The tuffest of the tuff in TPG

allnewsanchor

This one's for those of you who have had a coin or coins graded by a TPG lately. Let's say in this calendar year.

Which would you rate the most conservative (aka toughest) among PCGS, NGC, CACG, ANACS?

coinbuf

CACG hands down the most accurate and conservative.

Copperindian

CACG

Typekat

I have submitted 19th Century coins to each of the big three this year, and CACG seems far and away the toughest.
IMHO, there’s a much smaller difference between PCGS and NGC grading standards.

FlyingAl

@coinbuf said:
CACG hands down the most accurate and conservative.

Conservative yes.

Accuracy cannot be accurately measured amongst TPGS because they all grade on different standards. Therefore, each collector needs to decide which is the “most accurate”.

DocBenjamin

This thread just encouraged me to bump my bid on a CACG coin.

Oh my.

PerryHall

There seems to be a consensus as to where to send your coins if you want them to be undergraded.

allnewsanchor

**> @PerryHall said:

There seems to be a consensus as to where to send your coins if you want them to be undergraded.

**
Well, that's certainly another way to look at it, Perry. Thanx for everyone's answers thus far.

hummingbird_coins

inb4 this thread turns into the 143rd bi-weekly heated CAC debate

CRHer700

PCGS version 1 slabs are usually undergraded if you can find them.

johnny010

@coinbuf said:
CACG hands down the most accurate and conservative.

This may be true and desirable by many, but until they come up with a better slab I’m not buying or using their holdering service.

Catbert

I think CACG is the most conservative.

It is helpful and good forum etiquette if your thread title has more specificity so the reader can decide whether the thread is of interest. For example, “Which Grading Service is the Toughest?

P0CKETCHANGE

@johnny010 said:

@coinbuf said:
CACG hands down the most accurate and conservative.

This may be true and desirable by many, but until they come up with a better slab I’m not buying or using their holdering service.

What do you dislike about the CACG slab?

MFeld

@PerryHall said:
There seems to be a consensus as to where to send your coins if you want them to be undergraded.

It could just as easily be said that there seems to be a consensus as to where not to send your coins if you want them to be overgraded.

yosclimber

The tuffest of the tuff is "welded tuff", found at Smith Rock, Oregon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Rock_State_Park

allnewsanchor

@Catbert Thanks. Just did.

ProofCollection

None of the TPG's are tougher than any other. They all have different standards. The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers. Do you want a 6 inch sandwich or a 15.24cm sandwich?

coinbuf

@FlyingAl said:

@coinbuf said:
CACG hands down the most accurate and conservative.

Conservative yes.

Accuracy cannot be accurately measured amongst TPGS because they all grade on different standards. Therefore, each collector needs to decide which is the “most accurate”.

Just to clarify, I am not attempting to judge CACG's accuracy as compared to another TPG, but rather to how I grade. In that respect CACG is the most accurate as they do not market grade, or at least not to the degree that is seen with the other TPG's.

coinbuf

@ProofCollection said:
None of the TPG's are tougher than any other. They all have different standards. The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers. Do you want a 6 inch sandwich or a 15.24cm sandwich?

I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest.

124Spider

I agree that CACG is the most "conservative." I don't agree that this is "best."

When buying, I will pay a premium for a CAC sticker, and I would pay a premium for a CACG-holdered coin, all else being equal, compared to any other TPG.

But, unlike the more orthodox folks here, I am a fan of so-called "market grading," since I think it's the market's job to decide how bad is bad enough for "details" purgatory, not a TPG's job. I cannot imagine a circumstance that would cause me to send a coin into CACG for grading.

SimonW

If we assume a standard bell curve, the apex of the curve would be deemed the most accurate grading, I would think, meaning that the apex would represent the most commonly assigned grade among people who collect/deal for a given coin. Conservative would NOT be considered accurate just as a liberal grade wouldn't.

From a marketing standpoint CACG doesn't grade accurately, they must not, they're entering a market that requires them to be different. If they were the same as other grading companies they wouldn't have any reason to grab part of the market share.

ProofCollection

@coinbuf said:

@ProofCollection said:
None of the TPG's are tougher than any other. They all have different standards. The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers. Do you want a 6 inch sandwich or a 15.24cm sandwich?

I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest.

The toughest according to who? It's OK to prefer the CACG measuring stick, but they shouldn't be preferred because they hand out the lower numbers. People are of the impression that NGC 65 (should be) = PCGS 65 (should be) = CACG 65 but that isn't the case, and it is not something the companies or industry is aspiring to. When I look at an NGC MS66FT dime I generally assume it is a PCGS MS65 FB and then of course visually verify that as the spectrums overlap a bit. As mentioned a long while ago, I'm still awaiting the results, but I bought an MS64 CACG Morgan that I expect will cross to PCGS at MS65. Different measuring sticks. One is not better or stricter than the other though one might closer match your personal measuring stick. My measuring stick is the same one that PCGS uses. It's like measuring in inches and centimeters. Just do the conversion if you want to compare. Whether you measure in inches or cm, all that matters is that you understand the measuring stick. But to say one is better than another is, well, like debating the superiority of imperial units and the metric system.

Your comment about market grading definitely has merit though, as tolerance for surface conditions does vary and CACG is by far the least tolerant.

Married2Coins

@CRHer700 said:
PCGS version 1 slabs are usually undergraded if you can find them.

Yes, under graded by today's standards. From what I have seen sine the 1980's, each new TPGS started out conservative. Therefore virtually any thirty year old slab is now under graded.

Married2Coins

@SimonW said:
If we assume a standard bell curve, the apex of the curve would be deemed the most accurate grading, I would think, meaning that the apex would represent the most commonly assigned grade among people who collect/deal for a given coin. Conservative would NOT be considered accurate just as a liberal grade wouldn't.

From a marketing standpoint CACG doesn't grade accurately, they must not, they're entering a market that requires them to be different. If they were the same as other grading companies they wouldn't have any reason to grab part of the market share.

Face it. IMHO the major TPGS ruined themselves over the years due to self imposed gradeflation and "market acceptability" nonsense. CAC tried to hold a line and by doing so became too strict for most tastes. Dealers sell the labels not the coins. CACG is here to stay. They will make more money when they eventually loosen up as all the other TPGS did in the past.

124Spider

@Married2Coins said:

@SimonW said:
If we assume a standard bell curve, the apex of the curve would be deemed the most accurate grading, I would think, meaning that the apex would represent the most commonly assigned grade among people who collect/deal for a given coin. Conservative would NOT be considered accurate just as a liberal grade wouldn't.

From a marketing standpoint CACG doesn't grade accurately, they must not, they're entering a market that requires them to be different. If they were the same as other grading companies they wouldn't have any reason to grab part of the market share.

Face it. IMHO the major TPGS ruined themselves over the years due to self imposed gradeflation and "market acceptability" nonsense. CAC tried to hold a line and by doing so became too strict for most tastes. Dealers sell the labels not the coins. CACG is here to stay. They will make more money when they eventually loosen up as all the other TPGS did in the past.

There is an irony in your post--You label the way NGC and PCGS grade as "nonsense," for taking market standards into account in their grading, then acknowledge that CACG grading is "too strict for most tastes."

Married2Coins

@124Spider said:

@Married2Coins said:

@SimonW said:
If we assume a standard bell curve, the apex of the curve would be deemed the most accurate grading, I would think, meaning that the apex would represent the most commonly assigned grade among people who collect/deal for a given coin. Conservative would NOT be considered accurate just as a liberal grade wouldn't.

From a marketing standpoint CACG doesn't grade accurately, they must not, they're entering a market that requires them to be different. If they were the same as other grading companies they wouldn't have any reason to grab part of the market share.

Face it. IMHO the major TPGS ruined themselves over the years due to self imposed gradeflation and "market acceptability" nonsense. CAC tried to hold a line and by doing so became too strict for most tastes. Dealers sell the labels not the coins. CACG is here to stay. They will make more money when they eventually loosen up as all the other TPGS did in the past.

There is an irony in your post--You label the way NGC and PCGS grade as "nonsense," for taking market standards into account in their grading, then acknowledge that CACG grading is "too strict for most tastes."

I suppose my comment can be taken that way so I'll try again. IMHO the top two TPGS allow too much leeway (the nonsense) before detailing a coin for damage and unoriginality. That's why CAC came about. The grading standards of the top two TPGS have also changed A GREAT DEAL for grades below MS over the last few decades. CACG has stated that low end coins (C's) will be dropped to the next lowest MS grade. IMHO, more nonsense and they have become too strict with regards to originality. There is nothing wrong with that because unoriginal coins should have never been straight graded in the first place. Nevertheless they were and everyone liked it but now that makes CACG too strict for calling a spade a spade. They are not playing the game - so far.

SimonW

I'm gonna stir up a hornets nest with this comment. What grade is assigned to a coin is largely irrelevant, the important thing is the consistency. One needs to be able to expect that an XF will fall within an expected range.

CACG, for all the good it's trying to do, is actually changing that current standard just as much as "gradeflation" has. It causes the public to not know what to expect from an MS65 coin, it's changing the consistency. Hopefully, eventually we can find an equilibrium in the market again, but at the moment they've created a lot of harm and mistrust within the system.

Assigning grades is pretty easy to do when you're talking about the billions of modern coins, probably not very difficult with Morgan dollars either, but most of the coinage in the world is much more nuanced than that. Additionally they've been through more life than just sitting in bank bags for a hundred years. There's a level of balancing and judging that US coins don't really deal with, except perhaps the earliest of US coinage.

I don't care a whole lot about CAC or CACG, mostly because the stuff I collect they don't certify anyway.
i find the passion about the topic interesting, however.

MFeld

@ProofCollection said:

@coinbuf said:

@ProofCollection said:
None of the TPG's are tougher than any other. They all have different standards. The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers. Do you want a 6 inch sandwich or a 15.24cm sandwich?

I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest.

The toughest according to who? It's OK to prefer the CACG measuring stick, but they shouldn't be preferred because they hand out the lower numbers. People are of the impression that NGC 65 (should be) = PCGS 65 (should be) = CACG 65 but that isn't the case, and it is not something the companies or industry is aspiring to. When I look at an NGC MS66FT dime I generally assume it is a PCGS MS65 FB and then of course visually verify that as the spectrums overlap a bit. As mentioned a long while ago, I'm still awaiting the results, but I bought an MS64 CACG Morgan that I expect will cross to PCGS at MS65. Different measuring sticks. One is not better or stricter than the other though one might closer match your personal measuring stick. My measuring stick is the same one that PCGS uses. It's like measuring in inches and centimeters. Just do the conversion if you want to compare. Whether you measure in inches or cm, all that matters is that you understand the measuring stick. But to say one is better than another is, well, like debating the superiority of imperial units and the metric system.

Your comment about market grading definitely has merit though, as tolerance for surface conditions does vary and CACG is by far the least tolerant.

In answer to your question, CACG is the toughest according to a lot of people and you're one of them.
There's no need to make this complicated. You wrote "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers." That, in itself, makes them (what most would say is) the "toughest".
As @coinbuf posted: "I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest."

Everyone's free to prefer one grading company over others an/or believe that one is more accurate. But those questions weren't the one that were posed at the beginning of this thread.

Catbert

Since the advent of CACG, couldn’t we speculate that PCGS has “tightened up” their grading to align more with CACG?

MFeld

@Married2Coins said:

@CRHer700 said:
PCGS version 1 slabs are usually undergraded if you can find them.

Yes, under graded by today's standards. From what I have seen sine the 1980's, each new TPGS started out conservative. Therefore virtually any thirty year old slab is now under graded.

I have to disagree about coins in thirty year-old holders. Over the years, many, if not most of them have been picked over, with undegraded coins having been resubmitted and the rest, remaining in their old holders.

Catbert

@allnewsanchor said:
@Catbert Thanks. Just did.

Thanks, but I was referencing the thread title that you can also edit if you wish. I see your other thread you've created is descriptive and I thank you!

P0CKETCHANGE

@Catbert said:

@allnewsanchor said:
@Catbert Thanks. Just did.

Thanks, but I was referencing the thread title that you can also edit if you wish. I see your other thread you've created is descriptive and I thank you!

It was edited. It now includes “in TPG”.

ProofCollection

@MFeld said:

@ProofCollection said:

@coinbuf said:

@ProofCollection said:
None of the TPG's are tougher than any other. They all have different standards. The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers. Do you want a 6 inch sandwich or a 15.24cm sandwich?

I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest.

The toughest according to who? It's OK to prefer the CACG measuring stick, but they shouldn't be preferred because they hand out the lower numbers. People are of the impression that NGC 65 (should be) = PCGS 65 (should be) = CACG 65 but that isn't the case, and it is not something the companies or industry is aspiring to. When I look at an NGC MS66FT dime I generally assume it is a PCGS MS65 FB and then of course visually verify that as the spectrums overlap a bit. As mentioned a long while ago, I'm still awaiting the results, but I bought an MS64 CACG Morgan that I expect will cross to PCGS at MS65. Different measuring sticks. One is not better or stricter than the other though one might closer match your personal measuring stick. My measuring stick is the same one that PCGS uses. It's like measuring in inches and centimeters. Just do the conversion if you want to compare. Whether you measure in inches or cm, all that matters is that you understand the measuring stick. But to say one is better than another is, well, like debating the superiority of imperial units and the metric system.

Your comment about market grading definitely has merit though, as tolerance for surface conditions does vary and CACG is by far the least tolerant.

In answer to your question, CACG is the toughest according to a lot of people and you're one of them.
There's no need to make this complicated. You wrote "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers." That, in itself, makes them (what most would say is) the "toughest".
As @coinbuf posted: "I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest."

Everyone's free to prefer one grading company over others an/or believe that one is more accurate. But those questions weren't the one that were posed at the beginning of this thread.

Then you don't understand what I am saying. An SAE ruler is not more conservative or more accurate than a metric ruler. They are different ways of measuring the same thing. Every TPG has their own ruler. A PCGS MS65 may be a CACG 64. One is not "more correct" and one is not "wrong" and one is not "more conservative" just because the number 64 is less than 65. It's clear that a large part of the PCGS 65 spectrum overlaps the CACG 64 spectrum if you laid out the PCGS and CACG rulers next to each other.

The OP's question was to rate/rank TPGs about how conservative they are. This cannot be done unless you want to simply spell out who tends to hand out lower numbers, but again, that is not because they are conservative, it's because the lines on their ruler are in different places. This exercise is not particularly meaningful IMO.

Grading accuracy would just be how wide the distribution is if you were to submit the same coin for grading 100 times, would it come back the same grade every time and how does it vary against the TPG's published (or unpublished) standards? CACG calling a coin 64 and PCGS calling it 65 does not mean one company is inaccurate. What you maybe can say is that one company does not follow the ANA (or insert another name) standard. This is also true because again, all TPGs seem to have their own standards.

I will point out that this is why price guides differentiate PCGS and NGC and CAC pricing because the price guides recognize that "the rulers are different."

The only way that I recognize that CACG is tougher is in their lack of tolerance for Details conditions.

cameonut2011

@coinbuf said:
CACG hands down the most accurate and conservative.

I agree hands down it is the most conservative. Accuracy, however, measures a deviation from a known value. This would assume there is only one accepted/right scale. Each have slightly differing standards. In theory a new service could come along and throw everything in a Poor-1 or AG3 holder and it would be more conservative than them all. That doesn’t make it accurate necessarily.

MFeld

@ProofCollection said:

@MFeld said:

@ProofCollection said:

@coinbuf said:

@ProofCollection said:
None of the TPG's are tougher than any other. They all have different standards. The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers. Do you want a 6 inch sandwich or a 15.24cm sandwich?

I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest.

The toughest according to who? It's OK to prefer the CACG measuring stick, but they shouldn't be preferred because they hand out the lower numbers. People are of the impression that NGC 65 (should be) = PCGS 65 (should be) = CACG 65 but that isn't the case, and it is not something the companies or industry is aspiring to. When I look at an NGC MS66FT dime I generally assume it is a PCGS MS65 FB and then of course visually verify that as the spectrums overlap a bit. As mentioned a long while ago, I'm still awaiting the results, but I bought an MS64 CACG Morgan that I expect will cross to PCGS at MS65. Different measuring sticks. One is not better or stricter than the other though one might closer match your personal measuring stick. My measuring stick is the same one that PCGS uses. It's like measuring in inches and centimeters. Just do the conversion if you want to compare. Whether you measure in inches or cm, all that matters is that you understand the measuring stick. But to say one is better than another is, well, like debating the superiority of imperial units and the metric system.

Your comment about market grading definitely has merit though, as tolerance for surface conditions does vary and CACG is by far the least tolerant.

In answer to your question, CACG is the toughest according to a lot of people and you're one of them.
There's no need to make this complicated. You wrote "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers." That, in itself, makes them (what most would say is) the "toughest".
As @coinbuf posted: "I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest."

Everyone's free to prefer one grading company over others an/or believe that one is more accurate. But those questions weren't the one that were posed at the beginning of this thread.

Then you don't understand what I am saying. An SAE ruler is not more conservative or more accurate than a metric ruler. They are different ways of measuring the same thing. Every TPG has their own ruler. A PCGS MS65 may be a CACG 64. One is not "more correct" and one is not "wrong" and one is not "more conservative" just because the number 64 is less than 65. It's clear that a large part of the PCGS 65 spectrum overlaps the CACG 64 spectrum if you laid out the PCGS and CACG rulers next to each other.

The OP's question was to rate/rank TPGs about how conservative they are. This cannot be done unless you want to simply spell out who tends to hand out lower numbers, but again, that is not because they are conservative, it's because the lines on their ruler are in different places. This exercise is not particularly meaningful IMO.

Grading accuracy would just be how wide the distribution is if you were to submit the same coin for grading 100 times, would it come back the same grade every time and how does it vary against the TPG's published (or unpublished) standards? CACG calling a coin 64 and PCGS calling it 65 does not mean one company is inaccurate. What you maybe can say is that one company does not follow the ANA (or insert another name) standard. This is also true because again, all TPGs seem to have their own standards.

I will point out that this is why price guides differentiate PCGS and NGC and CAC pricing because the price guides recognize that "the rulers are different."

The only way that I recognize that CACG is tougher is in their lack of tolerance for Details conditions.

I understood what you were saying. I didn't comment on any company being "more correct", "accurate", "wrong", or "grading accuracy" as none of that pertained to the question asked by the OP. Instead, I commented on which company was the "toughest" or most "conservative". But you keep posting about those other considerations.

Again, you wrote "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers."
That, in itself, makes them (what most would say is) the "toughest".

coinbuf

@124Spider said:
I agree that CACG is the most "conservative." I don't agree that this is "best."

When buying, I will pay a premium for a CAC sticker, and I would pay a premium for a CACG-holdered coin, all else being equal, compared to any other TPG.

But, unlike the more orthodox folks here, I am a fan of so-called "market grading," since I think it's the market's job to decide how bad is bad enough for "details" purgatory, not a TPG's job. I cannot imagine a circumstance that would cause me to send a coin into CACG for grading.

Market grading has nothing to do with the market deciding to accept or not detail coins. In fact, market grading has nothing to do with the market at all, market grading is all about gradeflation.

coinbuf

@ProofCollection said:

@coinbuf said:

@ProofCollection said:
None of the TPG's are tougher than any other. They all have different standards. The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers. Do you want a 6 inch sandwich or a 15.24cm sandwich?

I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest.

The toughest according to who? It's OK to prefer the CACG measuring stick, but they shouldn't be preferred because they hand out the lower numbers. People are of the impression that NGC 65 (should be) = PCGS 65 (should be) = CACG 65 but that isn't the case, and it is not something the companies or industry is aspiring to. When I look at an NGC MS66FT dime I generally assume it is a PCGS MS65 FB and then of course visually verify that as the spectrums overlap a bit. As mentioned a long while ago, I'm still awaiting the results, but I bought an MS64 CACG Morgan that I expect will cross to PCGS at MS65. Different measuring sticks. One is not better or stricter than the other though one might closer match your personal measuring stick. My measuring stick is the same one that PCGS uses. It's like measuring in inches and centimeters. Just do the conversion if you want to compare. Whether you measure in inches or cm, all that matters is that you understand the measuring stick. But to say one is better than another is, well, like debating the superiority of imperial units and the metric system.

Your comment about market grading definitely has merit though, as tolerance for surface conditions does vary and CACG is by far the least tolerant.

As Mark pointed out you yourself admit that CAC is the toughest when you posted "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest". Determining which TPG is the toughest has nothing to do with which yardstick you prefer, it has to do with which TPG has the most stringent grading.

The really funny thing about this subject is that if this was posted prior to the advent of CACG almost everyone here (yourself included) would have replied that PCGS is the toughest "hands down". That kool-aid is a real B.

LukeMarshall

Im not hearing much about ANACS in this thread so Ill chime in.

I sent some minty fresh items in recently and got back a few MS68s , and earlier this year same thing with a single Medal submission that I broke the rules on and sent in original sealed 40 year old packaging - MS68

Not too long ago I felt these would be 69/70 lock all day over there , i dunno maybe with the extra strict grading atmosphere these days they are getting CAC envy and mixing it up - A few others said they have seen this also.

allnewsanchor

@LukeMarshall said:
Im not hearing much about ANACS in this thread so Ill chime in.

Thanks, Luke. I was waiting for an ANACS offering.

DisneyFan

@FlyingAl said:

@coinbuf said:
CACG hands down the most accurate and conservative.

Conservative yes.

Accuracy cannot be accurately measured amongst TPGS because they all grade on different standards. Therefore, each collector needs to decide which is the “most accurate”.

While I can accept the concept of different standards for cleaning; i.e., old cleaning, light cleaning, cleaning and heavy cleaning, I cannot accept the concept of different standards for PVC. PVC only gets worse over time.

ProofCollection

@MFeld said:

@ProofCollection said:

@MFeld said:

@ProofCollection said:

@coinbuf said:

@ProofCollection said:
None of the TPG's are tougher than any other. They all have different standards. The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers. Do you want a 6 inch sandwich or a 15.24cm sandwich?

I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest.

The toughest according to who? It's OK to prefer the CACG measuring stick, but they shouldn't be preferred because they hand out the lower numbers. People are of the impression that NGC 65 (should be) = PCGS 65 (should be) = CACG 65 but that isn't the case, and it is not something the companies or industry is aspiring to. When I look at an NGC MS66FT dime I generally assume it is a PCGS MS65 FB and then of course visually verify that as the spectrums overlap a bit. As mentioned a long while ago, I'm still awaiting the results, but I bought an MS64 CACG Morgan that I expect will cross to PCGS at MS65. Different measuring sticks. One is not better or stricter than the other though one might closer match your personal measuring stick. My measuring stick is the same one that PCGS uses. It's like measuring in inches and centimeters. Just do the conversion if you want to compare. Whether you measure in inches or cm, all that matters is that you understand the measuring stick. But to say one is better than another is, well, like debating the superiority of imperial units and the metric system.

Your comment about market grading definitely has merit though, as tolerance for surface conditions does vary and CACG is by far the least tolerant.

In answer to your question, CACG is the toughest according to a lot of people and you're one of them.
There's no need to make this complicated. You wrote "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers." That, in itself, makes them (what most would say is) the "toughest".
As @coinbuf posted: "I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest."

Everyone's free to prefer one grading company over others an/or believe that one is more accurate. But those questions weren't the one that were posed at the beginning of this thread.

Then you don't understand what I am saying. An SAE ruler is not more conservative or more accurate than a metric ruler. They are different ways of measuring the same thing. Every TPG has their own ruler. A PCGS MS65 may be a CACG 64. One is not "more correct" and one is not "wrong" and one is not "more conservative" just because the number 64 is less than 65. It's clear that a large part of the PCGS 65 spectrum overlaps the CACG 64 spectrum if you laid out the PCGS and CACG rulers next to each other.

The OP's question was to rate/rank TPGs about how conservative they are. This cannot be done unless you want to simply spell out who tends to hand out lower numbers, but again, that is not because they are conservative, it's because the lines on their ruler are in different places. This exercise is not particularly meaningful IMO.

Grading accuracy would just be how wide the distribution is if you were to submit the same coin for grading 100 times, would it come back the same grade every time and how does it vary against the TPG's published (or unpublished) standards? CACG calling a coin 64 and PCGS calling it 65 does not mean one company is inaccurate. What you maybe can say is that one company does not follow the ANA (or insert another name) standard. This is also true because again, all TPGs seem to have their own standards.

I will point out that this is why price guides differentiate PCGS and NGC and CAC pricing because the price guides recognize that "the rulers are different."

The only way that I recognize that CACG is tougher is in their lack of tolerance for Details conditions.

I understood what you were saying. I didn't comment on any company being "more correct", "accurate", "wrong", or "grading accuracy" as none of that pertained to the question asked by the OP. Instead, I commented on which company was the "toughest" or most "conservative". But you keep posting about those other considerations.

Again, you wrote "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers."
That, in itself, makes them (what most would say is) the "toughest".

Well if you define "toughest" to be the tendency to give out the lowest number, fine. But to me that doesn't make them "tough." They're using a different scale than the other TPGs so you will get lower numbers. Again, am I "tougher" when I measure your sandwich and it is 6 inches long rather than 15.24cm just because the number is lower? Or do you just realize it's the same and make the conversion?

@coinbuf said:

@ProofCollection said:

@coinbuf said:

@ProofCollection said:
None of the TPG's are tougher than any other. They all have different standards. The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers. Do you want a 6 inch sandwich or a 15.24cm sandwich?

I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest.

The toughest according to who? It's OK to prefer the CACG measuring stick, but they shouldn't be preferred because they hand out the lower numbers. People are of the impression that NGC 65 (should be) = PCGS 65 (should be) = CACG 65 but that isn't the case, and it is not something the companies or industry is aspiring to. When I look at an NGC MS66FT dime I generally assume it is a PCGS MS65 FB and then of course visually verify that as the spectrums overlap a bit. As mentioned a long while ago, I'm still awaiting the results, but I bought an MS64 CACG Morgan that I expect will cross to PCGS at MS65. Different measuring sticks. One is not better or stricter than the other though one might closer match your personal measuring stick. My measuring stick is the same one that PCGS uses. It's like measuring in inches and centimeters. Just do the conversion if you want to compare. Whether you measure in inches or cm, all that matters is that you understand the measuring stick. But to say one is better than another is, well, like debating the superiority of imperial units and the metric system.

Your comment about market grading definitely has merit though, as tolerance for surface conditions does vary and CACG is by far the least tolerant.

As Mark pointed out you yourself admit that CAC is the toughest when you posted "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest". Determining which TPG is the toughest has nothing to do with which yardstick you prefer, it has to do with which TPG has the most stringent grading.

You didn't provide the full quote. I said, "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get the higher numbers." Again, OK, so CACG measures in inches and PCGS measures in cm so PCGS numbers will always be higher. Who cares? Just make the conversion. Higher numbers, lower numbers, it doesn't make it tougher or easier, it's just different. Learn how to measure in inches and cm and do the conversion.

The really funny thing about this subject is that if this was posted prior to the advent of CACG almost everyone here (yourself included) would have replied that PCGS is the toughest "hands down". That kool-aid is a real B.

That was before I had the revelation that it was wrong to hold and compare each TPG to some idea of a "universal standard" when each TPG has dutifully created and adopted their own standards. What is fair to do is to note how consistent they are at applying their own standards on their own slabs, but to compare one TPG's standard to another's standard and make claims about which one is better or tougher or stricter is just silly. As collectors we should just learn and acknowledge the differences and buy, sell, and collect accordingly.

The only caveat being the one I've already admitted and stated which is that CACG is by far the least tolerant of Details conditions. Comparing "Details" standards is a very valid exercise but I'm not sure there's much disagreement or argument about who's tougher than who details-wise.

Married2Coins

@MFeld said:

@Married2Coins said:

@CRHer700 said:
PCGS version 1 slabs are usually undergraded if you can find them.

Yes, under graded by today's standards. From what I have seen sine the 1980's, each new TPGS started out conservative. Therefore virtually any thirty year old slab is now under graded.

I have to disagree about coins in thirty year-old holders. Over the years, many, if not most of them have been picked over, with undegraded coins having been resubmitted and the rest, remaining in their old holders.

Silly me. of course you are correct.. Most slabs are correctly graded for the standard (LOL) existing when they were slabbed. Under graded coins eventually are graded correctly the next time around and over graded coins stay put. I happen to deal with a lot of old friends who have TPGS coins in decades old holders which would now get gold beans! Therefore, I did not see the whole picture and you are correct. Only the old slabs in strong hands should apply to my post.

124Spider

@coinbuf said:

@124Spider said:
I agree that CACG is the most "conservative." I don't agree that this is "best."

When buying, I will pay a premium for a CAC sticker, and I would pay a premium for a CACG-holdered coin, all else being equal, compared to any other TPG.

But, unlike the more orthodox folks here, I am a fan of so-called "market grading," since I think it's the market's job to decide how bad is bad enough for "details" purgatory, not a TPG's job. I cannot imagine a circumstance that would cause me to send a coin into CACG for grading.

Market grading has nothing to do with the market deciding to accept or not detail coins. In fact, market grading has nothing to do with the market at all, market grading is all about gradeflation.

Acknowledging that I could be wrong, I have the sense that "market grading" includes allowing old, gentle, non-obvious cleanings to be straight-graded (at least relating to expensive coins). That, to me, is the equivalent of acknowledging that the market does not want those coins to be consigned to purgatory.

PerryHall

I have a question for the low-ball coin collectors. Would you rather have a coin with a Fair-2 label in a PCGS slab or CACG slab? When you consider CACG's reputation for conservative grading, wouldn't the PCGS slab be more desirable for a low-ball coin?

MFeld

@ProofCollection said:

@MFeld said:

@ProofCollection said:

@MFeld said:

@ProofCollection said:

@coinbuf said:

@ProofCollection said:
None of the TPG's are tougher than any other. They all have different standards. The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers. Do you want a 6 inch sandwich or a 15.24cm sandwich?

I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest.

The toughest according to who? It's OK to prefer the CACG measuring stick, but they shouldn't be preferred because they hand out the lower numbers. People are of the impression that NGC 65 (should be) = PCGS 65 (should be) = CACG 65 but that isn't the case, and it is not something the companies or industry is aspiring to. When I look at an NGC MS66FT dime I generally assume it is a PCGS MS65 FB and then of course visually verify that as the spectrums overlap a bit. As mentioned a long while ago, I'm still awaiting the results, but I bought an MS64 CACG Morgan that I expect will cross to PCGS at MS65. Different measuring sticks. One is not better or stricter than the other though one might closer match your personal measuring stick. My measuring stick is the same one that PCGS uses. It's like measuring in inches and centimeters. Just do the conversion if you want to compare. Whether you measure in inches or cm, all that matters is that you understand the measuring stick. But to say one is better than another is, well, like debating the superiority of imperial units and the metric system.

Your comment about market grading definitely has merit though, as tolerance for surface conditions does vary and CACG is by far the least tolerant.

In answer to your question, CACG is the toughest according to a lot of people and you're one of them.
There's no need to make this complicated. You wrote "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers." That, in itself, makes them (what most would say is) the "toughest".
As @coinbuf posted: "I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest."

Everyone's free to prefer one grading company over others an/or believe that one is more accurate. But those questions weren't the one that were posed at the beginning of this thread.

Then you don't understand what I am saying. An SAE ruler is not more conservative or more accurate than a metric ruler. They are different ways of measuring the same thing. Every TPG has their own ruler. A PCGS MS65 may be a CACG 64. One is not "more correct" and one is not "wrong" and one is not "more conservative" just because the number 64 is less than 65. It's clear that a large part of the PCGS 65 spectrum overlaps the CACG 64 spectrum if you laid out the PCGS and CACG rulers next to each other.

The OP's question was to rate/rank TPGs about how conservative they are. This cannot be done unless you want to simply spell out who tends to hand out lower numbers, but again, that is not because they are conservative, it's because the lines on their ruler are in different places. This exercise is not particularly meaningful IMO.

Grading accuracy would just be how wide the distribution is if you were to submit the same coin for grading 100 times, would it come back the same grade every time and how does it vary against the TPG's published (or unpublished) standards? CACG calling a coin 64 and PCGS calling it 65 does not mean one company is inaccurate. What you maybe can say is that one company does not follow the ANA (or insert another name) standard. This is also true because again, all TPGs seem to have their own standards.

I will point out that this is why price guides differentiate PCGS and NGC and CAC pricing because the price guides recognize that "the rulers are different."

The only way that I recognize that CACG is tougher is in their lack of tolerance for Details conditions.

I understood what you were saying. I didn't comment on any company being "more correct", "accurate", "wrong", or "grading accuracy" as none of that pertained to the question asked by the OP. Instead, I commented on which company was the "toughest" or most "conservative". But you keep posting about those other considerations.

Again, you wrote "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers."
That, in itself, makes them (what most would say is) the "toughest".

Well if you define "toughest" to be the tendency to give out the lowest number, fine. But to me that doesn't make them "tough." They're using a different scale than the other TPGs so you will get lower numbers. Again, am I "tougher" when I measure your sandwich and it is 6 inches long rather than 15.24cm just because the number is lower? Or do you just realize it's the same and make the conversion?

@coinbuf said:

@ProofCollection said:

@coinbuf said:

@ProofCollection said:
None of the TPG's are tougher than any other. They all have different standards. The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get higher numbers. Do you want a 6 inch sandwich or a 15.24cm sandwich?

I think it is fair to say that if CACG has the hardest or perhaps more correctly stated the most conservative grading standard that equates to the toughest.

The toughest according to who? It's OK to prefer the CACG measuring stick, but they shouldn't be preferred because they hand out the lower numbers. People are of the impression that NGC 65 (should be) = PCGS 65 (should be) = CACG 65 but that isn't the case, and it is not something the companies or industry is aspiring to. When I look at an NGC MS66FT dime I generally assume it is a PCGS MS65 FB and then of course visually verify that as the spectrums overlap a bit. As mentioned a long while ago, I'm still awaiting the results, but I bought an MS64 CACG Morgan that I expect will cross to PCGS at MS65. Different measuring sticks. One is not better or stricter than the other though one might closer match your personal measuring stick. My measuring stick is the same one that PCGS uses. It's like measuring in inches and centimeters. Just do the conversion if you want to compare. Whether you measure in inches or cm, all that matters is that you understand the measuring stick. But to say one is better than another is, well, like debating the superiority of imperial units and the metric system.

Your comment about market grading definitely has merit though, as tolerance for surface conditions does vary and CACG is by far the least tolerant.

As Mark pointed out you yourself admit that CAC is the toughest when you posted "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest". Determining which TPG is the toughest has nothing to do with which yardstick you prefer, it has to do with which TPG has the most stringent grading.

You didn't provide the full quote. I said, "The standard that CACG uses is the one that makes it hardest to get the higher numbers." Again, OK, so CACG measures in inches and PCGS measures in cm so PCGS numbers will always be higher. Who cares? Just make the conversion. Higher numbers, lower numbers, it doesn't make it tougher or easier, it's just different. Learn how to measure in inches and cm and do the conversion.

The really funny thing about this subject is that if this was posted prior to the advent of CACG almost everyone here (yourself included) would have replied that PCGS is the toughest "hands down". That kool-aid is a real B.

That was before I had the revelation that it was wrong to hold and compare each TPG to some idea of a "universal standard" when each TPG has dutifully created and adopted their own standards. What is fair to do is to note how consistent they are at applying their own standards on their own slabs, but to compare one TPG's standard to another's standard and make claims about which one is better or tougher or stricter is just silly. As collectors we should just learn and acknowledge the differences and buy, sell, and collect accordingly.

The only caveat being the one I've already admitted and stated which is that CACG is by far the least tolerant of Details conditions. Comparing "Details" standards is a very valid exercise but I'm not sure there's much disagreement or argument about who's tougher than who details-wise.

Yes, the tendency to give out the lowest number grade makes a grading company the “toughest”, “most conservative”, “strictest”, etc.

And your analogy to measuring distance in inches vs. cm is way off. An on-point one would be grading coins on a 60-point scale vs. a 100 point scale with each company grading/“measuring” the same, if the conversion of the scales is taken into account.

MFeld

@Married2Coins said:

@MFeld said:

@Married2Coins said:

@CRHer700 said:
PCGS version 1 slabs are usually undergraded if you can find them.

Yes, under graded by today's standards. From what I have seen sine the 1980's, each new TPGS started out conservative. Therefore virtually any thirty year old slab is now under graded.

I have to disagree about coins in thirty year-old holders. Over the years, many, if not most of them have been picked over, with undegraded coins having been resubmitted and the rest, remaining in their old holders.

Silly me. of course you are correct.. Most slabs are correctly graded for the standard (LOL) existing when they were slabbed. Under graded coins eventually are graded correctly the next time around and over graded coins stay put. I happen to deal with a lot of old friends who have TPGS coins in decades old holders which would now get gold beans! Therefore, I did not see the whole picture and you are correct. Only the old slabs in strong hands should apply to my post.

It sounds like you’re dealing with the right group of friends.😉

It can be a real pleasure to view a long-held collection of coins in old holders, owned by discerning collectors. And on the very rare occasions when such collections are auctioned without first being resubmitted, you can expect a bidding frenzy.

Copperindian

@MFeld said:

@Married2Coins said:

@MFeld said:

@Married2Coins said:

@CRHer700 said:
PCGS version 1 slabs are usually undergraded if you can find them.

Yes, under graded by today's standards. From what I have seen sine the 1980's, each new TPGS started out conservative. Therefore virtually any thirty year old slab is now under graded.

I have to disagree about coins in thirty year-old holders. Over the years, many, if not most of them have been picked over, with undegraded coins having been resubmitted and the rest, remaining in their old holders.

Silly me. of course you are correct.. Most slabs are correctly graded for the standard (LOL) existing when they were slabbed. Under graded coins eventually are graded correctly the next time around and over graded coins stay put. I happen to deal with a lot of old friends who have TPGS coins in decades old holders which would now get gold beans! Therefore, I did not see the whole picture and you are correct. Only the old slabs in strong hands should apply to my post.

It sounds like you’re dealing with the right group of friends.😉

It can be a real pleasure to view a long-held collection of coins in old holders, owned by discerning collectors. And on the very rare occasions when such collections are auctioned without first being resubmitted, you can expect a bidding frenzy.

And it’s even better if the old holders aren’t scuffed up from many years of handling! Maybe JMO….

Alltheabove76

This kind of talk and attitude will just encourage TPG's to be more strict and unfair than they often already are. I dont want strict or loose grading, I just want accurate and fair grading. I guess that will never really happen until AI and computers can take over the process and use only objective standards for grading.

SimonW

@PerryHall you bring up an interesting, yet humorous point. I've though about this a little. One of my back burner collecting pursuits is a lowball set. I don't usually buy them, I find low grade coins and send them in to PCGS, it's kinda fun.

I don't think it's terribly different from collecting at the high end. There are people that know coins, that do very diligent research and consideration while selecting which coins they'll purchase, they don't consider the holder's grade as part of their determination except as a confirmation of what they believe about the coin. If that confirmation is off, perhaps more research is required or the coin is in the wrong holder. They buy the coin, not the holder, other people buy the number on the holder, as long as they don't hate the coin, that's ok.

With lowball coins, I have a few that are graded PO1 that are clearly quite meaty for the grade. A lock for a gold sticker. I would like to downgrade those immediately to a coin with more wear, because they don't belong in that holder 😂. I want my lowball to be GENUINELY the lowest grades possible, not just a number on the holder.

I would hope people collecting the best have the same philosophy, just in the opposite direction. It fits the grade. It's not overgraded, it's not undergraded.

JCH22

Bambino2?

Cougar1978

Have to Rolf at this thread. Do you want good grades or the lowest?

I remember a Frat guy advised Jim years ago as far as corp finance prof Parrish was the toughest (2/3 D and F) , Lewis midrange, Jamieson easiest. Jim rushed over to Finance dept table got Jamieson (last seat available, thanking his lucky stars). Got a B under Jamieson.