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.
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.
CAC and now CACG seem to be a magnet for opinions of all sorts. The vast majority redundant, but nonetheless entertaining. I find the discussion about boxes particularly amusing. Let’s see, maybe I can find a thread that will enhance my numismatic knowledge.
@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?
@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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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?
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……………….
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?
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……………….
@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.
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 :
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.
@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?
@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.
@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 :
@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?
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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"?
@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".
@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.
My cats just shattered a glass vase downstairs that I had to tend to, now that I'm awake I figure I may as well try to put this one to bed and leave it on a positive note. Matthew Mcconaughey is a tough act to follow, but I'll do my best to make this VERY clear, so please read my post slowly and carefully.
I did in fact read what @Manifest_Destiny wrote, just as did when you wrote the same thing. MD thinks I'm missing his point, but I dont miss very much and I say that he is missing the forest for the trees. MD also stated that i make "extraordinary". contributions, but ask yourself if that's true, could I really be that obtuse to the point where I dont understand what youre saying? I've addressed it multiple times, but perhaps I wasnt clear enough....😓
I DONT REALLY CARE WHAT THE WEBSITE SAYS, AND NEITHER SHOULD EITHER OF YOU.
I have already acknowledged that some of what is written there contradicts what is applied in practice, but I guess I fail to understand why you two are making it out to be some clandestine affair. First of all, CAC did not "Publish Standards" like PCGS has. It's informatiom from the FAQ section. I've seen older interviews where JA has said something similar.
I'm not going to explain why he did that, again, but I will absolutely concede that their PR and marketing language leaves much to be desired and it should be corrected. But, heres the thing- I dont care.
It doesn't affect me, nor does it have an influence how they grade coins. It doesnt effect you or MD either, so why are you guys so hung up on that? You cannot accurately define grading standards in words, and though I've already hammered that point, I'm going to keep at it until it sinks in. Here is the PCGS definition of the standard for MS-66.
"Well struck with a few marks or hairlines, not in focal areas"
Here's an MS-66 1921 peace from coinfacts.
Its totally flat in the center obverse, and its got two nicks with depth on the eyebrow, which I think we all can agree for the most part is a focal area. So, neither of the things listed in the "definition" seem to be the case, but yet the coin got a 66. I didn't have to look hard for this, and it may be a lower hanging fruit but I could do this all day.
What happened was, the graders probably figured that it has great luster and color, and the eye appeal is enough to overcome the weak strike and eyebrow hits at this grade level, for this issue. They ask themselves, "should this coin be worth 66 money" and evidently they arrived at a consensus of "Yes". You might ask, how would I know what their thought process on a coin like this is? I'll give you a hint. It was NOT on their website, or in their "published standards", whatever the heck that means.
I learned that by going to summer seminar and grading coins with Steve Feltner and David McCarthy for a few days. If you don't know who they are, ask around. We sat in a dark room for 8 hours a day grading coins, and Steve would vocalize his stream of consciousness whenever he revealed the grade. ( a fantastic opportunity and learning experience, if either of you could ever make it. I encourage all collectors to take grading classes at summer seminar if possible, probably the best $2,000 I've ever spent (all in, Including flights, lodging and meals). I also go to all the major shows, for a few days each and view thousands of coins. Not to mention the fact that I spend hours every day combing through auction records, and buying and selling coins. At the level I participate, it gets expensive REAL fast if you don't know how to grade.
My point is, you do not learn about how a service grades from a 3 page website with an FAQ section. Everyone knows that, including both of you. So I emphasize, why is it an obstacle that you both can not overcome? Can it be better? Absolutely, but it has no bearing on anything. It's directed towards laymen who have just begun to dip their toes in the CAC water, and after that you need to get your hands dirty if you want to learn anything.
The best way I can break it down is the classic anecdote of the big corporate behemoth store vs the small Mom & Pop outfit. They might not take online orders or let you use apple pay, but the end product is just the same if not better, i and you don't mind making some comprimises because of the convenience. The compromise with CAC/G is that their verbiage isn't clear and you may have to experiment or do your own due diligence to see if it has value to you. Don't like it? Fine, dont use it. Theyre not begging for your business, and they'll be just fine without you. JA has been doing what he does for 40 years, and the way he grades isn't going to change anytime soon. It's not that he isn't trying to be transparent, its that him trying to put the thought process of how he grades into words is a futile and superlative exercise. You want to learn how CAC or CACG grades? Look at many coins in their holders, or start submitting coins yourself. Same way you have to learn how PCGS or NGC grades.
You're demanding transparency when the concept of grading is fundamentally opaqe.
Let’s imagine that CAC puts up “defined” standards, along with a statement saying that "both" companies are applying those standards. They also issue a statement that Chris' comments do not reflect their policy. What do you think that would affect their daily operations? I’ll tell you...
NOTHING.
The irony is that the "lack of transparency" actually IS transparent in itself 😂. Why? Because the coin is only a 68 if JA, or Ron, or whoever is calling the shots decades from now says it is, and that goes for EVERY TPG. You arrived at that conclusion 1-2 posts back, but only myopically for CACG. You also keep neglecting to recognize the CACG grading sets which, as far as I know, are the first ones that are comprised of physical coins, that will forever will be a reference source for the graders long after JA has left the building.
Edit: and remember that the grading sets are used at both locations, while JA has an active role at both locations.
Imagine that you think you have a coin that meets the criteria in the definition of MS-68, as described on the PCGS website, but its got a carbon spot on the obverse.
"Only the slightest weakness in strike with a few tiny imperfections visible"
Well, that doesn’t appear to mention anything about spots, right? So then how do you determine what’s tiny and what’s not? You send the coin in again. The head grader at ___insert TPG here____ says "nope, I dont like it as a 68". Now what do can you do?
NOTHING
Except maybe...try it again in 6 months 😅.
Edit: and it’s important to remember my 50-53-58 example and read between the lines some. The goal is to be as consistent as possible, but even if you gave the 5 best graders in the world 25 coins to grade, and do that 10 times in a row spread out across a year, there’s going to be some coins fluctuating between grades. Not many, but at least 3-4 coins out of that group will sit on the line somewhere.
It’s only feel-good transparency. It's great for optics & PR but it has no inherent value. Does this mean that grading is just one big scam 😱? No, it’s not, because the services provide a tremendous value to non-expert level collectors, who used to get taken to the cleaners by dealers who took advantage of their trust & naïveté. From what I understand, JA saw that pattern beginning to take place again in the early 2000's, which is one of the reasons he started CAC in the first place.
If you're still not getting it, I really don't know what’s left to be said at this point. The goal posts keep getting moved on me throughout the discussion, and at this point you’d have to be making a concerted effort not to comprehend what I'm saying if it doesn’t make some sense after this post.
I offered to go out on a limb to ask him about this for you, directly, despite the fact that I and many others already knew the answer. Your response, demanding, not asking, that it must be in writing infers that you feel either his or my word is no good. Feels sort of insulting, considering that our word is all that we truly have at the end of it all. Life goes on, but I sincerely do hope that it does click for you one day... and you'll look back and realize that there was a good reason that "no one else seemed to care". It takes quite a bit of effort to put the concept of professional coin grading into words, and I’m probably wasting my breath, but maybe a couple folks will get something out of it.
One might ask-
“What is the solution to all of this?”
Buy the coins you like, cross them into the holders you desire with or without stickers, or don't. If you’re having fun, you’re doing it the right way, but try not to forget that most of it is just glitter and fancy packaging with a bow on top.
With that, I’ll see myself out before one of our resident trolls enters the thread to correct some minute detail of this long-winded dissertation.
@PeakRarities said:
My cats just shattered a glass vase downstairs that I had to tend to, now that I'm awake I figure I may as well try to put this one to bed and leave it on a positive note. Matthew Mcconaughey is a tough act to follow, but I'll do my best to make this VERY cler, so please read my post slowly and carefully.
I did in fact read what @Manifest_Destiny wrote, just as did when you wrote the same thing. MD thinks I'm missing his point, but I dont miss very much and I say that he is missing the forest for the trees. MD also stated that i make "extraordinary". contributions, but ask yourself if that's true, could I really be that obtuse to the point where I dont understand what youre saying? I'm I've addressed it multiple times, but perhaps I wasnt clear enough....😓
I DONT REALLY CARE WHAT THE WEBSITE SAYS, AND NEITHER SHOULD EITHER OF YOU.
I have already acknowledged that some of what is written there contradicts what is applied in practice, but I guess I fail to understand why you two are making it out to be some clandestine affair. First of all, CAC did not "Publish Standards" like PCGS has. It's informatiom from the FAQ section. I've seen older interviews where JA has said something similar.
I'm not going to explain why he did that, again, but I will absolutely concede that their PR and marketing language leaves much to be desired and it should be corrected. But, heres the thing- I dont care.
It doesn't affect me, nor does it have an influence how they grade coins. It doesnt effect you or MD either, so why are you guys so hung up on that? You cannot accurately define grading standars in words, and though I've already hammered that point, I'm going to keep at it until it sinks in. Here is the PCGS definition of the standard for MS-66.
"Well struck with a few marks or hairlines, not in focal areas"
Here's an MS-66 1921 peace from coinfacts.
Its totally flat in the center obverse, and its got two nicks with depth on the eyebrow, which I think we all can agree for the most part is a focal area. So, neither of the things listed in the "definition" seem to be the case, but yet the coin got a 66. I didn't have to look hard for this, and it may be a lower hanging fruit but I could do this all day.
What happened was, the graders probably figured that it has great luster and color, and the eye appeal is enough to overcome the weak strike and eyebrow hits at this grade level, for this issue. They ask themselves, "should this coin be worth 66 money" and evidently they arrived at a consensus of "Yes". You might ask, how would I know what their thought process on a coin like this is? I'll give you a hint. It was NOT on their website, or in their "published standards", whatever the heck that means.
I learned that by going to summer seminar and grading coins with Steve Feltner and David McCarthy for a few days. If you don't know who they are, ask around. We sat in a dark room for 8 hours a day grading coins, and Steve would vocalize his stream of consciousness whenever he revealed the grade. ( a fantastic oppurtunity and learning experience, if either of you could ever make it. I encourage all collectors to take grading classes at summer seminar if possible, probably the best $2,000 I've ever spent (all in, Including flights, lodging and meals). I also go to all the major shows, for a few days each and view thousands of coins. Not to mention the fact that I spend hours every day combing through auction records, and buying and selling coins. At the level I participate, it gets expensive REAL fast if you don't know how to grade.
My point is, you do not learn about how a service grades from a 3 page website with an FAQ section. Everyone knows that, including both of you. So I emphasize, why is it an obstacle that you both can not overcome? Can it be better? Absolutely, but it has no bearing on anything. It's directed towards laymen who have just begun to dip their toes in the CAC water, and after that you need to get your hands dirty if you want to learn anything.
The best way I can break it down is the classic anecdote of the big corporate behemoth store vs the small Mom & Pop outfit. They might not take online orders or let you use apple pay, but the end product is just the same if not better, i and you don't mind making some comprimises because of the convenience. The compromise with CAC/G is that their verbiage isn't clear and you may have to experiment or do your own due diligence to see if it has value to you. Don't like it? Fine, dont use it. Theyre not begging for your business, and they'll be just fine without you. JA has been doing what he does for 40 years, and the way he grades isn't going to change anytime soon. It's not that he isn't trying to be transparent, its that him trying to put the thought process of how he grades into words is a futile and superlative exercise. You want to learn how CAC or CACG grades? Look at many coins in their holders, or start submitting coins yourself. Same way you have to learn how PCGS or NGC grades.
You're demanding transparency when the concept of grading is fundamentally opaqe.
Let’s imagine that CAC puts up “defined” standards, along with a statement saying that "both" companies are applying those standards. They also issue a statement that Chris' comments do not reflect their policy What do you think that would change in the daily operations? I’ll tell you...
NOTHING.
The irony is that the "lack of transparency" actually IS transparent in itself 😂. Why? Because the coin is only a 68 if JA, or Ron, or whoever is calling the shots decades from now says it is, and that goes for EVERY TPG. You arrived at that conclusion 1-2 posts back, but only myopically for CACG. You also keep neglecting to recognize the CACG grading sets which, as far as I know, are the first ones that are comprised of physical coins, that will forever will be a reference source for the graders long after JA has left the building.
Imagine that you think you have a coin that meets the criteria in the definition of MS-68, as described on the PCGS website, but its got a carbon spot on the obverse.
"Only the slightest weakness in strike with a few tiny imperfections visible"
Well, that doesn’t appear to mention anything about spots, right? So then how do you determine what’s tiny and what’s not? You send the coin in again. The head grader at ___insert TPG here____ says "nope, I dont like it as a 68". Now what do can you do?
NOTHING
Except maybe...try it again in 6 months 😅.
It’s only feel-good transparency. It's great for optics & PR but it has no inherent value. Does this mean that grading is just one big scam 😱? No, it’s not, because the services provide a tremendous value to non-expert level collectors, who used to get taken to the cleaners by dealers who took advantage of their trust & naïveté. From what I understand, JA saw that pattern beginning to take place again in the early 2000's, which is one of the reasons he started CAC in the first place.
If you're still not getting it, I really don't know what’s left to be said at this point. The goal posts keep getting moved on me throughout the discussion, and at this point you're making a concerted effort not to listen or comprehend anything that I'm saying. You also keep neglecting to recognize the CACG grading sets, which are made up of physical coins that will forever will be a reference source for the graders, long after JA had left the building.
I offered to go out on a limb to ask him about this for you, directly, despite the fact that I and many others already knew the answer. Your response, demanding, not asking, that it must be in writing infers that you feel either his or my word is no good. Feels sort of insulting, considering that our word is all that we truly have at the end of it all. Life goes on, but I sincerely do hope that it does click for you one day... and you'll look back and realize that there was a good reason that "no one else seemed to care". It takes quite a bit of effort to put the concept of professional coin grading into words, and I’m probably wasting my breath, but maybe a couple folks will get something out of it.
One might ask-
“What is the solution to all of this?”
Buy the coins you like, cross them into the holders you desire with or without stickers, or don't. If you’re having fun, you’re doing it the right way, but try not to forget that most of it is just glitter and fancy packaging with a bow on top.
With that, I’ll see myself out before one of our resident trolls enters the thread to correct some minute detail of this long-winded dissertation.
🎤
💥
Very well said, Dan and I think this is key: "You're demanding transparency when the concept of grading is fundamentally opaque."
Over the years, I've posted several times that (other than in the case of a grade of 70) written standards for MS/PF 60 and higher grades don't enable the reader to apply the definitions adequately or objectively enough, in order to arrive at a specific grade. That's because words used for the standards, such as "full", "small", "minor". "a few", "average", "above average", "slightest", "virtually", "tiny", "multiple", etc. aren't precise enough to apply consistently to the infinite number of differences on different coins in a way that let's us distinguish between contiguous grades.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
I don't believe that they will be discounted.
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
Remember the man is a Billionaire…he can afford to take a loss or two without crying about it.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
CAC and now CACG seem to be a magnet for opinions of all sorts. The vast majority redundant, but nonetheless entertaining. I find the discussion about boxes particularly amusing. Let’s see, maybe I can find a thread that will enhance my numismatic knowledge.
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?
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.
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
Thank you, and you as well
12 Angry Numismatists.
This is a great thread for recruiting new coin people.
"Get into coins and you too can become a part of all this!"
It also has comedic miscommunication similar to "Who's On First?".
It may well escalate to nuclear war and the end of the world.
Just remember as the end comes that it was all the fault of @Manifest_Destiny for posting a new purchase and not loving the slab enough.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
.
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=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023
We could always ask JA to join CU and ask him his opinion. I sought that he would agree, but maybe.
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
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
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……………….
I have about a dozen CACG coins and may complete a box of 20.
Any news to share today?
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://youtube.com/watch?v=2YNufnS_kf4 - Mama I'm coming home ...................................................................................................................................................................... RLJ 1958 - 2023
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
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.
Sure...that got regular airplay, early 80's I am thinking.
"Jigsaw" may be the better descriptor than the lyrics.
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.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
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
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
Rattlers, Fattys, and Bricks. Oh my!
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.
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 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'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
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".
Good night gents...
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Go read what @Manifest_Destiny wrote above. It’s not about the grade, it’s about the transparency and the terminology being contradictory.
Had the OP purchased an ANACS coin rather than one in a CACG slab, this thread would have run to 20 posts of "hey, I like it."
My cats just shattered a glass vase downstairs that I had to tend to, now that I'm awake I figure I may as well try to put this one to bed and leave it on a positive note. Matthew Mcconaughey is a tough act to follow, but I'll do my best to make this VERY clear, so please read my post slowly and carefully.
I did in fact read what @Manifest_Destiny wrote, just as did when you wrote the same thing. MD thinks I'm missing his point, but I dont miss very much and I say that he is missing the forest for the trees. MD also stated that i make "extraordinary". contributions, but ask yourself if that's true, could I really be that obtuse to the point where I dont understand what youre saying? I've addressed it multiple times, but perhaps I wasnt clear enough....😓
I DONT REALLY CARE WHAT THE WEBSITE SAYS, AND NEITHER SHOULD EITHER OF YOU.
I have already acknowledged that some of what is written there contradicts what is applied in practice, but I guess I fail to understand why you two are making it out to be some clandestine affair. First of all, CAC did not "Publish Standards" like PCGS has. It's informatiom from the FAQ section. I've seen older interviews where JA has said something similar.
I'm not going to explain why he did that, again, but I will absolutely concede that their PR and marketing language leaves much to be desired and it should be corrected. But, heres the thing- I dont care.
It doesn't affect me, nor does it have an influence how they grade coins. It doesnt effect you or MD either, so why are you guys so hung up on that? You cannot accurately define grading standards in words, and though I've already hammered that point, I'm going to keep at it until it sinks in. Here is the PCGS definition of the standard for MS-66.
"Well struck with a few marks or hairlines, not in focal areas"
Here's an MS-66 1921 peace from coinfacts.
Its totally flat in the center obverse, and its got two nicks with depth on the eyebrow, which I think we all can agree for the most part is a focal area. So, neither of the things listed in the "definition" seem to be the case, but yet the coin got a 66. I didn't have to look hard for this, and it may be a lower hanging fruit but I could do this all day.
What happened was, the graders probably figured that it has great luster and color, and the eye appeal is enough to overcome the weak strike and eyebrow hits at this grade level, for this issue. They ask themselves, "should this coin be worth 66 money" and evidently they arrived at a consensus of "Yes". You might ask, how would I know what their thought process on a coin like this is? I'll give you a hint. It was NOT on their website, or in their "published standards", whatever the heck that means.
I learned that by going to summer seminar and grading coins with Steve Feltner and David McCarthy for a few days. If you don't know who they are, ask around. We sat in a dark room for 8 hours a day grading coins, and Steve would vocalize his stream of consciousness whenever he revealed the grade. ( a fantastic opportunity and learning experience, if either of you could ever make it. I encourage all collectors to take grading classes at summer seminar if possible, probably the best $2,000 I've ever spent (all in, Including flights, lodging and meals). I also go to all the major shows, for a few days each and view thousands of coins. Not to mention the fact that I spend hours every day combing through auction records, and buying and selling coins. At the level I participate, it gets expensive REAL fast if you don't know how to grade.
My point is, you do not learn about how a service grades from a 3 page website with an FAQ section. Everyone knows that, including both of you. So I emphasize, why is it an obstacle that you both can not overcome? Can it be better? Absolutely, but it has no bearing on anything. It's directed towards laymen who have just begun to dip their toes in the CAC water, and after that you need to get your hands dirty if you want to learn anything.
The best way I can break it down is the classic anecdote of the big corporate behemoth store vs the small Mom & Pop outfit. They might not take online orders or let you use apple pay, but the end product is just the same if not better, i and you don't mind making some comprimises because of the convenience. The compromise with CAC/G is that their verbiage isn't clear and you may have to experiment or do your own due diligence to see if it has value to you. Don't like it? Fine, dont use it. Theyre not begging for your business, and they'll be just fine without you. JA has been doing what he does for 40 years, and the way he grades isn't going to change anytime soon. It's not that he isn't trying to be transparent, its that him trying to put the thought process of how he grades into words is a futile and superlative exercise. You want to learn how CAC or CACG grades? Look at many coins in their holders, or start submitting coins yourself. Same way you have to learn how PCGS or NGC grades.
You're demanding transparency when the concept of grading is fundamentally opaqe.
Let’s imagine that CAC puts up “defined” standards, along with a statement saying that "both" companies are applying those standards. They also issue a statement that Chris' comments do not reflect their policy. What do you think that would affect their daily operations? I’ll tell you...
NOTHING.
The irony is that the "lack of transparency" actually IS transparent in itself 😂. Why? Because the coin is only a 68 if JA, or Ron, or whoever is calling the shots decades from now says it is, and that goes for EVERY TPG. You arrived at that conclusion 1-2 posts back, but only myopically for CACG. You also keep neglecting to recognize the CACG grading sets which, as far as I know, are the first ones that are comprised of physical coins, that will forever will be a reference source for the graders long after JA has left the building.
Edit: and remember that the grading sets are used at both locations, while JA has an active role at both locations.
Imagine that you think you have a coin that meets the criteria in the definition of MS-68, as described on the PCGS website, but its got a carbon spot on the obverse.
"Only the slightest weakness in strike with a few tiny imperfections visible"
Well, that doesn’t appear to mention anything about spots, right? So then how do you determine what’s tiny and what’s not? You send the coin in again. The head grader at ___insert TPG here____ says "nope, I dont like it as a 68". Now what do can you do?
NOTHING
Except maybe...try it again in 6 months 😅.
Edit: and it’s important to remember my 50-53-58 example and read between the lines some. The goal is to be as consistent as possible, but even if you gave the 5 best graders in the world 25 coins to grade, and do that 10 times in a row spread out across a year, there’s going to be some coins fluctuating between grades. Not many, but at least 3-4 coins out of that group will sit on the line somewhere.
It’s only feel-good transparency. It's great for optics & PR but it has no inherent value. Does this mean that grading is just one big scam 😱? No, it’s not, because the services provide a tremendous value to non-expert level collectors, who used to get taken to the cleaners by dealers who took advantage of their trust & naïveté. From what I understand, JA saw that pattern beginning to take place again in the early 2000's, which is one of the reasons he started CAC in the first place.
If you're still not getting it, I really don't know what’s left to be said at this point. The goal posts keep getting moved on me throughout the discussion, and at this point you’d have to be making a concerted effort not to comprehend what I'm saying if it doesn’t make some sense after this post.
I offered to go out on a limb to ask him about this for you, directly, despite the fact that I and many others already knew the answer. Your response, demanding, not asking, that it must be in writing infers that you feel either his or my word is no good. Feels sort of insulting, considering that our word is all that we truly have at the end of it all. Life goes on, but I sincerely do hope that it does click for you one day... and you'll look back and realize that there was a good reason that "no one else seemed to care". It takes quite a bit of effort to put the concept of professional coin grading into words, and I’m probably wasting my breath, but maybe a couple folks will get something out of it.
One might ask-
“What is the solution to all of this?”
Buy the coins you like, cross them into the holders you desire with or without stickers, or don't. If you’re having fun, you’re doing it the right way, but try not to forget that most of it is just glitter and fancy packaging with a bow on top.
With that, I’ll see myself out before one of our resident trolls enters the thread to correct some minute detail of this long-winded dissertation.
🎤
💥
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Very well said, Dan and I think this is key: "You're demanding transparency when the concept of grading is fundamentally opaque."
Over the years, I've posted several times that (other than in the case of a grade of 70) written standards for MS/PF 60 and higher grades don't enable the reader to apply the definitions adequately or objectively enough, in order to arrive at a specific grade. That's because words used for the standards, such as "full", "small", "minor". "a few", "average", "above average", "slightest", "virtually", "tiny", "multiple", etc. aren't precise enough to apply consistently to the infinite number of differences on different coins in a way that let's us distinguish between contiguous grades.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@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.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
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.
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.
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.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
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.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
Really it's just a gimmick to a give the appearance of a better grading standard by having fewer coins of a higher grade.
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.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
As long as you’re happy with the coin, that’s what matters.
HE>I
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?)