@Coin Finder said:
Thank you for doing this. It costs us nothing and we get to see the results. Appreciate it. I would share it will all three grading services head people and with the big auction houses if you have that kind of pull....
What would be the reason for that?
Because one coin will show them more about the certified coin market than they already know.
Everyone already knows NGC grades loose.
64 vs 64+?
For all we know, submitted 10x to each might yield five 64 and five 64+ from each.
There's really nothing we can learn from one coin. It might even straight grade if it was submitted a second time to CACG.
While it's an interesting anecdotal result, no one is going to learn anything definitive from this, especially the auction houses and grading services who handle thousands of coins per week.
I just said no one is going to learn anything.
Not in this thread, you didn’t. Your latest comment about NGC grading loosely (“Everyone already knows NGC grades loose.”) didn’t quite cover what people might learn about subjects other than NGC’s grading.
Do you think NGC grades loose compared to PCGS at all?
Often times, yes. But that wasn’t the subject of this thread.
That CACG grades strict? Everyone already knew that also.
You claimed “i just said no one is going to learn anything.”, even though you hadn’t said that. When I called you on it, rather than acknowledging it, you brought up NGC’s grading. And now you’ve changed course again. I’m not going to join you in your games.
It started with lanza's sarcastic comment. I replied with a sarcastic comment about NGC, You jumped in, and here we are.
It's no more of a "game" than the disingenouos questions that you frequently ask people.
@Coin Finder said:
Thank you for doing this. It costs us nothing and we get to see the results. Appreciate it. I would share it will all three grading services head people and with the big auction houses if you have that kind of pull....
What would be the reason for that?
Because one coin will show them more about the certified coin market than they already know.
Everyone already knows NGC grades loose.
64 vs 64+?
For all we know, submitted 10x to each might yield five 64 and five 64+ from each.
There's really nothing we can learn from one coin. It might even straight grade if it was submitted a second time to CACG.
While it's an interesting anecdotal result, no one is going to learn anything definitive from this, especially the auction houses and grading services who handle thousands of coins per week.
I just said no one is going to learn anything.
Not in this thread, you didn’t. Your latest comment about NGC grading loosely (“Everyone already knows NGC grades loose.”) didn’t quite cover what people might learn about subjects other than NGC’s grading.
Do you think NGC grades loose compared to PCGS at all?
Often times, yes. But that wasn’t the subject of this thread.
That CACG grades strict? Everyone already knew that also.
Are you implying that since "everyone" already knows the differences in grading between TPGs, there was no reason to post this thread because it follows the general pattern?
No, it was just a sarcastic comment in reply to another sarcastic comment.
Why waste so many grading fees on a 1904 DE for a coin that will never get in a 65 holder? To prove a point? Might as well send in a dozen 38-D buffalos in 65 while you are at it. This is not a coin that will last ten seconds in any grader's hands so not surprising that PCGS and NGC put it in a straight holder and CACG found a reason to Genuine it. It is worth about the same in any of those slabs and grades.
It also amazes me that people are telling you to resubmit. Very odd.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
Most dealers I know would say “ spot times. .9675 “. And they’re prominent dealers and ANA guys, too.
Right, that's melt. I'm not quite sure what you are tying to say, could you expound?
If I must explain what I’m saying I will, since it seems that you genuinely don’t understand.
A generic gold coin in ms 64 and below, in a holder, with a sticker or without a sticker. Approved as an A, B, or C coin, and even uncirculated mint state raw is going to bring melt price , in most circles . This has been my experience with prominent dealers, especially since gold is up over 40% in the past year.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
Most dealers I know would say “ spot times. .9675 “. And they’re prominent dealers and ANA guys, too.
Right, that's melt. I'm not quite sure what you are tying to say, could you expound?
If I must explain what I’m saying I will, since it seems that you genuinely don’t understand.
A generic gold coin in ms 64 and below, in a holder, with a sticker or without a sticker. Approved as an A, B, or C coin, and even uncirculated mint state raw is going to bring melt price , in most circles . This has been my experience with prominent dealers, especially since gold is up over 40% in the past year.
Gotcha, sorry if it seemed like I was being obtuse, but I was genuinely asking.
With that said though, Libs fetch better premiums than saints. Melt for a double eagle is approximately $2500 based on market price at EOD friday, which is about all I could pay for a single common saint in 4 right now. I would pay about $125 more for a common $20 lib in 4, and obviously quantity would make a big difference.
i agree with the CAC grade. it sucks about the downgrade, but it's an interesting experiment (?) nonetheless. i also agree with @dcarr ... the area that looks suspicious to me is the cheek on the obverse. the coin is still worth the same amount in my opinion, based on its high mintage and availability.
@Coin Finder said:
Thank you for doing this. It costs us nothing and we get to see the results. Appreciate it. I would share it will all three grading services head people and with the big auction houses if you have that kind of pull....
What would be the reason for that?
Because one coin will show them more about the certified coin market than they already know.
Everyone already knows NGC grades loose.
Maybe you should go tell them that on their board.
@Coin Finder said:
Thank you for doing this. It costs us nothing and we get to see the results. Appreciate it. I would share it will all three grading services head people and with the big auction houses if you have that kind of pull....
What would be the reason for that?
Because one coin will show them more about the certified coin market than they already know.
Everyone already knows NGC grades loose.
Maybe you should go tell them that on their board.
Many if not a majority of graded gold can be nitpicked for surface alteration or gashes, nicks, scratches, bumps, debris, dirt etc.
IMO this coin was market acceptable maybe at worst net graded.
Does it serve the market to have two different opinions and a body bag on a common date gold coin in relatively common condition? Also this is why + grades are problematic.
@fathom said:
Many if not a majority of graded gold can be nitpicked for surface alteration or gashes, nicks, scratches, bumps, debris, dirt etc.
IMO this coin was market acceptable maybe at worst net graded.
Does it serve the market to have two different opinions and a body bag on a common date gold coin in relatively common condition? Also this is why + grades are problematic.
I don’t see how the plus grade made this example any more problematic than a non-plus grade would have.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
In my opinion, Cac's main usefulness is getting stickered coins into their holders; anything raw is taking a big chance with their sometimes overly harsh grading. They either need an evidence-based description of their reason for a grade tied to the certification number or they should be written off as inaccurate and arbitrary. I've already had a deal queered due to their absurdly low grade on a coin.
@logger7 said:
Cac's usefulness is limited to getting stickered coins into their holders; anything raw is taking a big chance with their paranoid grading. They either need an evidence-based description of their reason for a grade tied to the certification number or they should be written off as inaccurate and arbitrary. I've already had a deal queered due to their absurdly low grade on a coin.
Then I suppose you also believe that NGC and PCGS need evidence-based descriptions of their reasons for grades tied to certification numbers when they grade noticeably lower than one another. And that you believe, If not, then they, too, should be written off as inaccurate and arbitrary.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@fathom said:
Many if not a majority of graded gold can be nitpicked for surface alteration or gashes, nicks, scratches, bumps, debris, dirt etc.
IMO this coin was market acceptable maybe at worst net graded.
Does it serve the market to have two different opinions and a body bag on a common date gold coin in relatively common condition? Also this is why + grades are problematic.
I don’t see how the plus grade made this example any more problematic than a non-plus grade would have.
Because + grades add to the inconsistency. The point of the thread is inconsistent grading amongst the three most respected services. It's a less enjoyable hobby when there is inconsistency IMO. Personally I think the pendulum should swing back to letting the coin itself be the determinant of value instead of granular grades. But I understand this is a commercial marketplace of details and so I get that. I can argue both sides. Just pontificating out loud. It's a message board right?
@logger7 said:
Cac's usefulness is limited to getting stickered coins into their holders; anything raw is taking a big chance with their paranoid grading. They either need an evidence-based description of their reason for a grade tied to the certification number or they should be written off as inaccurate and arbitrary. I've already had a deal queered due to their absurdly low grade on a coin.
Then I suppose you also believe that NGC and PCGS need evidence-based descriptions of their reasons for grades tied to certification numbers when they grade noticeably lower than one another. And that you believe, If not, then they, too, should be written off as inaccurate and arbitrary.
Most people are used to the inaccuracy and arbitrariness of PCGS and NGC. They are uncomfortable with newly inaccurate and arbitrary grades.
@logger7 said:
Cac's usefulness is limited to getting stickered coins into their holders; anything raw is taking a big chance with their paranoid grading. They either need an evidence-based description of their reason for a grade tied to the certification number or they should be written off as inaccurate and arbitrary. I've already had a deal queered due to their absurdly low grade on a coin.
Then I suppose you also believe that NGC and PCGS need evidence-based descriptions of their reasons for grades tied to certification numbers when they grade noticeably lower than one another. And that you believe, If not, then they, too, should be written off as inaccurate and arbitrary.
Most people are used to the inaccuracy and arbitrariness of PCGS and NGC. They are uncomfortable with newly inaccurate and arbitrary grades.
Inertia is a powerful force.
Different cheek, same arse, sitting on the toilet of subjectivity 😇.
There are different things we can each take away from this thread. What I take away is that it seems clear that for at least the members here CAC is now the industry leader. They are the one who is trusted to give the correct opinion.
Picked up some nice ICG MS70 ASE really nice super PQ 4 grade $45ish, so close to melt. Like how they stack. Have stuff from all 5 TPG, fun. Have About a dozen CACG Coins, neat. Need see how they sell b4 any more. But procurement price has to be right- skittish if they above bid plus 5pct lol. Have they surpassed ICG in output yet? However they a successful operation. How far off an AI self graded slab can pickup at Walmart? Monique thinks that’s the next big advancement. Then online, real time self pricing for both US and World. Notice CDN getting into World Pricing - they realize the super potential of that market.
@Cougar1978 said:
Picked up some nice ICG MS70 ASE really nice super PQ 4 grade $45ish, so close to melt. Like how they stack. Have stuff from all 5 TPG, fun. Have About a dozen CACG Coins, neat. Need see how they sell b4 any more. But procurement price has to be right- skittish if they above bid plus 5pct lol. Have they surpassed ICG in output yet? However they a successful operation. How far off an AI self graded slab can pickup at Walmart? Monique thinks that’s the next big advancement. Then online, real time self pricing for both US and World. Notice CDN getting into World Pricing - they realize the super potential of that market.
Wrong thread (again).
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If this coin has some type of surface substance that would dip off you'd think that the graders would alert submitters of that as NGC does (and others) so that it can get a quick dip and go back into grading instead of going through what to most submitters is a painful process of paying all those fees and in the end getting something back with with a problem that will need to be remedied.
A number of years ago I sent in a PCGS better date $20 Lib. that cac said had a surface issue. Months later after PCGS addressed the problem, the coin came back in the same grade, I sent it back to cac which now said it had another surface problem. With their notes I sent it back to PCGS which said that if the coin was put in a problem holder they'd give me a low wholesale differential payment or "buy" the coin for substantially less than I paid. I then cracked the coin out and NGC graded it the same as PCGS had as MS63. I had no obligation to let a potential buyer know the history. Graders and finalizers at both NGC and PCGS had seen it as a good marketable coin, cac did not.
The burden is on cac to the reasons for why it grades and no grades its coins especially if it systematically sees problems the other graders and finalizers don't. It shouldn't be that complicated for them to associate any problem graded coin with the reason for it recorded as the grading services have been doing for decades. We are not privy to internal records of PCGS and NGC on the grading of specific coins but they exist. If cac wants to be 100% transparent then they owe it to their submitters to give specific reasons for their grades.
@Cougar1978 said:
Picked up some nice ICG MS70 ASE really nice super PQ 4 grade $45ish, so close to melt. Like how they stack. Have stuff from all 5 TPG, fun. Have About a dozen CACG Coins, neat. Need see how they sell b4 any more. But procurement price has to be right- skittish if they above bid plus 5pct lol. Have they surpassed ICG in output yet? However they a successful operation. How far off an AI self graded slab can pickup at Walmart? Monique thinks that’s the next big advancement. Then online, real time self pricing for both US and World. Notice CDN getting into World Pricing - they realize the super potential of that market.
@logger7 said:
If this coin has some type of surface substance that would dip off you'd think that the graders would alert submitters of that as NGC does (and others) so that it can get a quick dip and go back into grading instead of going through what to most submitters is a painful process of paying all those fees and in the end getting something back with with a problem that will need to be remedied.
A number of years ago I sent in a PCGS better date $20 Lib. that cac said had a surface issue. Months later after PCGS addressed the problem, the coin came back in the same grade, I sent it back to cac which now said it had another surface problem. With their notes I sent it back to PCGS which said that if the coin was put in a problem holder they'd give me a low wholesale differential payment or "buy" the coin for substantially less than I paid. I then cracked the coin out and NGC graded it the same as PCGS had as MS63. I had no obligation to let a potential buyer know the history. Graders and finalizers at both NGC and PCGS had seen it as a good marketable coin, cac did not.
The burden is on cac to the reasons for why it grades and no grades its coins especially if it systematically sees problems the other graders and finalizers don't. It shouldn't be that complicated for them to associate any problem graded coin with the reason for it recorded as the grading services have been doing for decades. We are not privy to internal records of PCGS and NGC on the grading of specific coins but they exist. If cac wants to be 100% transparent then they owe it to their submitters to give specific reasons for their grades.
You've made up a fact and then argued it. CAC never said there was a foreign substance. They indicate "questionable surfaces". How is that any different than "questionable color" from PCGS that also carries no further explanation? It indicates a question as to originality.
CAC did not know that this particular coin had been to PCGS and NGC. So they called it as they saw it. I find it interesting. Perhaps NGC and PCGS feel the coin was a "C" coin and by straight grading the coin it helps their brand and helps foster more business. CAC doesn't seem to do that at least for now..
@logger7 said:
If this coin has some type of surface substance that would dip off you'd think that the graders would alert submitters of that as NGC does (and others) so that it can get a quick dip and go back into grading instead of going through what to most submitters is a painful process of paying all those fees and in the end getting something back with with a problem that will need to be remedied.
A number of years ago I sent in a PCGS better date $20 Lib. that cac said had a surface issue. Months later after PCGS addressed the problem, the coin came back in the same grade, I sent it back to cac which now said it had another surface problem. With their notes I sent it back to PCGS which said that if the coin was put in a problem holder they'd give me a low wholesale differential payment or "buy" the coin for substantially less than I paid. I then cracked the coin out and NGC graded it the same as PCGS had as MS63. I had no obligation to let a potential buyer know the history. Graders and finalizers at both NGC and PCGS had seen it as a good marketable coin, cac did not.
The burden is on cac to the reasons for why it grades and no grades its coins especially if it systematically sees problems the other graders and finalizers don't. It shouldn't be that complicated for them to associate any problem graded coin with the reason for it recorded as the grading services have been doing for decades. We are not privy to internal records of PCGS and NGC on the grading of specific coins but they exist. If cac wants to be 100% transparent then they owe it to their submitters to give specific reasons for their grades.
You've made up a fact and then argued it. CAC never said there was a foreign substance. They indicate "questionable surfaces". How is that any different than "questionable color" from PCGS that also carries no further explanation? It indicates a question as to originality.
The submitter sent it to cac a long time as he said after it had been sent to the other services. To infer it is a substance that would dip off is reasonable as others suggested. No further information was given than this term "questionable surfaces" which I've never seen before, who is authorizing their terminology? The other two services it went to with their graders and finalizers did not see it as a problem coin. The burden is on cac. "Questionable grading".
@logger7 said:
If this coin has some type of surface substance that would dip off you'd think that the graders would alert submitters of that as NGC does (and others) so that it can get a quick dip and go back into grading instead of going through what to most submitters is a painful process of paying all those fees and in the end getting something back with with a problem that will need to be remedied.
A number of years ago I sent in a PCGS better date $20 Lib. that cac said had a surface issue. Months later after PCGS addressed the problem, the coin came back in the same grade, I sent it back to cac which now said it had another surface problem. With their notes I sent it back to PCGS which said that if the coin was put in a problem holder they'd give me a low wholesale differential payment or "buy" the coin for substantially less than I paid. I then cracked the coin out and NGC graded it the same as PCGS had as MS63. I had no obligation to let a potential buyer know the history. Graders and finalizers at both NGC and PCGS had seen it as a good marketable coin, cac did not.
The burden is on cac to the reasons for why it grades and no grades its coins especially if it systematically sees problems the other graders and finalizers don't. It shouldn't be that complicated for them to associate any problem graded coin with the reason for it recorded as the grading services have been doing for decades. We are not privy to internal records of PCGS and NGC on the grading of specific coins but they exist. If cac wants to be 100% transparent then they owe it to their submitters to give specific reasons for their grades.
You've made up a fact and then argued it. CAC never said there was a foreign substance. They indicate "questionable surfaces". How is that any different than "questionable color" from PCGS that also carries no further explanation? It indicates a question as to originality.
The submitter sent it to cac a long time as he said after it had been sent to the other services. To infer it is a substance that would dip off is reasonable as others suggested. No further information was given than this term "questionable surfaces" which I've never seen before, who is authorizing their terminology? The other two services it went to with their graders and finalizers did not see it as a problem coin. The burden is on cac.
Taking your assumption: Why isn't the burden on NGC and PCGS to justify how they would dare to slab a coin with a foreign substance on the surface?
All 3 services called it as they saw it with no knowledge of what the other services thought. I see no reason to put a greater burden on one service than the others.
"Questionable surfaces" does not mean that there is a foreign substance. It could mean that. But it generally just means that they cannot be sure that the surface is original.
@logger7 said:
If this coin has some type of surface substance that would dip off you'd think that the graders would alert submitters of that as NGC does (and others) so that it can get a quick dip and go back into grading instead of going through what to most submitters is a painful process of paying all those fees and in the end getting something back with with a problem that will need to be remedied.
A number of years ago I sent in a PCGS better date $20 Lib. that cac said had a surface issue. Months later after PCGS addressed the problem, the coin came back in the same grade, I sent it back to cac which now said it had another surface problem. With their notes I sent it back to PCGS which said that if the coin was put in a problem holder they'd give me a low wholesale differential payment or "buy" the coin for substantially less than I paid. I then cracked the coin out and NGC graded it the same as PCGS had as MS63. I had no obligation to let a potential buyer know the history. Graders and finalizers at both NGC and PCGS had seen it as a good marketable coin, cac did not.
The burden is on cac to the reasons for why it grades and no grades its coins especially if it systematically sees problems the other graders and finalizers don't. It shouldn't be that complicated for them to associate any problem graded coin with the reason for it recorded as the grading services have been doing for decades. We are not privy to internal records of PCGS and NGC on the grading of specific coins but they exist. If cac wants to be 100% transparent then they owe it to their submitters to give specific reasons for their grades.
You've made up a fact and then argued it. CAC never said there was a foreign substance. They indicate "questionable surfaces". How is that any different than "questionable color" from PCGS that also carries no further explanation? It indicates a question as to originality.
The submitter sent it to cac a long time as he said after it had been sent to the other services. To infer it is a substance that would dip off is reasonable as others suggested. No further information was given than this term "questionable surfaces" which I've never seen before, who is authorizing their terminology? The other two services it went to with their graders and finalizers did not see it as a problem coin. The burden is on cac.
Taking your assumption: Why isn't the burden on NGC and PCGS to justify how they would dare to slab a coin with a foreign substance on the surface?
All 3 services called it as they saw it with no knowledge of what the other services thought. I see no reason to put a greater burden on one service than the others.
It should be evident if a major entity is crying "wolf" they should produce the evidence, I would appreciate more details. The details slab is the kiss of death for the marketplace. A numerical grade confers marketability as the problem slab the opposite.
@logger7 said:
If this coin has some type of surface substance that would dip off you'd think that the graders would alert submitters of that as NGC does (and others) so that it can get a quick dip and go back into grading instead of going through what to most submitters is a painful process of paying all those fees and in the end getting something back with with a problem that will need to be remedied.
A number of years ago I sent in a PCGS better date $20 Lib. that cac said had a surface issue. Months later after PCGS addressed the problem, the coin came back in the same grade, I sent it back to cac which now said it had another surface problem. With their notes I sent it back to PCGS which said that if the coin was put in a problem holder they'd give me a low wholesale differential payment or "buy" the coin for substantially less than I paid. I then cracked the coin out and NGC graded it the same as PCGS had as MS63. I had no obligation to let a potential buyer know the history. Graders and finalizers at both NGC and PCGS had seen it as a good marketable coin, cac did not.
The burden is on cac to the reasons for why it grades and no grades its coins especially if it systematically sees problems the other graders and finalizers don't. It shouldn't be that complicated for them to associate any problem graded coin with the reason for it recorded as the grading services have been doing for decades. We are not privy to internal records of PCGS and NGC on the grading of specific coins but they exist. If cac wants to be 100% transparent then they owe it to their submitters to give specific reasons for their grades.
You've made up a fact and then argued it. CAC never said there was a foreign substance. They indicate "questionable surfaces". How is that any different than "questionable color" from PCGS that also carries no further explanation? It indicates a question as to originality.
The submitter sent it to cac a long time as he said after it had been sent to the other services. To infer it is a substance that would dip off is reasonable as others suggested. No further information was given than this term "questionable surfaces" which I've never seen before, who is authorizing their terminology? The other two services it went to with their graders and finalizers did not see it as a problem coin. The burden is on cac.
Taking your assumption: Why isn't the burden on NGC and PCGS to justify how they would dare to slab a coin with a foreign substance on the surface?
All 3 services called it as they saw it with no knowledge of what the other services thought. I see no reason to put a greater burden on one service than the others.
Why you ask? It should be evident if a major entity is crying "wolf" they had better produce the evidence. The details slab is the kiss of death for the marketplace. A numerical grade confers marketability as the problem slab the opposite.
Again, as my first comment in this thread stated, coins like that are given minimal effort in the grading room. The graders won’t spend more than a couple seconds just to determine it’s not gem, and they’ll slap a grade on there. It appear CAC is actually trying to give the same effort to every coin.
I agree with @jmlanzaf, this would be a much different conversation if both PCGS and CAC went details and NGC went 64+, which is a more common occurrence. At which point, NGC is expected to explain themselves. You’re treating PCGS as the “arbiters of truth” when the fact of the matter is that we’re looking at 3 subjective opinions.
@logger7 said:
If this coin has some type of surface substance that would dip off you'd think that the graders would alert submitters of that as NGC does (and others) so that it can get a quick dip and go back into grading instead of going through what to most submitters is a painful process of paying all those fees and in the end getting something back with with a problem that will need to be remedied.
A number of years ago I sent in a PCGS better date $20 Lib. that cac said had a surface issue. Months later after PCGS addressed the problem, the coin came back in the same grade, I sent it back to cac which now said it had another surface problem. With their notes I sent it back to PCGS which said that if the coin was put in a problem holder they'd give me a low wholesale differential payment or "buy" the coin for substantially less than I paid. I then cracked the coin out and NGC graded it the same as PCGS had as MS63. I had no obligation to let a potential buyer know the history. Graders and finalizers at both NGC and PCGS had seen it as a good marketable coin, cac did not.
The burden is on cac to the reasons for why it grades and no grades its coins especially if it systematically sees problems the other graders and finalizers don't. It shouldn't be that complicated for them to associate any problem graded coin with the reason for it recorded as the grading services have been doing for decades. We are not privy to internal records of PCGS and NGC on the grading of specific coins but they exist. If cac wants to be 100% transparent then they owe it to their submitters to give specific reasons for their grades.
You've made up a fact and then argued it. CAC never said there was a foreign substance. They indicate "questionable surfaces". How is that any different than "questionable color" from PCGS that also carries no further explanation? It indicates a question as to originality.
The submitter sent it to cac a long time as he said after it had been sent to the other services. To infer it is a substance that would dip off is reasonable as others suggested. No further information was given than this term "questionable surfaces" which I've never seen before, who is authorizing their terminology? The other two services it went to with their graders and finalizers did not see it as a problem coin. The burden is on cac.
Taking your assumption: Why isn't the burden on NGC and PCGS to justify how they would dare to slab a coin with a foreign substance on the surface?
All 3 services called it as they saw it with no knowledge of what the other services thought. I see no reason to put a greater burden on one service than the others.
Why you ask? It should be evident if a major entity is crying "wolf" they had better produce the evidence. The details slab is the kiss of death for the marketplace. A numerical grade confers marketability as the problem slab the opposite.
Or...
It should be evident if a major entity is saying a coin is in great shape they had better produce the evidence. The a problem coin in a straight graded slab is the kiss of death for the hobby. A numerical grade confers marketability as the problem slab the opposite.
Why is the straight grade "right" and the questionable grade "wrong"?
Your position is absolutely ludicrous. One firm needs to stop the grading room to write a note explaining its grading decision and the other firm is beyond reproach? The submitter has paid for an opinion; one firm says 64, one says 64+, one says Questionable Surfaces. That is what the submitter has paid for and what they have received. To demand **MORE **because the submitter doesn't care for the decision is the height of arrogance.
@logger7 said:
If this coin has some type of surface substance that would dip off you'd think that the graders would alert submitters of that as NGC does (and others) so that it can get a quick dip and go back into grading instead of going through what to most submitters is a painful process of paying all those fees and in the end getting something back with with a problem that will need to be remedied.
A number of years ago I sent in a PCGS better date $20 Lib. that cac said had a surface issue. Months later after PCGS addressed the problem, the coin came back in the same grade, I sent it back to cac which now said it had another surface problem. With their notes I sent it back to PCGS which said that if the coin was put in a problem holder they'd give me a low wholesale differential payment or "buy" the coin for substantially less than I paid. I then cracked the coin out and NGC graded it the same as PCGS had as MS63. I had no obligation to let a potential buyer know the history. Graders and finalizers at both NGC and PCGS had seen it as a good marketable coin, cac did not.
The burden is on cac to the reasons for why it grades and no grades its coins especially if it systematically sees problems the other graders and finalizers don't. It shouldn't be that complicated for them to associate any problem graded coin with the reason for it recorded as the grading services have been doing for decades. We are not privy to internal records of PCGS and NGC on the grading of specific coins but they exist. If cac wants to be 100% transparent then they owe it to their submitters to give specific reasons for their grades.
You've made up a fact and then argued it. CAC never said there was a foreign substance. They indicate "questionable surfaces". How is that any different than "questionable color" from PCGS that also carries no further explanation? It indicates a question as to originality.
The submitter sent it to cac a long time as he said after it had been sent to the other services. To infer it is a substance that would dip off is reasonable as others suggested. No further information was given than this term "questionable surfaces" which I've never seen before, who is authorizing their terminology? The other two services it went to with their graders and finalizers did not see it as a problem coin. The burden is on cac.
Taking your assumption: Why isn't the burden on NGC and PCGS to justify how they would dare to slab a coin with a foreign substance on the surface?
All 3 services called it as they saw it with no knowledge of what the other services thought. I see no reason to put a greater burden on one service than the others.
Why you ask? It should be evident if a major entity is crying "wolf" they had better produce the evidence. The details slab is the kiss of death for the marketplace. A numerical grade confers marketability as the problem slab the opposite.
Why don't you make similar demands in multiple posts when NGC and PCGS assign detail grades to coins for "Altered surfaces"?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
"Questionable surfaces" does not mean that there is a foreign substance. It could mean that. But it generally just means that they cannot be sure that the surface is original.
It's sounds like they're saying it's a foreign substance.
@Manorcourtman said:
What this thread has taught me is to never submit a classic gold coin to CAC raw! Thank you!
That sounds like a major overreaction. I certainly wouldn’t decide to “never” submit a classic gold coin to CAC raw based on this thread. On the other hand, the same thing could have happened with a non-gold coin.
Different grading companies grade differently and plenty of similar downgrades have occurred from NGC to PCGS as well as from PCGS to NGC.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
No, it was just a sarcastic comment in reply to another sarcastic comment.
But you have a demonstrated pattern of ’sarcastic’ comments and threads to denigrate other TPGs. Here was one again.
No, I don't have a problem with any TPG. They all have their good and bad points. I make sarcastic comments about all of them. If you paid attention, you'd notice I've roasted PCGS over their trueviews more than any other TPG issue.
What's interesting to me is how emotional people get. Or, they feel the need to be the forum hall monitor and call people out over something that was just meant to be a funny comment.
No, it was just a sarcastic comment in reply to another sarcastic comment.
But you have a demonstrated pattern of ’sarcastic’ comments and threads to denigrate other TPGs. Here was one again.
No, I don't have a problem with any TPG. They all have their good and bad points. I make sarcastic comments about all of them. If you paid attention, you'd notice I've roasted PCGS over their trueviews more than any other TPG issue.
What's interesting to me is how emotional people get. Or, they feel the need to be the forum hall monitor and call people out over something that was just meant to be a funny comment.
You and I have had some minor skirmishes, so please know that I’m not calling you out here and I’m being serious. Without the benefit of hearing a person’s voice and/or seeing their facial expressions, it can be difficult to tell whether someone’s being serious. The use of emojis by the poster can help but that still doesn’t always give readers a clear message.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
"Questionable surfaces" does not mean that there is a foreign substance. It could mean that. But it generally just means that they cannot be sure that the surface is original.
It's sounds like they're saying it's a foreign substance.
What does? The website definition says it "may" include a foreign substance. It doesn't say it must be. It says there is a question of originality. That's the only universal.
It's actually odd that they include that. Putty, lacquer or grease should certainly leave no "question ".
@Manorcourtman said:
What this thread has taught me is to never submit a classic gold coin to CAC raw! Thank you!
That sounds like a major overreaction. I certainly wouldn’t decide to “never” submit a classic gold coin to CAC raw based on this thread. On the other hand, the same thing could have happened with a non-gold coin.
Different grading companies grade differently and plenty of similar downgrades have occurred from NGC to PCGS as well as from PCGS to NGC.
I think what this thread should have taught them is to pay a premium for classic gold in a CAC holder.
This thread insane lol. Keep want see it back in its NGC 64 plus holder. Like wanting get over a bad dream. Never would have taken downgrade on that anyway. We keep the territory we take.
But nice 😊 educational compare. What u Calc fall in MV from 64 plus to details is. May make my own table.
Comments
Right, that's melt. I'm not quite sure what you are tying to say, could you expound?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
It started with lanza's sarcastic comment. I replied with a sarcastic comment about NGC, You jumped in, and here we are.
It's no more of a "game" than the disingenouos questions that you frequently ask people.
No, it was just a sarcastic comment in reply to another sarcastic comment.
Why waste so many grading fees on a 1904 DE for a coin that will never get in a 65 holder? To prove a point? Might as well send in a dozen 38-D buffalos in 65 while you are at it. This is not a coin that will last ten seconds in any grader's hands so not surprising that PCGS and NGC put it in a straight holder and CACG found a reason to Genuine it. It is worth about the same in any of those slabs and grades.
It also amazes me that people are telling you to resubmit. Very odd.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
If I must explain what I’m saying I will, since it seems that you genuinely don’t understand.
A generic gold coin in ms 64 and below, in a holder, with a sticker or without a sticker. Approved as an A, B, or C coin, and even uncirculated mint state raw is going to bring melt price , in most circles . This has been my experience with prominent dealers, especially since gold is up over 40% in the past year.
Gotcha, sorry if it seemed like I was being obtuse, but I was genuinely asking.
With that said though, Libs fetch better premiums than saints. Melt for a double eagle is approximately $2500 based on market price at EOD friday, which is about all I could pay for a single common saint in 4 right now. I would pay about $125 more for a common $20 lib in 4, and obviously quantity would make a big difference.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
i agree with the CAC grade. it sucks about the downgrade, but it's an interesting experiment (?) nonetheless. i also agree with @dcarr ... the area that looks suspicious to me is the cheek on the obverse. the coin is still worth the same amount in my opinion, based on its high mintage and availability.
Maybe you should go tell them that on their board.
They have a board?
Many if not a majority of graded gold can be nitpicked for surface alteration or gashes, nicks, scratches, bumps, debris, dirt etc.
IMO this coin was market acceptable maybe at worst net graded.
Does it serve the market to have two different opinions and a body bag on a common date gold coin in relatively common condition? Also this is why + grades are problematic.
If it did not cost so much, it would be interesting to do another round.
I don’t see how the plus grade made this example any more problematic than a non-plus grade would have.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Does not look like the “coin” should be in a straight holder irrespective of grading company.
In my opinion, Cac's main usefulness is getting stickered coins into their holders; anything raw is taking a big chance with their sometimes overly harsh grading. They either need an evidence-based description of their reason for a grade tied to the certification number or they should be written off as inaccurate and arbitrary. I've already had a deal queered due to their absurdly low grade on a coin.
Then I suppose you also believe that NGC and PCGS need evidence-based descriptions of their reasons for grades tied to certification numbers when they grade noticeably lower than one another. And that you believe, If not, then they, too, should be written off as inaccurate and arbitrary.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Because + grades add to the inconsistency. The point of the thread is inconsistent grading amongst the three most respected services. It's a less enjoyable hobby when there is inconsistency IMO. Personally I think the pendulum should swing back to letting the coin itself be the determinant of value instead of granular grades. But I understand this is a commercial marketplace of details and so I get that. I can argue both sides. Just pontificating out loud. It's a message board right?
Most people are used to the inaccuracy and arbitrariness of PCGS and NGC. They are uncomfortable with newly inaccurate and arbitrary grades.
Inertia is a powerful force.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
Different cheek, same arse, sitting on the toilet of subjectivity 😇.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
There are different things we can each take away from this thread. What I take away is that it seems clear that for at least the members here CAC is now the industry leader. They are the one who is trusted to give the correct opinion.
Picked up some nice ICG MS70 ASE really nice super PQ 4 grade $45ish, so close to melt. Like how they stack. Have stuff from all 5 TPG, fun. Have About a dozen CACG Coins, neat. Need see how they sell b4 any more. But procurement price has to be right- skittish if they above bid plus 5pct lol. Have they surpassed ICG in output yet? However they a successful operation. How far off an AI self graded slab can pickup at Walmart? Monique thinks that’s the next big advancement. Then online, real time self pricing for both US and World. Notice CDN getting into World Pricing - they realize the super potential of that market.
Wrong thread (again).
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If this coin has some type of surface substance that would dip off you'd think that the graders would alert submitters of that as NGC does (and others) so that it can get a quick dip and go back into grading instead of going through what to most submitters is a painful process of paying all those fees and in the end getting something back with with a problem that will need to be remedied.
A number of years ago I sent in a PCGS better date $20 Lib. that cac said had a surface issue. Months later after PCGS addressed the problem, the coin came back in the same grade, I sent it back to cac which now said it had another surface problem. With their notes I sent it back to PCGS which said that if the coin was put in a problem holder they'd give me a low wholesale differential payment or "buy" the coin for substantially less than I paid. I then cracked the coin out and NGC graded it the same as PCGS had as MS63. I had no obligation to let a potential buyer know the history. Graders and finalizers at both NGC and PCGS had seen it as a good marketable coin, cac did not.
The burden is on cac to the reasons for why it grades and no grades its coins especially if it systematically sees problems the other graders and finalizers don't. It shouldn't be that complicated for them to associate any problem graded coin with the reason for it recorded as the grading services have been doing for decades. We are not privy to internal records of PCGS and NGC on the grading of specific coins but they exist. If cac wants to be 100% transparent then they owe it to their submitters to give specific reasons for their grades.
Maybe a typo? Did you mean Monique or Frencesca?
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
I don't think we have a Walmart grading thread...
You've made up a fact and then argued it. CAC never said there was a foreign substance. They indicate "questionable surfaces". How is that any different than "questionable color" from PCGS that also carries no further explanation? It indicates a question as to originality.
CAC did not know that this particular coin had been to PCGS and NGC. So they called it as they saw it. I find it interesting. Perhaps NGC and PCGS feel the coin was a "C" coin and by straight grading the coin it helps their brand and helps foster more business. CAC doesn't seem to do that at least for now..
The submitter sent it to cac a long time as he said after it had been sent to the other services. To infer it is a substance that would dip off is reasonable as others suggested. No further information was given than this term "questionable surfaces" which I've never seen before, who is authorizing their terminology? The other two services it went to with their graders and finalizers did not see it as a problem coin. The burden is on cac. "Questionable grading".
Taking your assumption: Why isn't the burden on NGC and PCGS to justify how they would dare to slab a coin with a foreign substance on the surface?
All 3 services called it as they saw it with no knowledge of what the other services thought. I see no reason to put a greater burden on one service than the others.
"Questionable surfaces" does not mean that there is a foreign substance. It could mean that. But it generally just means that they cannot be sure that the surface is original.
It should be evident if a major entity is crying "wolf" they should produce the evidence, I would appreciate more details. The details slab is the kiss of death for the marketplace. A numerical grade confers marketability as the problem slab the opposite.
Again, as my first comment in this thread stated, coins like that are given minimal effort in the grading room. The graders won’t spend more than a couple seconds just to determine it’s not gem, and they’ll slap a grade on there. It appear CAC is actually trying to give the same effort to every coin.
I agree with @jmlanzaf, this would be a much different conversation if both PCGS and CAC went details and NGC went 64+, which is a more common occurrence. At which point, NGC is expected to explain themselves. You’re treating PCGS as the “arbiters of truth” when the fact of the matter is that we’re looking at 3 subjective opinions.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Or...
It should be evident if a major entity is saying a coin is in great shape they had better produce the evidence. The a problem coin in a straight graded slab is the kiss of death for the hobby. A numerical grade confers marketability as the problem slab the opposite.
Why is the straight grade "right" and the questionable grade "wrong"?
Your position is absolutely ludicrous. One firm needs to stop the grading room to write a note explaining its grading decision and the other firm is beyond reproach? The submitter has paid for an opinion; one firm says 64, one says 64+, one says Questionable Surfaces. That is what the submitter has paid for and what they have received. To demand **MORE **because the submitter doesn't care for the decision is the height of arrogance.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
Why don't you make similar demands in multiple posts when NGC and PCGS assign detail grades to coins for "Altered surfaces"?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The details slab is the kiss of death for the marketplace. A numerical grade confers marketability as the problem slab the opposite.
Actually the CAC Coin Look-Up puts the Registry Value as AU50
It's sounds like they're saying it's a foreign substance.
What this thread has taught me is to never submit a classic gold coin to CAC raw! Thank you!
That sounds like a major overreaction. I certainly wouldn’t decide to “never” submit a classic gold coin to CAC raw based on this thread. On the other hand, the same thing could have happened with a non-gold coin.
Different grading companies grade differently and plenty of similar downgrades have occurred from NGC to PCGS as well as from PCGS to NGC.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Suit yourself
.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
What this thread has taught me is to never submit a classic gold coin to CAC for a sticker. Instead, I’ll submit them raw to CACG for grading. 😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
What a waste of time and money.
I would have left that one alone.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
But you have a demonstrated pattern of ’sarcastic’ comments and threads to denigrate other TPGs. Here was one again.
No, I don't have a problem with any TPG. They all have their good and bad points. I make sarcastic comments about all of them. If you paid attention, you'd notice I've roasted PCGS over their trueviews more than any other TPG issue.
What's interesting to me is how emotional people get. Or, they feel the need to be the forum hall monitor and call people out over something that was just meant to be a funny comment.
YMMV
You and I have had some minor skirmishes, so please know that I’m not calling you out here and I’m being serious. Without the benefit of hearing a person’s voice and/or seeing their facial expressions, it can be difficult to tell whether someone’s being serious. The use of emojis by the poster can help but that still doesn’t always give readers a clear message.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Here is my opinion on CACG's opinion.......BTW, these CACG holders are remarkably easy to open using only a razor blade
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
What does? The website definition says it "may" include a foreign substance. It doesn't say it must be. It says there is a question of originality. That's the only universal.
It's actually odd that they include that. Putty, lacquer or grease should certainly leave no "question ".
I think what this thread should have taught them is to pay a premium for classic gold in a CAC holder.
This thread insane lol. Keep want see it back in its NGC 64 plus holder. Like wanting get over a bad dream. Never would have taken downgrade on that anyway. We keep the territory we take.
But nice 😊 educational compare. What u Calc fall in MV from 64 plus to details is. May make my own table.
They should've named it "craps". RGDS!