Recent CAC & PCGS Experiences

ProofCollection

Thought I would post about some recent experiences with PCGS and CAC. Just some first hand experience for those who are interested with the current state of things.

Submission Process:
PCGS has clearly re-worked the online submission forms so that they almost always seem to print out on one page. Big improvement!

Turnaround Times:
CACG
Sent a shipment to CACG, it was delivered 8/14. It wasn't logged into the system until 8/26 (12 days). Shipment contained 3 Tiers: Modern Standard, Economy, and Standard. Modern Standard and Standard were pretty much graded by the end of one week. Economy is still in Grading status.

Fun Fact: I requested all subs to be returned with the same shipping. 2 of the subs are Crossovers which were done within about a week. Unfortunately, the results of the crossovers will not be posted until the 3rd sub is complete, which is disappointing. This was verified with CAC Support and they would not reveal my results manually.

PCGS
Sent several subs in recently, they were all logged into the system within 2 days. Turnaround times have been very acceptable except Economy subs which seems to have fallen into the grading black hole. Modern Value submitted in July took a while but the one submitted a few weeks ago was lightning.

Trueviews:
My last 4 subs that have recently shipped have TVs that are, IMO, acceptable to great. However, whereas a few months ago TVs were ready very close to when the grades posted, now it is taking about a week for the TVs to post. I assume they are spending more time post-processing the photos.

I did still experience a fail which I am still working on a resolution with PCGS CS. The TVs for my PL coins came back with low contrast photos. What PL/DMPL coin collector wants TV photos that don't show the mirrors? PCGS attempted to re-work the photos but it's clear they didn't take any PL (high contrast) photos. I'm still waiting for a response. This is very disappointing and I hope they do the right thing and offer to re-shoot for free. See below.

Fractional Gold:
Disappointingly, they do not appear to have a proper insert for Fractional Gold anymore and now mount them like this
Also consider that specialties like this cost $70 to grade.

constitutional_halve

That holder for the gold fractional is unacceptable.

So is the non PL TV.

Disappointing.

TomB

The fractional gold holder reminds me of this-

ProofCollection

Update: PCGS has offered to re-take the photos and pay shipping both ways!

DocBenjamin

Crypto

I am pretty forgiving to TPGs but that’s not really a protective holder

PeakRarities

The Calfrac insert is unacceptable, hard to believe someone had that in their hands and went “Yea, I guess this works”..:

My recent express submission took about 2 weeks to process, and imo the grades were tighter than a camels arse in a sandstorm. I won’t get into that now, but one was an 1860 Clark-Gruber $20 DT. It has an old cleaning and a counter stamped “5” on it, so I was expecting a details grade but I just wanted it in a holder so I could store it with my other pioneer coins.

Came back “authenticity unverifiable” 😓

Seriously? It’s not even like they’re putting their neck out with the guarantee premium… not too happy wasting money like that.

PeakRarities

On a positive note, this batch of TVs was looking good! I really hope it was on purpose, and it wasn’t just a one-off.

hummingbird_coins

@PeakRarities said:
On a positive note, this batch of TVs was looking good! I really hope it was on purpose, and it wasn’t just a one-off.

Well, it is gold, so it could just be that the yellow hue is less noticeable.

PeakRarities

@hummingbird_coins said:

@PeakRarities said:
On a positive note, this batch of TVs was looking good! I really hope it was on purpose, and it wasn’t just a one-off.

Well, it is gold, so it could just be that the yellow hue is less noticeable.

Ehh, I’ve gotten quite a few bad $20 TVs and though you may not notice the yellow, the contrast and exposure makes them look like crap. That one looks exactly how it does in hand, that’s how I would have tried to make it look.

One was a circulated seated half and that one’s pretty good too. It’s a colorful coin and I don’t see the yellow tint, but it’s for a client so I don’t want to post it without his ok.

Cougar1978

A client has some low ball key dates - will JA sticker those?

Sanddollar

@PeakRarities said:

Came back “authenticity unverifiable” 😓

Seriously? It’s not even like they’re putting their neck out with the guarantee premium… not too happy wasting money like that.

Perhaps the fields look too clean for the type.
Asking for an opinion and not receiving the one you wanted is not a "waste of money."
Your coin went through the same process as one that is slabbed.

I'd rather PCGS continue to error on the side of caution rather than grade and holder a coin later deemed to be not authentic.
Take the fact it is your submission out of the equation,, wouldn't you too?

PeakRarities

@Sanddollar said:

@PeakRarities said:

Came back “authenticity unverifiable” 😓

Seriously? It’s not even like they’re putting their neck out with the guarantee premium… not too happy wasting money like that.

Perhaps the fields look too clean for the type.
Asking for an opinion and not receiving the one you wanted is not a "waste of money."
Your coin went through the same process as one that is
I'd rather PCGS continue to error on the side of caution rather than grade and holder a coin later deemed to be not authentic.
Take the fact it is your submission out of the equation,, wouldn't you too?

Sure, if it was a coin that I thought there was a remote possibility it was counterfeit, OR a coin with serious value. It’s a privately minted copper die trial, there's no reported counterfeits that I’m aware of. "Too clean for the type" - well yea, it’s been cleaned. Like I said, I wasn't asking for the moon here, I just wanted it holdered. If it was an 1861 clark gruber $20 in gold, then I would understand.

"Authenticity Unverifiable" isnt an opinion, it's a lack therof. Sadly, Pioneer issues arent very well understood by any of the TPGs, and recently iit's gotten worse. Many, many straight graded coins in older holders would not grade again if they were cracked out.

Sanddollar

1- Thanks for your thought-out response.
2- By, "fields look too clean for the type" I meant the lack of marks not surface cleaning.
3- "Authenticity Unverifiable" is an expert opinion and one you paid for.

What would you have PCGS or any other service if after careful study a determination couldn't be reached as to the authencity of your coin do?
Or is your complaint you had to pay for that opinion and maybe you feel PCGS owes you a refund?

PeakRarities

@Sanddollar said:
1- Thanks for your thought-out response.
2- By, "fields look too clean for the type" I meant the lack of marks not surface cleaning.
3- "Authenticity Unverifiable" is an expert opinion and one you paid for.

Sorry I forgot to answer this question earlier, but I just got the coin back in hand and this thread popped up in my mind. I guess our fundamental disagreement is on #3 - That "authenticity unverifiable" is an expert opinion. I would have agreed with you a couple years ago, but knowing what I know now, I would beg to differ.

No one person or organization can be an expert on everything, which is totally reasonable and expected. Just like the rest of us, graders will use reference material such as books or auction listings when they have to make a tough call. They also refer to previously graded examples for comparison, because some of the coins they offer to grade are so very seldomly encountered, such as this issue.

To give you an idea of the relative rarity of this issue, there are a total of 5 coins graded by PCGS that have been sold on HA. Across all grading services, theres about a dozen in the archives. What diagnostics did they use on this coin to determine its authenticity, and what is my coin lacking?

What would you have PCGS or any other service if after careful study a determination couldn't be reached as to the authencity of your coin do?
Or is your complaint you had to pay for that opinion and maybe you feel PCGS owes you a refund?

I guess I'd just like some type of evidence that there was "careful study and determination", perhaps I'm more cynical than most. How long does it take for an employee to seal a coin in a slab? Could someone spend an equivalent amount of time to write the submitter a note that said "Hey, we cant find the _____ diagnostic used to authenticate this issue, and as a result we can not determine authentcity."

And then, perhaps they could request that I resubmit the coin with any supporting documentation, at which point I could send them the auction record of the same exact coin previously holdered by NGC. Upon further examination they might be able to holder the coin at a discounted rate. If I received something to demonstrate that they did spend some time on it, I wouldn't feel as though I wasted my money. In the past, grading services have leaned on the advice from specialists like John Danreunther or David McCarthy when there was a controversial decision to be made, and I dont know if that practice is still employed.

lermish

@PeakRarities said:

@Sanddollar said:
1- Thanks for your thought-out response.
2- By, "fields look too clean for the type" I meant the lack of marks not surface cleaning.
3- "Authenticity Unverifiable" is an expert opinion and one you paid for.

Sorry I forgot to answer this question earlier, but I just got the coin back in hand and this thread popped up in my mind. I guess our fundamental disagreement is on #3 - That "authenticity unverifiable" is an expert opinion. I would have agreed with you a couple years ago, but knowing what I know now, I would beg to differ.

No one person or organization can be an expert on everything, which is totally reasonable and expected. Just like the rest of us, graders will use reference material such as books or auction listings when they have to make a tough call. They also refer to previously graded examples for comparison, because some of the coins they offer to grade are so very seldomly encountered, such as this issue.

To give you an idea of the relative rarity of this issue, there are a total of 5 coins graded by PCGS that have been sold on HA. Across all grading services, theres about a dozen in the archives. What diagnostics did they use on this coin to determine its authenticity, and what is my coin lacking?

What would you have PCGS or any other service if after careful study a determination couldn't be reached as to the authencity of your coin do?
Or is your complaint you had to pay for that opinion and maybe you feel PCGS owes you a refund?

I guess I'd just like some type of evidence that there was "careful study and determination", perhaps I'm more cynical than most. How long does it take for an employee to seal a coin in a slab? Could someone spend an equivalent amount of time to write the submitter a note that said "Hey, we cant find the _____ diagnostic used to authenticate this issue, and as a result we can not determine authentcity."

And then, perhaps they could request that I resubmit the coin with any supporting documentation, at which point I could send them the auction record of the same exact coin previously holdered by NGC. Upon further examination they might be able to holder the coin at a discounted rate. If I received something to demonstrate that they did spend some time on it, I wouldn't feel as though I wasted my money. In the past, grading services have leaned on the advice from specialists like John Danreunther or David McCarthy when there was a controversial decision to be made, and I dont know if that practice is still employed.

I have inferred recently from speaking with PCGS customer service that they DO check with specialists from time to time. Perhaps @PCGS_Hy can confirm.

I have a very scarce T$ variety in right now. When PCGS loaded in the variety they only listed a proof. However, there is a circulation strike also and it's referenced in the variety book they use. I think/hope they are checking with @alefzero to confirm.

The specialist consultant is inferred because it's an express order that has been in encapsulation for more than a month; I just received another complex T$ variety order that had a total 3 business day turnaround for the entire order.

TrickleCharge

@PeakRarities said:
The Calfrac insert is unacceptable, hard to believe someone had that in their hands and went “Yea, I guess this works”..:

My recent express submission took about 2 weeks to process, and imo the grades were tighter than a camels arse in a sandstorm. I won’t get into that now, but one was an 1860 Clark-Gruber $20 DT. It has an old cleaning and a counter stamped “5” on it, so I was expecting a details grade but I just wanted it in a holder so I could store it with my other pioneer coins.

Came back “authenticity unverifiable” 😓

Seriously? It’s not even like they’re putting their neck out with the guarantee premium… not too happy wasting money like that.

Ouch, I've had the authenticity unverifiable as well with a different service and coin. We're not talking a chain cent worn down to a slick here. You are probably more in tune with this pattern than the graders were. They saw a piece they weren't familiar with and truly couldn't verify authenticity in the moment. We however would want them in this case to put forth some effort and closely compare the other known examples to yours, look at contact marks to see if perhaps one was used to make a transfer die, research the history of this specific coin's auction records, conpare die states if they were repurposed to strike other coins after/before this, do an XRF... but a quick look and 'unable to verify' is unfortunately easier.

PeakRarities

@TrickleCharge said:

@PeakRarities said:
The Calfrac insert is unacceptable, hard to believe someone had that in their hands and went “Yea, I guess this works”..:

My recent express submission took about 2 weeks to process, and imo the grades were tighter than a camels arse in a sandstorm. I won’t get into that now, but one was an 1860 Clark-Gruber $20 DT. It has an old cleaning and a counter stamped “5” on it, so I was expecting a details grade but I just wanted it in a holder so I could store it with my other pioneer coins.

Came back “authenticity unverifiable” 😓

Seriously? It’s not even like they’re putting their neck out with the guarantee premium… not too happy wasting money like that.

Ouch, I've had the authenticity unverifiable as well with a different service and coin. We're not talking a chain cent worn down to a slick here. You are probably more in tune with this pattern than the graders were. They saw a piece they weren't familiar with and truly couldn't verify authenticity in the moment. We however would want them in this case to put forth some effort and closely compare the other known examples to yours, look at contact marks to see if perhaps one was used to make a transfer die, research the history of this specific coin's auction records, conpare die states if they were repurposed to strike other coins after/before this, do an XRF... but a quick look and 'unable to verify' is unfortunately easier.

Nailed it, I have nothing to add.

dcarr

@Sanddollar said:

@PeakRarities said:

Came back “authenticity unverifiable” 😓

Seriously? It’s not even like they’re putting their neck out with the guarantee premium… not too happy wasting money like that.

Perhaps the fields look too clean for the type.
Asking for an opinion and not receiving the one you wanted is not a "waste of money."
Your coin went through the same process as one that is slabbed.

I'd rather PCGS continue to error on the side of caution rather than grade and holder a coin later deemed to be not authentic.
Take the fact it is your submission out of the equation,, wouldn't you too?

.

Do you have (and/or can you post) any images of the edge ?
I am wondering if possibly that piece is an electrotype ?
It has that look, sort of.

.

PeakRarities

@dcarr said:

@Sanddollar said:

@PeakRarities said:

Came back “authenticity unverifiable” 😓

Seriously? It’s not even like they’re putting their neck out with the guarantee premium… not too happy wasting money like that.

Perhaps the fields look too clean for the type.
Asking for an opinion and not receiving the one you wanted is not a "waste of money."
Your coin went through the same process as one that is slabbed.

I'd rather PCGS continue to error on the side of caution rather than grade and holder a coin later deemed to be not authentic.
Take the fact it is your submission out of the equation,, wouldn't you too?

.

Do you have (and/or can you post) any images of the edge ?
I am wondering if possibly that piece is an electrotype ?
It has that look, sort of.

.

Sure, give me a few.

DisneyFan

@PeakRarities said:

It’s a privately minted copper die trial, there's no reported counterfeits that I’m aware of.

@PeakRarities said:

To give you an idea of the relative rarity of this issue, there are a total of 5 coins graded by PCGS that have been sold on HA. Across all grading services, theres about a dozen in the archives.

I could send them the auction record of the same exact coin previously holdered by NGC.

Makes me wonder if the "5" counter strike was applied by Clark-Gruber as #5 of 5 (or higher).
At this time CACG does not grade Clark-Grubers. Interesting that the coin was previously slabbed by NGC which does a significant Ancients business. I often wonder how they can tell these are authentic. In checking the NGC website

"NGC Ancients will only grade coins it believes to be genuine. Coins considered counterfeit will be returned ungraded with the note, "NOT GENUINE." Also, NGC Ancients will not grade coins if authenticity cannot be sufficiently ascertained by our staff experts and/or our network of consultants. In such cases, coins will be returned with the comment "NO DECISION."

While we make every effort to use the best information available, due to the inconsistency of opinions on these matters among professionals in the marketplace, no guarantee is made or implied about the authenticity of coins graded by NGC Ancients."

NO GUARANTEE IS MADE

PeakRarities

@dcarr

dcarr

@PeakRarities said:
@dcarr

.

The edge looks ok. I f I had mine out of the slab and yours here also, I could compare the edge. I would also to a "ring" test which is a pretty conclusive test for an electrotype.

The denticles look a little bit soft. And there is a small pit on the Eagle's leg. So I think it is also possible that the coin had some light corrosion at some point and was later conserved. That is not unusual since this issue tends to have a lot of environmental issues, graffiti, damage, etc.

.

PCGS_Hy

Hello All,

It looks like there's a couple of things in here, but I was tagged specifically for the additional details on the 86 grade.

Unfortunately for that, all I can really say is that we do have at least two graders look at each coin, to which they would have to come to a consensus on the grade. Our graders do not leave notes on how they land on their conclusions at this time. Authenticity Unverifiable can come from a variety of reasons, but unfortunately, I do not have any specifics on what the cause of this one is.

As for the Fractional Gold coin shown in the original post, that is definitely not how the holder should be! It looks like you are having the coins sent back in for retaking photos, so this should get fixed as well before it comes back. If you get it back and it is the same way, please let me know and I can try to assist further.

If you guys need further assistance, please feel free to reach out through our Contact Form.

Best,

PCGS_Hy

johnny010

@PCGS_Hy said:
Hello All,

It looks like there's a couple of things in here, but I was tagged specifically for the additional details on the 86 grade.

Unfortunately for that, all I can really say is that we do have at least two graders look at each coin, to which they would have to come to a consensus on the grade. Our graders do not leave notes on how they land on their conclusions at this time. Authenticity Unverifiable can come from a variety of reasons, but unfortunately, I do not have any specifics on what the cause of this one is.

As for the Fractional Gold coin shown in the original post, that is definitely not how the holder should be! It looks like you are having the coins sent back in for retaking photos, so this should get fixed as well before it comes back. If you get it back and it is the same way, please let me know and I can try to assist further.

If you guys need further assistance, please feel free to reach out through our Contact Form.

Best,

PCGS_Hy

@PCGS_Hy
Assuming graders would recall this coin given its rarity. Can you just ask them?

PeakRarities

@PCGS_Hy said:
Hello All,

It looks like there's a couple of things in here, but I was tagged specifically for the additional details on the 86 grade.

Unfortunately for that, all I can really say is that we do have at least two graders look at each coin, to which they would have to come to a consensus on the grade. Our graders do not leave notes on how they land on their conclusions at this time. Authenticity Unverifiable can come from a variety of reasons, but unfortunately, I do not have any specifics on what the cause of this one is.

As for the Fractional Gold coin shown in the original post, that is definitely not how the holder should be! It looks like you are having the coins sent back in for retaking photos, so this should get fixed as well before it comes back. If you get it back and it is the same way, please let me know and I can try to assist further.

If you guys need further assistance, please feel free to reach out through our Contact Form.

Best,

PCGS_Hy

If I could just ask you one qui question rather than going through the standard CS channel, would you be able to check if there was anything I could do that might help get this into a holder? As in, resubmitting with a printout of the auction record from when it was NGC details, or a letter/statement from an expert such as David McCarthy (Kagin's) or the like?

jacrispies

@PeakRarities said:

@PCGS_Hy said:
Hello All,

It looks like there's a couple of things in here, but I was tagged specifically for the additional details on the 86 grade.

Unfortunately for that, all I can really say is that we do have at least two graders look at each coin, to which they would have to come to a consensus on the grade. Our graders do not leave notes on how they land on their conclusions at this time. Authenticity Unverifiable can come from a variety of reasons, but unfortunately, I do not have any specifics on what the cause of this one is.

As for the Fractional Gold coin shown in the original post, that is definitely not how the holder should be! It looks like you are having the coins sent back in for retaking photos, so this should get fixed as well before it comes back. If you get it back and it is the same way, please let me know and I can try to assist further.

If you guys need further assistance, please feel free to reach out through our Contact Form.

Best,

PCGS_Hy

If I could just ask you one qui question rather than going through the standard CS channel, would you be able to check if there was anything I could do that might help get this into a holder? As in, resubmitting with a printout of the auction record from when it was NGC details, or a letter/statement from an expert such as David McCarthy (Kagin's) or the like?

I've had luck sending in possibly questionable material with photocopies of auction catalogs, old TPG tags, photo closeups of attribution points, and also contacting a PCGS insider which allows enough attention and thought to be placed on the coin. For some coins, we need to convince the graders it is genuine rather than expect them to do everything for us.

PCGS_Hy

Hello,

To answer very generally, if there is ever any additional information related to the coin that you feel would help get it attributed a certain way, we do recommend you include it in your submission. There is does not guarantee that it will get said attribution, even with the documents, but in most cases, including such information is better than not, if you feel it would help.

I will reach out through the email associated with your order with some additional information.

Best,

PCGS_Hy

ProofCollection

I have to provide an update. PCGS customer service agreed to re-image the coins with high contrast photos for free including shipping. I also requested proper inserts and got them. Very happy now!
In their defense I can see why the photographers might have thought the other photos were better, but I think the whole point of a PL coin is to see that wonderful contrast even if it highlights the surface defects. The new insert hides the octagonal shape of the coin but I'm not sure there's any better way to do it other than NGC's approach with the prongs seems to work pretty good.