he's finalizing or calling the shots. It's very easy for someone to have a misunderstanding about this, and thats because the graders are not looking at a coin and deciding if its an A, B, or C coin. John Butler made this very clear on the CAC forum, and so did JA.

    Forget about the alphabet nonsense. There are a number of graders, and there's a hierarchy and at the top of the hierarchy is JA. The "ABC" statement was a way of simplifying how JA grades and making it difestible for the average hobbyist, but thats not literally how he grades. If anything, theyll use decimals but JAs scale is not the same as the other tpgs.

    JA built the grading sets, and hes been grading the same way for almost 4 decades. I've tried to get this point across many times on this forum but the topic always comes back around. They grade similarly to PCGS and NGC, but basically their line is is about 1/3 of a grade back, on average, from the others. It's essentially the same standards as the days of rattlers and fatty's, but standards shift over time. If JA would pay 65 money for the coin, that means it's a 65 according to both CAC and CACG.

    His LinkedIn profile that I showed earlier on the thread had the grader and founding member. Chris has been around for a while and he is well qualified at what he does. I would not assume what he says is wrong or is a misunderstanding.

    So you don’t want to take me at my word, relaying what I was told from the horses mouth? “Founder” means investor, there are 150 of them, collectors and dealers alike. Had I been on the scene a few years earlier then I was, I probably would have been a “founder”. It’s easy to have a misunderstanding about this if you’re taking it too literally.

    Basically, CAC and CACG are using standards that may be, on average, 1/3 of a grade tighter than other companies, but grading is simply not that precise, and it never will be if humans are doing the grading. Occasionally, coins that don’t cross at CACG will end up stickering at that grade. Occasionally coins that fail to sticker will end up crossing. The same grader may grade a coin 64 on one instance, and 65 the next. You have to draw a line somewhere, and there are always coins that sit on the line. At the end of the day, they will do the best that they can to be as consistent as possible, which is truly the only thing that matters.

    Here’s a visual representation of what I explained. Each line is 1/3 of a grade, but again, if you take it too literally it will probably make the thread worse. I’ll give it a shot.

    I want to see in writing on the CAC website that grading and stickering use the same standards-that a coin that would not sticker because it was C for the grade would end up in a lower graded holder as the general standard (of course with some leeway if it was determined later that the C rating was off upon closer examination). It is one thing to generally say something in conversation but it's best to back up the standards by having them in writing and making sure that the graders are all on the same page. It is problematic if people at the company have different interpretations of the standards.

    Youre still not getting it. There is no stone etchings of "the standards". It doesnt matter how good you are at grading, it's simply not possible to grade a coin to the same 1/3 of a grade every time. Why do you think upgrades happen? Why do people make a living cracking out coins? Becuase its an imperfect system, conducted by imperfect humans. I own a coin that once was a 50 CAC, then a 53 that probably would have CAC'd, and now its a 58 that wont CAC. My grade for the coin was 55+. What is the "true grade"? -There isnt one. You have to declutter your logic of the ABC, and the decimals before it can start to make sense.

    You can send CAC an email with your demands, but its been stated ad infinitum on the CAC forum and in many interviews.

    I love ya brother and your extraordinary contributions to the forum, but you're missing his point. It's not about whether or not they live up to their standards 100%, it's about being 100% transparent as to what the standards are.

    The problem is that CAC published their standards - i.e the A,B,C spectrum. Then stated "C" coins are accurately graded but don't get a sticker because only premium quality for the grade gets the sticker (A & B ).

    Then CACG comes along and brands everything in sight "CAC", while claiming they "use CAC standards".

    Except the "C" part, they apparently don't use that and downgrade the coins that CAC continues to say are "accurately graded". That's double talk, and anything but transparent.

    As I pointed out up thread, they either don't use CAC standards and downgrade "accurately graded" C coins, or if they're using CAC standards, the the C coins end up at the correct grade in a CACG slab. It's a catch 22, which they set themselves up for by marketing CACG as CAC, and they've earned the flack they're getting because of their unwillingness to resolve the double standard they're operating under.

    FWIW, I'm not a CACG hater and would even consider submitting coins to them. I hope they succeed, and weed out a lot of the over dipped and problem coins that otherwise end up in straight graded holders. I just wish they would stop pretending to be CAC. It comes across as disingenuous.

  • PeakRaritiesPeakRarities Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 28, 2024 8:56PM

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @ProofCollection said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:
    JA confirmed that CAC and CACG are in fact using the same standards, or at the very least, thats how it is by design. He did reiterate that was indeed the main purpose of the grading service, but of course we must not forget that they are humans too. Do take into consideration that he spends one week per month in Virginia Beach, and he does weigh in occasionally when there's a liner/judgement call to be made.

    So what did he make of the statement saying that CACG uses the full scale and that there are C coins?
    Do the graders have the ability to make a call if a C coin goes at that grade or becomes a plus coin at the lower grade?

    We can let Dan answer and I'm not speaking for him, but by using the same standards, he is saying that CACG certifies only A & B coin and C coins are demoted.

    So what do we make of the CACG grader and founder that said otherwise? Is he being retrained? Does he have autonomy to stretch the bounds of what is A, B, and C?

    Where did you see that he is a founder? I think he has a junior role at the company, he may be a grader but that doesn't mean he's finalizing or calling the shots. It's very easy for someone to have a misunderstanding about this, and thats because the graders are not looking at a coin and deciding if its an A, B, or C coin. John Butler made this very clear on the CAC forum, and so did JA.

    Forget about the alphabet nonsense. There are a number of graders, and there's a hierarchy and at the top of the hierarchy is JA. The "ABC" statement was a way of simplifying how JA grades and making it difestible for the average hobbyist, but thats not literally how he grades. If anything, theyll use decimals but JAs scale is not the same as the other tpgs.

    JA built the grading sets, and hes been grading the same way for almost 4 decades. I've tried to get this point across many times on this forum but the topic always comes back around. They grade similarly to PCGS and NGC, but basically their line is is about 1/3 of a grade back, on average, from the others. It's essentially the same standards as the days of rattlers and fatty's, but standards shift over time. If JA would pay 65 money for the coin, that means it's a 65 according to both CAC and CACG.

    His LinkedIn profile that I showed earlier on the thread had the grader and founding member. Chris has been around for a while and he is well qualified at what he does. I would not assume what he says is wrong or is a misunderstanding.

    So you don’t want to take me at my word, relaying what I was told from the horses mouth? “Founder” means investor, there are 150 of them, collectors and dealers alike. Had I been on the scene a few years earlier then I was, I probably would have been a “founder”. It’s easy to have a misunderstanding about this if you’re taking it too literally.

    Basically, CAC and CACG are using standards that may be, on average, 1/3 of a grade tighter than other companies, but grading is simply not that precise, and it never will be if humans are doing the grading. Occasionally, coins that don’t cross at CACG will end up stickering at that grade. Occasionally coins that fail to sticker will end up crossing. The same grader may grade a coin 64 on one instance, and 65 the next. You have to draw a line somewhere, and there are always coins that sit on the line. At the end of the day, they will do the best that they can to be as consistent as possible, which is truly the only thing that matters.

    Here’s a visual representation of what I explained. Each line is 1/3 of a grade, but again, if you take it too literally it will probably make the thread worse. I’ll give it a shot.

    I want to see in writing on the CAC website that grading and stickering use the same standards-that a coin that would not sticker because it was C for the grade would end up in a lower graded holder as the general standard (of course with some leeway if it was determined later that the C rating was off upon closer examination). It is one thing to generally say something in conversation but it's best to back up the standards by having them in writing and making sure that the graders are all on the same page. It is problematic if people at the company have different interpretations of the standards.

    Youre still not getting it. There is no stone etchings of "the standards". It doesnt matter how good you are at grading, it's simply not possible to grade a coin to the same 1/3 of a grade every time. Why do you think upgrades happen? Why do people make a living cracking out coins? Becuase its an imperfect system, conducted by imperfect humans. I own a coin that once was a 50 CAC, then a 53 that probably would have CAC'd, and now its a 58 that wont CAC. My grade for the coin was 55+. What is the "true grade"? -There isnt one. You have to declutter your logic of the ABC, and the decimals before it can start to make sense.

    You can send CAC an email with your demands, but its been stated ad infinitum on the CAC forum and in many interviews.

    People freely state the standards are the same for the sticker and the grading company but at the same time we hear that there are no etched standards. So then the sticker and grading can't be the same because there is nothing set in stone to compare to. There is a vague idea based on trusting that JA's vision is carried out at both places and enough people are ok with that. Someone can point to an interview or a thread but no one wants to put it in writing on the website. That's fine as well since not enough people care or are fine believing what is passed around by word of mouth.

    I'll try this one more time, and then I'll excuse myself from the thread. The answer is within your comment....

    PCGS started as....David Halls Vision....and JA was there too....

    NGC Started as....JAs vision....and later was Salzbergs Vision....

    CAC Started as ....JAs vision....

    You see where im going with this? You want science, and there is no science to give you. Only opinions....

    Let look at PCGS definition of AU-55.

    "Full detail with light friction on the high points...considerable luster remains.

    Please tell me what "considerable" luster means? Excatly how much luster does there need to be before its "considerable"? How about "full", or "light"?

    Ill wait.....

    Founder- Peak Rarities
    Website
    Instagram
    Facebook

  • PeakRaritiesPeakRarities Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Manifest_Destiny said:

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @ProofCollection said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:
    JA confirmed that CAC and CACG are in fact using the same standards, or at the very least, thats how it is by design. He did reiterate that was indeed the main purpose of the grading service, but of course we must not forget that they are humans too. Do take into consideration that he spends one week per month in Virginia Beach, and he does weigh in occasionally when there's a liner/judgement call to be made.

    So what did he make of the statement saying that CACG uses the full scale and that there are C coins?
    Do the graders have the ability to make a call if a C coin goes at that grade or becomes a plus coin at the lower grade?

    We can let Dan answer and I'm not speaking for him, but by using the same standards, he is saying that CACG certifies only A & B coin and C coins are demoted.

    So what do we make of the CACG grader and founder that said otherwise? Is he being retrained? Does he have autonomy to stretch the bounds of what is A, B, and C?

    Where did you see that he is a founder? I think he has a junior role at the company, he may be a grader but that doesn't mean he's finalizing or calling the shots. It's very easy for someone to have a misunderstanding about this, and thats because the graders are not looking at a coin and deciding if its an A, B, or C coin. John Butler made this very clear on the CAC forum, and so did JA.

    Forget about the alphabet nonsense. There are a number of graders, and there's a hierarchy and at the top of the hierarchy is JA. The "ABC" statement was a way of simplifying how JA grades and making it difestible for the average hobbyist, but thats not literally how he grades. If anything, theyll use decimals but JAs scale is not the same as the other tpgs.

    JA built the grading sets, and hes been grading the same way for almost 4 decades. I've tried to get this point across many times on this forum but the topic always comes back around. They grade similarly to PCGS and NGC, but basically their line is is about 1/3 of a grade back, on average, from the others. It's essentially the same standards as the days of rattlers and fatty's, but standards shift over time. If JA would pay 65 money for the coin, that means it's a 65 according to both CAC and CACG.

    His LinkedIn profile that I showed earlier on the thread had the grader and founding member. Chris has been around for a while and he is well qualified at what he does. I would not assume what he says is wrong or is a misunderstanding.

    So you don’t want to take me at my word, relaying what I was told from the horses mouth? “Founder” means investor, there are 150 of them, collectors and dealers alike. Had I been on the scene a few years earlier then I was, I probably would have been a “founder”. It’s easy to have a misunderstanding about this if you’re taking it too literally.

    Basically, CAC and CACG are using standards that may be, on average, 1/3 of a grade tighter than other companies, but grading is simply not that precise, and it never will be if humans are doing the grading. Occasionally, coins that don’t cross at CACG will end up stickering at that grade. Occasionally coins that fail to sticker will end up crossing. The same grader may grade a coin 64 on one instance, and 65 the next. You have to draw a line somewhere, and there are always coins that sit on the line. At the end of the day, they will do the best that they can to be as consistent as possible, which is truly the only thing that matters.

    Here’s a visual representation of what I explained. Each line is 1/3 of a grade, but again, if you take it too literally it will probably make the thread worse. I’ll give it a shot.

    I want to see in writing on the CAC website that grading and stickering use the same standards-that a coin that would not sticker because it was C for the grade would end up in a lower graded holder as the general standard (of course with some leeway if it was determined later that the C rating was off upon closer examination). It is one thing to generally say something in conversation but it's best to back up the standards by having them in writing and making sure that the graders are all on the same page. It is problematic if people at the company have different interpretations of the standards.

    Youre still not getting it. There is no stone etchings of "the standards". It doesnt matter how good you are at grading, it's simply not possible to grade a coin to the same 1/3 of a grade every time. Why do you think upgrades happen? Why do people make a living cracking out coins? Becuase its an imperfect system, conducted by imperfect humans. I own a coin that once was a 50 CAC, then a 53 that probably would have CAC'd, and now its a 58 that wont CAC. My grade for the coin was 55+. What is the "true grade"? -There isnt one. You have to declutter your logic of the ABC, and the decimals before it can start to make sense.

    You can send CAC an email with your demands, but its been stated ad infinitum on the CAC forum and in many interviews.

    I love ya brother and your extraordinary contributions to the forum, but you're missing his point. It's not about whether or not they live up to their standards 100%, it's about being 100% transparent as to what the standards are.

    The problem is that CAC published their standards - i.e the A,B,C spectrum. Then stated "C" coins are accurately graded but don't get a sticker because only premium quality for the grade gets the sticker (A & B ).

    Then CACG comes along and brands everything in sight "CAC", while claiming they "use CAC standards".

    Except the "C" part, they apparently don't use that and downgrade the coins that CAC continues to say are "accurately graded". That's double talk, and anything but transparent.

    As I pointed out up thread, they either don't use CAC standards and downgrade "accurately graded" C coins, or if they're using CAC standards, the the C coins end up at the correct grade in a CACG slab. It's a catch 22, which they set themselves up for by marketing CACG as CAC, and they've earned the flack they're getting because of their unwillingness to resolve the double standard they're operating under.

    FWIW, I'm not a CACG hater and would even consider submitting coins to them. I hope they succeed, and weed out a lot of the over dipped and problem coins that otherwise end up in straight graded holders. I just wish they would stop pretending to be CAC. It comes across as disingenuous.

    I love ya too, but you my friend, and him, are missing mine....

    See my comment above....and In order to drive it home, youll have to excuse the brief profanity in this short video that describes "The standards".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiTfnpgNkmI

    Good night gents...

    Founder- Peak Rarities
    Website
    Instagram
    Facebook

  • U1chicagoU1chicago Posts: 6,085 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @ProofCollection said:

    @U1chicago said:

    @PeakRarities said:
    JA confirmed that CAC and CACG are in fact using the same standards, or at the very least, thats how it is by design. He did reiterate that was indeed the main purpose of the grading service, but of course we must not forget that they are humans too. Do take into consideration that he spends one week per month in Virginia Beach, and he does weigh in occasionally when there's a liner/judgement call to be made.

    So what did he make of the statement saying that CACG uses the full scale and that there are C coins?
    Do the graders have the ability to make a call if a C coin goes at that grade or becomes a plus coin at the lower grade?

    We can let Dan answer and I'm not speaking for him, but by using the same standards, he is saying that CACG certifies only A & B coin and C coins are demoted.

    So what do we make of the CACG grader and founder that said otherwise? Is he being retrained? Does he have autonomy to stretch the bounds of what is A, B, and C?

    Where did you see that he is a founder? I think he has a junior role at the company, he may be a grader but that doesn't mean he's finalizing or calling the shots. It's very easy for someone to have a misunderstanding about this, and thats because the graders are not looking at a coin and deciding if its an A, B, or C coin. John Butler made this very clear on the CAC forum, and so did JA.

    Forget about the alphabet nonsense. There are a number of graders, and there's a hierarchy and at the top of the hierarchy is JA. The "ABC" statement was a way of simplifying how JA grades and making it difestible for the average hobbyist, but thats not literally how he grades. If anything, theyll use decimals but JAs scale is not the same as the other tpgs.

    JA built the grading sets, and hes been grading the same way for almost 4 decades. I've tried to get this point across many times on this forum but the topic always comes back around. They grade similarly to PCGS and NGC, but basically their line is is about 1/3 of a grade back, on average, from the others. It's essentially the same standards as the days of rattlers and fatty's, but standards shift over time. If JA would pay 65 money for the coin, that means it's a 65 according to both CAC and CACG.

    His LinkedIn profile that I showed earlier on the thread had the grader and founding member. Chris has been around for a while and he is well qualified at what he does. I would not assume what he says is wrong or is a misunderstanding.

    So you don’t want to take me at my word, relaying what I was told from the horses mouth? “Founder” means investor, there are 150 of them, collectors and dealers alike. Had I been on the scene a few years earlier then I was, I probably would have been a “founder”. It’s easy to have a misunderstanding about this if you’re taking it too literally.

    Basically, CAC and CACG are using standards that may be, on average, 1/3 of a grade tighter than other companies, but grading is simply not that precise, and it never will be if humans are doing the grading. Occasionally, coins that don’t cross at CACG will end up stickering at that grade. Occasionally coins that fail to sticker will end up crossing. The same grader may grade a coin 64 on one instance, and 65 the next. You have to draw a line somewhere, and there are always coins that sit on the line. At the end of the day, they will do the best that they can to be as consistent as possible, which is truly the only thing that matters.

    Here’s a visual representation of what I explained. Each line is 1/3 of a grade, but again, if you take it too literally it will probably make the thread worse. I’ll give it a shot.

    I want to see in writing on the CAC website that grading and stickering use the same standards-that a coin that would not sticker because it was C for the grade would end up in a lower graded holder as the general standard (of course with some leeway if it was determined later that the C rating was off upon closer examination). It is one thing to generally say something in conversation but it's best to back up the standards by having them in writing and making sure that the graders are all on the same page. It is problematic if people at the company have different interpretations of the standards.

    Youre still not getting it. There is no stone etchings of "the standards". It doesnt matter how good you are at grading, it's simply not possible to grade a coin to the same 1/3 of a grade every time. Why do you think upgrades happen? Why do people make a living cracking out coins? Becuase its an imperfect system, conducted by imperfect humans. I own a coin that once was a 50 CAC, then a 53 that probably would have CAC'd, and now its a 58 that wont CAC. My grade for the coin was 55+. What is the "true grade"? -There isnt one. You have to declutter your logic of the ABC, and the decimals before it can start to make sense.

    You can send CAC an email with your demands, but its been stated ad infinitum on the CAC forum and in many interviews.

    People freely state the standards are the same for the sticker and the grading company but at the same time we hear that there are no etched standards. So then the sticker and grading can't be the same because there is nothing set in stone to compare to. There is a vague idea based on trusting that JA's vision is carried out at both places and enough people are ok with that. Someone can point to an interview or a thread but no one wants to put it in writing on the website. That's fine as well since not enough people care or are fine believing what is passed around by word of mouth.

    I'll try this one more time, and then I'll excuse myself from the thread. The answer is within your comment....

    PCGS started as....David Halls Vision....and JA was there too....

    NGC Started as....JAs vision....and later was Salzbergs Vision....

    CAC Started as ....JAs vision....

    You see where im going with this? You want science, and there is no science to give you. Only opinions....

    Let look at PCGS definition of AU-55.

    "Full detail with light friction on the high points...considerable luster remains.

    Please tell me what "considerable" luster means? Excatly how much luster does there need to be before its "considerable"?

    Ill wait.....

    Go read what @Manifest_Destiny wrote above. It’s not about the grade, it’s about the transparency and the terminology being contradictory.

  • lermishlermish Posts: 3,030 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PeakRarities Sigh. So difficult to determine if this is post of the week, month, or year. If only there was a published grading scale for forum posts.

  • Manifest_DestinyManifest_Destiny Posts: 6,896 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Sigh, I'm not sure why my point (and a few others) can't be understood.

    Despite what you might think, I do understand the "grading" points made above. It's not consistent, it's not 100% transparent, different people grade differently. I get it. None of that is my point. I'm not debating applied grading. My point is about the grading standards of CAC vs CACG. CAC has transparent published standards. CACG claims to use those standards, but doesn't actually seem to.

    Mark came closest to understanding my (and others) point with this post.

    @MFeld said:
    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 is saying that he thinks that CACG takes C coins and slabs them the next tier down with a +.

    Makes sense. And ALL of this could be cleared up if CACG would just admit that by stating what their standards are for slabbing "accurately graded C coins".

    That's a standards issue, not an applied grading issue.

  • lermishlermish Posts: 3,030 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 29, 2024 6:30AM

    @Manifest_Destiny said:

    Makes sense. And ALL of this could be cleared up if CACG would just admit that by stating what their standards are for slabbing "accurately graded C coins".

    Unfortunately, the ABC thing has really spiraled out of control. Here's the thing. There is no such thing as a C coin. They are grading based on their unpublished grading standards, and CAC always stickered the same way. EDIT: The context of ABC only related to coins graded by other TPGs. That context, for grading, no longer exists so the reference point of ABC is nonsensical when referring to CACG coins.

    The ABC scale was an attempt to explain the process to the laymen and to not broadly insult a huge swath of coins that JA believed were incorrectly graded. (Coins not stickered by JA but that nonetheless are owned by his clients and others).

    If you ignore the ABC completely it will make this a lot easier.

  • Manifest_DestinyManifest_Destiny Posts: 6,896 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @lermish said:

    @Manifest_Destiny said:

    Makes sense. And ALL of this could be cleared up if CACG would just admit that by stating what their standards are for slabbing "accurately graded C coins".

    Unfortunately, the ABC thing has really spiraled out of control. Here's the thing. There is no such thing as a C coin. They are grading based on their unpublished grading standards, and CAC always stickered the same way.

    The ABC scale was an attempt to explain the process to the laymen and to not broadly insult a huge swath of coins that JA believed were incorrectly graded. (Coins not stickered by JA but that nonetheless are owned by his clients and others).

    If you ignore the ABC completely it will make this a lot easier.

    I'm ok with that explanation. But again, CAC claims C coins are "accurately graded". They need to stop saying that. This is the transparency issue people like me keep bringing up.

    What's frustrating is we're supposed to "wink, wink" know what CACG is really doing and ignore what they're saying.

  • lermishlermish Posts: 3,030 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Manifest_Destiny said:

    @lermish said:

    @Manifest_Destiny said:

    Makes sense. And ALL of this could be cleared up if CACG would just admit that by stating what their standards are for slabbing "accurately graded C coins".

    Unfortunately, the ABC thing has really spiraled out of control. Here's the thing. There is no such thing as a C coin. They are grading based on their unpublished grading standards, and CAC always stickered the same way.

    The ABC scale was an attempt to explain the process to the laymen and to not broadly insult a huge swath of coins that JA believed were incorrectly graded. (Coins not stickered by JA but that nonetheless are owned by his clients and others).

    If you ignore the ABC completely it will make this a lot easier.

    I'm ok with that explanation. But again, CAC claims C coins are "accurately graded". They need to stop saying that. This is the transparency issue people like me keep bringing up.

    What's frustrating is we're supposed to "wink, wink" know what CACG is really doing and ignore what they're saying.

    You're not wrong. I'm a big CAC fan but even the biggest kool-aid drinker would readily admit that their marketing, technology, and PR is subpar.

  • ProofCollectionProofCollection Posts: 6,253 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Manifest_Destiny said:

    @lermish said:

    @Manifest_Destiny said:

    Makes sense. And ALL of this could be cleared up if CACG would just admit that by stating what their standards are for slabbing "accurately graded C coins".

    Unfortunately, the ABC thing has really spiraled out of control. Here's the thing. There is no such thing as a C coin. They are grading based on their unpublished grading standards, and CAC always stickered the same way.

    The ABC scale was an attempt to explain the process to the laymen and to not broadly insult a huge swath of coins that JA believed were incorrectly graded. (Coins not stickered by JA but that nonetheless are owned by his clients and others).

    If you ignore the ABC completely it will make this a lot easier.

    I'm ok with that explanation. But again, CAC claims C coins are "accurately graded". They need to stop saying that. This is the transparency issue people like me keep bringing up.

    Really it's just a gimmick to a give the appearance of a better grading standard by having fewer coins of a higher grade.

  • JCH22JCH22 Posts: 214 ✭✭✭✭

    @lermish said:

    You're not wrong. I'm a big CAC fan but even the biggest kool-aid drinker would readily admit that their marketing, technology, and PR is subpar.

    What do you think accounts for that? Ask because there are many sophisticated , experienced principals involved.

  • lermishlermish Posts: 3,030 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JCH22 said:

    @lermish said:

    You're not wrong. I'm a big CAC fan but even the biggest kool-aid drinker would readily admit that their marketing, technology, and PR is subpar.

    What do you think accounts for that? Ask because there are many sophisticated , experienced principals involved.

    I think it's just a matter of scale and infrastructure. PCGS has had a long time and has many people and spent a lot of money to develop these important but secondary functions. I think CAC will get there; they have really good people who care a lot. But PCGS has a 30+year head start.

  • TwoSides2aCoinTwoSides2aCoin Posts: 44,364 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @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.

    As long as you’re happy with the coin, that’s what matters.

  • CregCreg Posts: 525 ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 29, 2024 7:44AM

    I don’t want to start a new thread. May I piggyback my first CAC slabbed coin in your thread?
    (Make this the thread for all first CACs?)

This discussion has been closed.