CACG grading AU coins PL
lermish
Posts: 3,022 ✭✭✭✭✭
@ProofCollection made a comment in his Long Beach thread about whether PCGS might start grading AU coins PL like CACG
I wasn't aware of this very interesting news.
When I looked at the pop reports there are indeed some PL coins graded as low as 53.
I couldn't find any grading policies regarding this and am curious if those might be Legacy stickered NGC coins or if they will grade raw/crossover coins in this manner as well. Their marketing (as mentioned in the lengthy "Got my first CACG coin thread https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/13781737 ) has been remiss in not posting some grading standards including this. I would think it would help them drive business.
@JohnBCoins would love your input if you're around.
2
Comments
I made that statement based on the fact that CAC has stickered NGC AU PL coins and if they are going to accept them for crossover, they have to be willing to issue the grade.
From the CACG FAQ
"If the coin has a plus grade, color designation, or other item listed on the coin that CAC may not recognize. We do not guarantee CAC stickered coins that have a plus grade will be a plus grade at CAC Grading. When the coin was originally viewed by CAC Stickering, we did not recognize the plus. Please be sure to indicate the minimum grade clearly on your crossover (Legacy) submission to ensure your coin is not cracked out of its holder against your intentions."
My impression is CAC focuses on the number grade and ignores designations such as + and PL. Thus, if submitted to CACG with a requested + or PL grade there is the possibility the coin will be returned "as is."
Someone should ask CACG for clarification.
I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to PL/DMPL. They have rejected many of my PL & DMPL coins because the mirrors didn't qualify.
The "+" thing is a well known and established policy.
You are right!
I had asked CAC if a PL coin not labelled as such would receive a gold sticker which is a completely different question. The answer was "No." In that situation, CAC only focuses on the number grade.
I’ve asked CAC about designations such as PL FB, FH, etc. and not surprisingly, was told that they don’t ignore them.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
>
I agree but I've been pestering them all week with different questions, I don't want to be put on the "Jeez, not that guy again!" list.
I wonder if there is a CACG message board for these questions?
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
As somebody mentioned, that board needs to be reinvigorated 😉 Probably more likely to get the answer here.
Also, I'm happy to get the word out (if accurate) that if somebody wants a PL designation for an AU coin, they have somewhere other than NGC to go. And maybe PCGS can change it's policy too😅
Looks like my question has been answered. I'll be sending a coin or two in.
I disagree AU coins should be called prooflike.
I'm happy to see them going this route as NGC for years was willing to call AU coins prooflike if it was clear that the designation was warranted. I've seen Anacs and Icg very reluctant to do this as they want ironclad evidence of a coin being PL to designate it as such (watery surfaces, substantial relief contrast). NGC has been more open-minded on this and it looks like cac is following suit.
There's no reason not to. As the difference between AU and MS can be the slightest amount of rub, there's no reason why an AU coin can't have the same quality of mirrors just because it has a tad bit of rub. I'm not sure it's a hill to die on when the "everybody else" is doing it.
Should a circulated proof coin be eligible for Proof designation?
Smitten with DBLCs.
Why not, proof os proof and not a grade
I was being facetious…
Smitten with DBLCs.
It is a different issue. A proof coin is a manufacturing difference. A proof like coin is a business strike with mirrored fields.
That said, if the AU coin still has mirrors it should be PL.
Seems there is a threshold question in that a PL designation has not been recognized in certain coin series. I have no problem with a PL designation as long as the coin has not been enhanced to the point that the enhancement creates a false narrative. I see that as a significant issue that is a slippery slope.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I'm not sure I understand what is meant by enhancing a coin. The only way that I'm aware you could make a coin PL that is not PL is perhaps to polish it, which would be immediately recognized and get a details grade.
@ProofCollection
A coin is either PL or it is not. And perhaps the most common test used to make that determination is to evaluate the depth of the fields. If a PL coin is dipped, there is some chance that any film, surface layer of grime or whatever is removed enhances the depth and may impact whether the coin gets a PL designation. There simply is an abundant supply of dipped Morgan Dollars that have a semi-PL to PL look whereby the fields/surfaces have been stripped and straight graded. As it stands, PL surfaces magnify bagmarks, hairlines and evidence of wear at high points. A dip further highlights surface imperfections. And in the final analysis, what already exists graded and in a slab -regardless of whether it was graded by PCGS or NGC- will face new scrutiny in not just with whether a PL designation is deserved but whether the coin will straight grade.
It really will be interesting to observe how all of this unfolds with respect to crack outs, cross overs and how the subjective nature of grading handles a PL designation in a circulated grade.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
An AU53 PL would be pretty wild. At that grade the surfaces should have enough friction to lose the mint-finish they originally had.
I just sent this one in yesterday to cross at any grade as long as it receives a PL. Fingers crossed.
Better video with reverse here https://imgur.com/dDknU5P
Hah well, that’s not exactly what I’m used to seeing as a 53, either 😀
I have an OGH AU50 CAC seated half with a mirrored reverse.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
OK, thanks for explaining. As PL/DMPL Morgans are my specialty and I have had quite a few restored by PCGS, I have yet to come across and example where the fields improved either from non-PL to PL or PL to DMPL with restoration. That doesn't mean it hasn't or couldn't happen. For example I had hoped that this one would restore, not necessarily to go from PL to DMPL but just to improve overall appearance, but it is as good as it will get.
