I don't understand the appeal of a service that (assuming an even distribution across the grading spectrum, intentionally and by policy misgrades about 1/3 of coins.
Serious question: How can they misgrade if grading criteria is different for every TPG?
I don't understand the appeal of a service that (assuming an even distribution across the grading spectrum, intentionally and by policy misgrades about 1/3 of coins.
Serious question: How can they misgrade if grading criteria is different for every TPG?
Because if they determine a coin falls into the "C" spectrum, the grade they assign is one grade lower. So that MS65 "C" coin you send them, they know it should be MS65 but they put MS64 on the label instead.
Thus grading it by their own standard and not the standard of another TPG, which is in perfect agreement with your statement that each TPG has its own measuring stick.
@M4Madness said:
Thus grading it by their own standard and not the standard of another TPG, which is in perfect agreement with your statement that each TPG has its own measuring stick.
I get what you're saying but it's two different things because they do recognize (for example) a 65 "C" coin as a 65, they just refuse to label it as such. Their measuring stick says 65 "C". They just refuse to label it as such per their standard.
I don't understand the appeal of a service that (assuming an even distribution across the grading spectrum, intentionally and by policy misgrades about 1/3 of coins.
Serious question: How can they misgrade if grading criteria is different for every TPG?
When you don't get the grade you want, or think it is, it is a misgrade...
@M4Madness said:
Thus grading it by their own standard and not the standard of another TPG, which is in perfect agreement with your statement that each TPG has its own measuring stick.
I get what you're saying but it's two different things because they do recognize (for example) a 65 "C" coin as a 65, they just refuse to label it as such. Their measuring stick says 65 "C". They just refuse to label it as such per their standard.
No. If they considered it a 65, it would be in a 65 holder. They do NOT consider it to be a 65, just because P or N do.
@M4Madness said:
Thus grading it by their own standard and not the standard of another TPG, which is in perfect agreement with your statement that each TPG has its own measuring stick.
I get what you're saying but it's two different things because they do recognize (for example) a 65 "C" coin as a 65, they just refuse to label it as such. Their measuring stick says 65 "C". They just refuse to label it as such per their standard.
No. If they considered it a 65, it would be in a 65 holder. They do NOT consider it to be a 65, just because P or N do.
Full disclaimer: I am not a fan of CAC.
As I understand it, CACG grades a coin as a specific grade if and only if that coin, were it previously graded by NGC or PCGS, would warrant a green CAC sticker (or be a lower-end coin in the next higher grade); a CACG grade is equivalent to a CAC (green) sticker on a PCGS or NGC slab (or a C coin in the next higher grade).
CAC explicitly says on its website that failure to receive a CAC sticker does NOT mean that the coin was misgraded.
So CACG is grading a coin that they acknowledge is correctly graded as "N," but a C coin in "N," at N-1.
So, either (i) CACG grades are different from CAC (green) stickered coins (not what has been advertised, IMO), or (ii) your "No" is incorrect.
@M4Madness said:
Thus grading it by their own standard and not the standard of another TPG, which is in perfect agreement with your statement that each TPG has its own measuring stick.
I get what you're saying but it's two different things because they do recognize (for example) a 65 "C" coin as a 65, they just refuse to label it as such. Their measuring stick says 65 "C". They just refuse to label it as such per their standard.
No. If they considered it a 65, it would be in a 65 holder. They do NOT consider it to be a 65, just because P or N do.
Full disclaimer: I am not a fan of CAC.
As I understand it, CACG grades a coin as a specific grade if and only if that coin, were it previously graded by NGC or PCGS, would warrant a green CAC sticker (or be a lower-end coin in the next higher grade); a CACG grade is equivalent to a CAC (green) sticker on a PCGS or NGC slab (or a C coin in the next higher grade).
CAC explicitly says on its website that failure to receive a CAC sticker does NOT mean that the coin was misgraded.
So CACG is grading a coin that they acknowledge is correctly graded as "N," but a C coin in "N," at N-1.
So, either (i) CACG grades are different from CAC (green) stickered coins (not what has been advertised, IMO), or (ii) your "No" is incorrect.
Still NO.
I think vpeople are confusing the Legacy crossovers with regular grading.
CACG puts a 65 on ALL COINS that it deems to be 65s. Please show me any evidence to the contrary. Whether they view all N or P 65s as 65s is another matter.
While CAC stickering has always said that failure to sticker has never meant that the coin was overgraded, they also never indicated that none of those coins were overgraded. Some will even get details grades.
You are assuming that all PCGS 65s are 65s. By CAC's more rigid standards, they are not. It is simply not accurate and stated without evidence that CACG is putting MS65 C coins in 64 holders. It would be accurate to say that CACG views SOME PCGS 65 coins as details coins or 64s. That is inevitable if you have a stricter standard.
If PCGS puts a SEGS 66 in a 65 holder, would you call that PCGS downgrading a 66 C coin?
CACG modern coins also have a tougher standard. Below all from the CACG website. Of note is that NO post-mint damage is allowed.
Hobbyists and collectors will have total confidence in a coin certified by CAC as we determine a coin's grade by quality alone. We are confident that fewer coins submitted to us will achieve the ultimate grade of 70 than historical industry standards, letting CAC modern coins speak for themselves in the market.
Modern Grading Standards
Though grading is a subjective concept, we have tried to put our modern grading standards into words. Note that none of these standards allow for post-mint damage, so significant or discernable contact marks, such as reed marks, are unacceptable.
MS or PR70: There is no such thing as a “perfect” coin. Our MS70 or PR70 coin is a coin that is nearly flawless when viewed at x5 magnification. It is exceptionally well-struck with minimal mint-made flaws.
MS or PR69: A well-struck coin with very slight mint-made imperfections. These imperfections do not detract from the eye appeal of the coin.
MS or PR68: A well-struck coin that has some mint-made imperfections that may detract from the overall eye appeal of the coin.
Update: Have a slab box of CACG but they are going to have to pay me the money to get them. Buyer if deal is there. I have an Anacs 70 ASE that’s a tad nicer than one of my CACG 70 ASE so as far as the holder game YMMV.
I keep a copy of our hosts grading standards for quick reference (as needed) along with my CDN publications.
@M4Madness said:
Thus grading it by their own standard and not the standard of another TPG, which is in perfect agreement with your statement that each TPG has its own measuring stick.
I get what you're saying but it's two different things because they do recognize (for example) a 65 "C" coin as a 65, they just refuse to label it as such. Their measuring stick says 65 "C". They just refuse to label it as such per their standard.
No. If they considered it a 65, it would be in a 65 holder. They do NOT consider it to be a 65, just because P or N do.
Full disclaimer: I am not a fan of CAC.
As I understand it, CACG grades a coin as a specific grade if and only if that coin, were it previously graded by NGC or PCGS, would warrant a green CAC sticker (or be a lower-end coin in the next higher grade); a CACG grade is equivalent to a CAC (green) sticker on a PCGS or NGC slab (or a C coin in the next higher grade).
CAC explicitly says on its website that failure to receive a CAC sticker does NOT mean that the coin was misgraded.
So CACG is grading a coin that they acknowledge is correctly graded as "N," but a C coin in "N," at N-1.
So, either (i) CACG grades are different from CAC (green) stickered coins (not what has been advertised, IMO), or (ii) your "No" is incorrect.
Still NO.
I think vpeople are confusing the Legacy crossovers with regular grading.
CACG puts a 65 on ALL COINS that it deems to be 65s. Please show me any evidence to the contrary. Whether they view all N or P 65s as 65s is another matter.
While CAC stickering has always said that failure to sticker has never meant that the coin was overgraded, they also never indicated that none of those coins were overgraded. Some will even get details grades.
You are assuming that all PCGS 65s are 65s. By CAC's more rigid standards, they are not. It is simply not accurate and stated without evidence that CACG is putting MS65 C coins in 64 holders. It would be accurate to say that CACG views SOME PCGS 65 coins as details coins or 64s. That is inevitable if you have a stricter standard.
If PCGS puts a SEGS 66 in a 65 holder, would you call that PCGS downgrading a 66 C coin?
I don't even think you needed to dig in that far, there was a word left out the completely changes the foundation of that argument:
"CAC explicitly says on its website that failure to receive a CAC sticker does NOT mean that the coin was misgraded."
Incorrect. The way it reads is -
"CAC explicitly says on its website that failure to receive a CAC sticker does not NECESSARILY mean that the coin was misgraded."
@M4Madness said:
Thus grading it by their own standard and not the standard of another TPG, which is in perfect agreement with your statement that each TPG has its own measuring stick.
I get what you're saying but it's two different things because they do recognize (for example) a 65 "C" coin as a 65, they just refuse to label it as such. Their measuring stick says 65 "C". They just refuse to label it as such per their standard.
No. If they considered it a 65, it would be in a 65 holder. They do NOT consider it to be a 65, just because P or N do.
Full disclaimer: I am not a fan of CAC.
As I understand it, CACG grades a coin as a specific grade if and only if that coin, were it previously graded by NGC or PCGS, would warrant a green CAC sticker (or be a lower-end coin in the next higher grade); a CACG grade is equivalent to a CAC (green) sticker on a PCGS or NGC slab (or a C coin in the next higher grade).
CAC explicitly says on its website that failure to receive a CAC sticker does NOT mean that the coin was misgraded.
So CACG is grading a coin that they acknowledge is correctly graded as "N," but a C coin in "N," at N-1.
So, either (i) CACG grades are different from CAC (green) stickered coins (not what has been advertised, IMO), or (ii) your "No" is incorrect.
Still NO.
I think vpeople are confusing the Legacy crossovers with regular grading.
CACG puts a 65 on ALL COINS that it deems to be 65s. Please show me any evidence to the contrary. Whether they view all N or P 65s as 65s is another matter.
While CAC stickering has always said that failure to sticker has never meant that the coin was overgraded, they also never indicated that none of those coins were overgraded. Some will even get details grades.
You are assuming that all PCGS 65s are 65s. By CAC's more rigid standards, they are not. It is simply not accurate and stated without evidence that CACG is putting MS65 C coins in 64 holders. It would be accurate to say that CACG views SOME PCGS 65 coins as details coins or 64s. That is inevitable if you have a stricter standard.
If PCGS puts a SEGS 66 in a 65 holder, would you call that PCGS downgrading a 66 C coin?
I don't even think you needed to dig in that far, there was a word left out the completely changes the foundation of that argument:
"CAC explicitly says on its website that failure to receive a CAC sticker does NOT mean that the coin was misgraded."
Incorrect. The way it reads is -
"CAC explicitly says on its website that failure to receive a CAC sticker does not NECESSARILY mean that the coin was misgraded."
Yes. I agree without reservations. I was getting to illustrate the point. I'm not sure where this urban legend that all 65 C coins are automatically being downgraded even came from yet it's been repeated by multiple people in multiple threads. I doubt CACG would even bother to check their database on crossovers. I'm sure they simply look at the coin and apply a grade.
@ProofCollection said:
That's because there's a false belief or refusal to accept the fact that the TPGs do not use the same standards. This is fine, it's not a bad thing. But now it's incumbent on dealers and collectors to understand the differences and buy/sell accordingly.
@ProofCollection said:
Because if they determine a coin falls into the "C" spectrum, the grade they assign is one grade lower. So that MS65 "C" coin you send them, they know it should be MS65 but they put MS64 on the label instead.
These two statements that you have written are incongruent and incorrect in some ways. But the real problem here is that too many have taken the A,B,C, concept to heart and want to apply it like it is a hard and fast rule, it is not. The whole A,B,C, thing was a way to explain, in a very basic way, why some coins will fail to receive a bean without tanking the market for coins without a bean.
CACG operates slightly differently but within the same construct, if a coin is low end they feel it should be given a lower grade; with a + if it really rides the line. The concept is (imo) when you see a CACG MS65 coin you say wow that is a really nice 65, not wow what a doggy 65 which has been said for many other TPG coins. This is not a conspiracy to hoodwink submitters or buyers, just (as you wrote) a different grading standard and concept than is used by PCGS and NGC. And it is one of the reasons why CACG coins are selling for top end prices, and top end priced coins often tend to sell at a slightly slower pace.
@M4Madness said:
Thus grading it by their own standard and not the standard of another TPG, which is in perfect agreement with your statement that each TPG has its own measuring stick.
I get what you're saying but it's two different things because they do recognize (for example) a 65 "C" coin as a 65, they just refuse to label it as such. Their measuring stick says 65 "C". They just refuse to label it as such per their standard.
No. If they considered it a 65, it would be in a 65 holder. They do NOT consider it to be a 65, just because P or N do.
Full disclaimer: I am not a fan of CAC.
As I understand it, CACG grades a coin as a specific grade if and only if that coin, were it previously graded by NGC or PCGS, would warrant a green CAC sticker (or be a lower-end coin in the next higher grade); a CACG grade is equivalent to a CAC (green) sticker on a PCGS or NGC slab (or a C coin in the next higher grade).
CAC explicitly says on its website that failure to receive a CAC sticker does NOT mean that the coin was misgraded.
So CACG is grading a coin that they acknowledge is correctly graded as "N," but a C coin in "N," at N-1.
So, either (i) CACG grades are different from CAC (green) stickered coins (not what has been advertised, IMO), or (ii) your "No" is incorrect.
Still NO.
I think vpeople are confusing the Legacy crossovers with regular grading.
CACG puts a 65 on ALL COINS that it deems to be 65s. Please show me any evidence to the contrary. Whether they view all N or P 65s as 65s is another matter.
While CAC stickering has always said that failure to sticker has never meant that the coin was overgraded, they also never indicated that none of those coins were overgraded. Some will even get details grades.
You are assuming that all PCGS 65s are 65s. By CAC's more rigid standards, they are not. It is simply not accurate and stated without evidence that CACG is putting MS65 C coins in 64 holders. It would be accurate to say that CACG views SOME PCGS 65 coins as details coins or 64s. That is inevitable if you have a stricter standard.
If PCGS puts a SEGS 66 in a 65 holder, would you call that PCGS downgrading a 66 C coin?
I don't even think you needed to dig in that far, there was a word left out the completely changes the foundation of that argument:
"CAC explicitly says on its website that failure to receive a CAC sticker does NOT mean that the coin was misgraded."
Incorrect. The way it reads is -
"CAC explicitly says on its website that failure to receive a CAC sticker does not NECESSARILY mean that the coin was misgraded."
Yes. I agree without reservations. I was getting to illustrate the point. I'm not sure where this urban legend that all 65 C coins are automatically being downgraded even came from yet it's been repeated by multiple people in multiple threads. I doubt CACG would even bother to check their database on crossovers. I'm sure they simply look at the coin and apply a grade.
The so-called “urban legend” you mentioned is the result of comments from CACG personnel and a lengthy discussion on the CAC website. As I recall, it was stated that CACG didn’t want low-end coins in their holders, so C- quality coins would be graded a point lower and have a plus added. In other words, as an example, a 65-C would be graded 64+. It didn’t sound realistic or like a good idea to me.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
How many of us wish that CAC had simply said “ IN OUR OPINION coins that do not receive a sticker deserve a lower numeric grade, or have an inaccurate designation (e.g. as PL, full head, red, etc.), or might even deserve a ‘details’ grade.”
@oldabeintx said:
How many of us wish that CAC had simply said “ IN OUR OPINION coins that do not receive a sticker deserve a lower numeric grade, or have an inaccurate designation (e.g. as PL, full head, red, etc.), or might even deserve a ‘details’ grade.”
That would mean coins that were low end (with accurate designations) and worthy of straight grades would receive stickers. And that would run contrary to their stated policy.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@oldabeintx said:
How many of us wish that CAC had simply said “ IN OUR OPINION coins that do not receive a sticker deserve a lower numeric grade, or have an inaccurate designation (e.g. as PL, full head, red, etc.), or might even deserve a ‘details’ grade.”
That would mean coins that were low end (with accurate designations) and worthy of straight grades would receive stickers. And that would run contrary to their stated policy.
I’m saying that there are no “low end” coins deserving a specific numeric grade. No such thing as a C coin deserving grade xx. At least that’s what I’m trying to get at.
The “soft” policy statements by CAC are likely meant to placate the other services, and to restate the obvious - that grades are an opinion - but create confusion and ambiguity.
How about: “If a coin has our green sticker, it means that JA agrees with the descriptors on the holder, but is not giving an opinion as to any plus designation”.
@oldabeintx said:
How many of us wish that CAC had simply said “ IN OUR OPINION coins that do not receive a sticker deserve a lower numeric grade, or have an inaccurate designation (e.g. as PL, full head, red, etc.), or might even deserve a ‘details’ grade.”
That would mean coins that were low end (with accurate designations) and worthy of straight grades would receive stickers. And that would run contrary to their stated policy.
I’m saying that there are no “low end” coins deserving a specific numeric grade. No such thing as a C coin deserving grade xx. At least that’s what I’m trying to get at.
The “soft” policy statements by CAC are likely meant to placate the other services, and to restate the obvious - that grades are an opinion - but create confusion and ambiguity.
Sure there are low-end coins for assigned grades, just as there are high-end ones. The former are coins which many/most knowledgeable graders feel just make the grade, but make it, nevertheless.
At the same time, I agree about the “soft” policy statements.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@jmlanzaf said:
I think vpeople are confusing the Legacy crossovers with regular grading. I'm not sure where this urban legend that all 65 C coins are automatically being downgraded even came from yet it's been repeated by multiple people in multiple threads.
@PerryHall said:
Collectors who are participating in the NGC or PCGS registry programs are less likely to be interested in buying CACG graded coins.
This is where I'm at for my mid-grade Barber half set. It doesn't make sense for me to pay a premium for a piece and then turn around and cross it over to PCGS for even more money.
@GotTheBug said:
I'm a huge CAC fan, my personal collection is CAC driven, but CACG is nonsense.
But they use identical grading standards for CAC stickering and CACG grading. If that half got a CACG grade, it means it would sticker at that grade. Do you mean to say that you have never seen coins you did not like in other TPG holders?
Here is a better set of images for it. Mottled toning like this can form in many ways, it does not mean the coin had a “HEAVY old dip”. I have seen 10000s of coins in all 3 major TPG’s holders I don’t like. But that does not mean they are ’nonsense’…………..
@PerryHall said:
Collectors who are participating in the NGC or PCGS registry programs are less likely to be interested in buying CACG graded coins.
This is where I'm at for my mid-grade Barber half set. It doesn't make sense for me to pay a premium for a piece and then turn around and cross it over to PCGS for even more money.
CAC allows all 3 major TPG’s in their registry. I am switching mine over to CAC bc I don’t want to, for example, cross my stunning coins that are in old NGC Fatty’s that can’t be in my PCGS registry, or cross my coins in old PCGS holders. Thus the combination of being able to have all 3 TPG holders does not limit me for collecting if I put them in a registry, and I can instead focus on getting the best coin for my interests……….. To each their own on how they want to collect though………………...
@M4Madness said:
Thus grading it by their own standard and not the standard of another TPG, which is in perfect agreement with your statement that each TPG has its own measuring stick.
I get what you're saying but it's two different things because they do recognize (for example) a 65 "C" coin as a 65, they just refuse to label it as such. Their measuring stick says 65 "C". They just refuse to label it as such per their standard.
No. If they considered it a 65, it would be in a 65 holder. They do NOT consider it to be a 65, just because P or N do.
Maybe I'm being misunderstood. CACG recognizes low end material, aka "C" coins. They very well do recognize a coin as a low end 65 but refuse to call it that, instead giving it 64 or 64+ in this example. I don't believe their graders look at a problem free PCGS 65 "C" and don't acknowledge it to be a low end 65 in their head, but the CAC standards mandate that it be labelled a 64. The opposite of when your mother-in-law brings her casserole over and you recognize that it's not great, but you say it's good anyway.
@M4Madness said:
Thus grading it by their own standard and not the standard of another TPG, which is in perfect agreement with your statement that each TPG has its own measuring stick.
I get what you're saying but it's two different things because they do recognize (for example) a 65 "C" coin as a 65, they just refuse to label it as such. Their measuring stick says 65 "C". They just refuse to label it as such per their standard.
No. If they considered it a 65, it would be in a 65 holder. They do NOT consider it to be a 65, just because P or N do.
Full disclaimer: I am not a fan of CAC.
As I understand it, CACG grades a coin as a specific grade if and only if that coin, were it previously graded by NGC or PCGS, would warrant a green CAC sticker (or be a lower-end coin in the next higher grade); a CACG grade is equivalent to a CAC (green) sticker on a PCGS or NGC slab (or a C coin in the next higher grade).
CAC explicitly says on its website that failure to receive a CAC sticker does NOT mean that the coin was misgraded.
So CACG is grading a coin that they acknowledge is correctly graded as "N," but a C coin in "N," at N-1.
So, either (i) CACG grades are different from CAC (green) stickered coins (not what has been advertised, IMO), or (ii) your "No" is incorrect.
Still NO.
I think vpeople are confusing the Legacy crossovers with regular grading.
CACG puts a 65 on ALL COINS that it deems to be 65s. Please show me any evidence to the contrary. Whether they view all N or P 65s as 65s is another matter.
While CAC stickering has always said that failure to sticker has never meant that the coin was overgraded, they also never indicated that none of those coins were overgraded. Some will even get details grades.
You are assuming that all PCGS 65s are 65s. By CAC's more rigid standards, they are not. It is simply not accurate and stated without evidence that CACG is putting MS65 C coins in 64 holders. It would be accurate to say that CACG views SOME PCGS 65 coins as details coins or 64s. That is inevitable if you have a stricter standard.
If PCGS puts a SEGS 66 in a 65 holder, would you call that PCGS downgrading a 66 C coin?
I don't even think you needed to dig in that far, there was a word left out the completely changes the foundation of that argument:
"CAC explicitly says on its website that failure to receive a CAC sticker does NOT mean that the coin was misgraded."
Incorrect. The way it reads is -
"CAC explicitly says on its website that failure to receive a CAC sticker does not NECESSARILY mean that the coin was misgraded."
Yes. I agree without reservations. I was getting to illustrate the point. I'm not sure where this urban legend that all 65 C coins are automatically being downgraded even came from yet it's been repeated by multiple people in multiple threads. I doubt CACG would even bother to check their database on crossovers. I'm sure they simply look at the coin and apply a grade.
The so-called “urban legend” you mentioned is the result of comments from CACG personnel and a lengthy discussion on the CAC website. As I recall, it was stated that CACG didn’t want low-end coins in their holders, so C- quality coins would be graded a point lower and have a plus added. In other words, as an example, a 65-C would be graded 64+. It didn’t sound realistic or like a good idea to me.
Except what that implies to me is that a PCGS 65C is a CACG 64+. It's a different standard. It is not logical to take that to mean that CACG considers the coin by its standard to be a 65C but slaps a 64+ on it.
The entire ABC thing is being twisted around and i wonder if JA is duty he ever used the metaphor. No matter what your standard is, there will ALWAYS be 65C coins if you take the C to indicate the bottom 30 or 40% of the distribution.
@M4Madness said:
Thus grading it by their own standard and not the standard of another TPG, which is in perfect agreement with your statement that each TPG has its own measuring stick.
I get what you're saying but it's two different things because they do recognize (for example) a 65 "C" coin as a 65, they just refuse to label it as such. Their measuring stick says 65 "C". They just refuse to label it as such per their standard.
No. If they considered it a 65, it would be in a 65 holder. They do NOT consider it to be a 65, just because P or N do.
Maybe I'm being misunderstood. CACG recognizes low end material, aka "C" coins. They very well do recognize a coin as a low end 65 but refuse to call it that, instead giving it 64 or 64+ in this example. I don't believe their graders look at a problem free PCGS 65 "C" and don't acknowledge it to be a low end 65 in their head, but the CAC standards mandate that it be labelled a 64. The opposite of when your mother-in-law brings her casserole over and you recognize that it's not great, but you say it's good anyway.
I agree with that interpretation. But that is simply a different, stricter standard.
I’ve not purchased any CACG coins yet but have several PCGS graded coins with stickers. I’m afraid of overpaying for CACG due to hype. The statements made earlier regarding pricing seem logical to me, that CACG should be worth less than PCGS + CAC. In the latter case two independent grading companies have examined the coin and agree on the grade, versus just one for CACG.
@KSorbo said:
I’ve not purchased any CACG coins yet but have several PCGS graded coins with stickers. I’m afraid of overpaying for CACG due to hype. The statements made earlier regarding pricing seem logical to me, that CACG should be worth less than PCGS + CAC. In the latter case two independent grading companies have examined the coin and agree on the grade, versus just one for CACG.
But if CAC grading standards are identical to CACG grading standards, which, I believe this to be the case and CAC/CACG has stated as such, then why would PCGS+CAC be more valuable than CACG?
My experience is that most experienced numismatists recognize this, and value equally CACG slabbed coins vs. other TPG+CAC stickered coins, but it appears many are sold on the idea that a TPG+CAC stickered coins is better (or what they want) so easier to sell as there are more people interested in these. For now. Registries have alot to do with this. I suspect that will change with time. CACG has only been around for a very short time and still their impact on the marketplace is huge and growing strongly. And they have an edge in their registry by allowing coins from other TPG’s into theirs. After all, who wants to cross a valuable coin in a Fatty (just one example) to something else and reduce its value just so it can be in a specific registry, when a registry exists where one does not have to do this? etc. But it will take time……………..
@KSorbo said:
I’ve not purchased any CACG coins yet but have several PCGS graded coins with stickers. I’m afraid of overpaying for CACG due to hype. The statements made earlier regarding pricing seem logical to me, that CACG should be worth less than PCGS + CAC. In the latter case two independent grading companies have examined the coin and agree on the grade, versus just one for CACG.
But if CAC grading standards are identical to CACG grading standards, which, I believe this to be the case and CAC/CACG has stated as such, then why would PCGS+CAC be more valuable than CACG?
I would venture to say that this is because regardless, 2 opinions are better than one. CAC and CACG make mistakes too. Getting a second opinion on record pretty much eliminates the possibility that the grade on the label is a mistake or fluke.
@KSorbo said:
I’ve not purchased any CACG coins yet but have several PCGS graded coins with stickers. I’m afraid of overpaying for CACG due to hype. The statements made earlier regarding pricing seem logical to me, that CACG should be worth less than PCGS + CAC. In the latter case two independent grading companies have examined the coin and agree on the grade, versus just one for CACG.
But if CAC grading standards are identical to CACG grading standards, which, I believe this to be the case and CAC/CACG has stated as such, then why would PCGS+CAC be more valuable than CACG?
I would venture to say that this is because regardless, 2 opinions are better than one. CAC and CACG make mistakes too. Getting a second opinion on record pretty much eliminates the possibility that the grade on the label is a mistake or fluke.
This. Not only are two opinions better than one, but it’s going to take time to be sure that CACG’s standards really are the same as CAC’s. It’s easy for them to say that and I have a lot of trust in their expertise, but still. If enough people are upset about otherwise market acceptable coins getting details grades, they may have to adjust to the market. So far the CACG coins I have looked at online look to be a cut above, with the exception of the ugly mottled bust half someone posted earlier.
@M4Madness said:
Thus grading it by their own standard and not the standard of another TPG, which is in perfect agreement with your statement that each TPG has its own measuring stick.
I get what you're saying but it's two different things because they do recognize (for example) a 65 "C" coin as a 65, they just refuse to label it as such. Their measuring stick says 65 "C". They just refuse to label it as such per their standard.
No. If they considered it a 65, it would be in a 65 holder. They do NOT consider it to be a 65, just because P or N do.
Maybe I'm being misunderstood. CACG recognizes low end material, aka "C" coins. They very well do recognize a coin as a low end 65 but refuse to call it that, instead giving it 64 or 64+ in this example. I don't believe their graders look at a problem free PCGS 65 "C" and don't acknowledge it to be a low end 65 in their head, but the CAC standards mandate that it be labelled a 64. The opposite of when your mother-in-law brings her casserole over and you recognize that it's not great, but you say it's good anyway.
I agree with that interpretation. But that is simply a different, stricter standard.
How strict can it be if your policy is to assign a different grade than what the coin otherwise deserves, say per ANA standards?
@M4Madness said:
Thus grading it by their own standard and not the standard of another TPG, which is in perfect agreement with your statement that each TPG has its own measuring stick.
I get what you're saying but it's two different things because they do recognize (for example) a 65 "C" coin as a 65, they just refuse to label it as such. Their measuring stick says 65 "C". They just refuse to label it as such per their standard.
No. If they considered it a 65, it would be in a 65 holder. They do NOT consider it to be a 65, just because P or N do.
Maybe I'm being misunderstood. CACG recognizes low end material, aka "C" coins. They very well do recognize a coin as a low end 65 but refuse to call it that, instead giving it 64 or 64+ in this example. I don't believe their graders look at a problem free PCGS 65 "C" and don't acknowledge it to be a low end 65 in their head, but the CAC standards mandate that it be labelled a 64. The opposite of when your mother-in-law brings her casserole over and you recognize that it's not great, but you say it's good anyway.
I agree with that interpretation. But that is simply a different, stricter standard.
How strict can it be if your policy is to assign a different grade than what the coin otherwise deserves, say per ANA standards?
I consider PCGS's grading criteria to be the current industry standard. At least we know where to send our raw coins if we want them to be undergraded.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@M4Madness said:
Thus grading it by their own standard and not the standard of another TPG, which is in perfect agreement with your statement that each TPG has its own measuring stick.
I get what you're saying but it's two different things because they do recognize (for example) a 65 "C" coin as a 65, they just refuse to label it as such. Their measuring stick says 65 "C". They just refuse to label it as such per their standard.
No. If they considered it a 65, it would be in a 65 holder. They do NOT consider it to be a 65, just because P or N do.
Maybe I'm being misunderstood. CACG recognizes low end material, aka "C" coins. They very well do recognize a coin as a low end 65 but refuse to call it that, instead giving it 64 or 64+ in this example. I don't believe their graders look at a problem free PCGS 65 "C" and don't acknowledge it to be a low end 65 in their head, but the CAC standards mandate that it be labelled a 64. The opposite of when your mother-in-law brings her casserole over and you recognize that it's not great, but you say it's good anyway.
I agree with that interpretation. But that is simply a different, stricter standard.
How strict can it be if your policy is to assign a different grade than what the coin otherwise deserves, say per ANA standards?
No one exactly uses the ANA standard suck hasn't changed in 50 years. Ifc you think they do, then you do not believe in gradeflation. And if you believe there has been gradeflation, then a tighter standards at CACG would be closer to the ANA standard. I'll let you decide what you believe.
‘’But if CAC grading standards are identical to CACG grading standards, which, I believe this to be the case and CAC/CACG has stated as such, then why would PCGS+CAC be more valuable than CACG?’’
New to the discussion, but you are essentially asking if a coin permitted in the PCGS Registry might be worth more than an identical coin NOT permitted in the PCGS Registry- yes? Well, that is the answer then-right?
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
This. Not only are two opinions better than one, but it’s going to take time to be sure that CACG’s standards really are the same as CAC’s. It’s easy for them to say that and I have a lot of trust in their expertise, but still. If enough people are upset about otherwise market acceptable coins getting details grades, they may have to adjust to the market. So far the CACG coins I have looked at online look to be a cut above, with the exception of the ugly mottled bust half someone posted earlier.
There are whole threads in the past here on mottled coins. I encourage anyone to read through them. One either likes mottled coins. Or not. Doesn’t have anything to do with which TPG slab they are in. Aplenty are in PCGS slabs. Since I have not seen the coin above in hand, I am not going to pass judgement on it. It might have a stunning luster beneath the tone and it might thus be stunning, the images won’t show that. Hmm……….
Sure the CACG standards could change and might slightly (probably) over time. But look at the fluctuations the other TPG’s have gone through, you can’t believe any grade without seeing them in hand and it helps if they have a CAC sticker. John Albanese has emphasized alot of key points that seem to support their effort for consistency going forward, including weekly review by the graders of their grading sets, not putting coins in a say, 65 holder that aren’t, like with surfaces that deserve to be detailed, etc. You can either believe him or not. I do, and my experience of submitting to CAC (over 300) over 15 years, and CACG (50 so far) is consistent with their message of consistency.
CACG has done a very smart thing, they have decided to grade moderns and I am sure, like PCGS, it is the lions share of their buisness. So they won’t have any financial incentive to change their grading standards on classic US coins bc it won’t be the key part of their buis. In fact, if you go to websites selling modern coins in CACG holders, they sell them for more than those in PCGS holders in many cases. They must be getting more for them or they could not list them at a higher price than the competition’s holders with the same coin. So this seems to be consistent with what I have seen for classic US coins - CACG coins go for more than other TPG coins without a CAC sticker on them.
BTW, there are not enough CACG coins in the wild yet to fully determine their value compared to TPG+CAC sticker, compared to TPG without sticker. But CACG runs a monthly newsletter documenting higher values for anything CAC. More CACG coins are coming to auction now, and the November issue linked below shows some. And they are going for more comparable non-CAC sticker slabs from other TPG's:
New to the discussion, but you are essentially asking if a coin permitted in the PCGS Registry might be worth more than an identical coin NOT permitted in the PCGS Registry- yes? Well, that is the answer then-right?
Wondercoin.
Respectfully, it’s the answer only so long as the PCGS registry is the only game in town. Some of us like the flexibility of the CACG registry. It acknowledges that there are great coins in stickered NGC holders.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
@Desert Moon said:
BTW, there are not enough CACG coins in the wild yet to fully determine their value compared to TPG+CAC sticker, compared to TPG without sticker. But CACG runs a monthly newsletter documenting higher values for anything CAC. More CACG coins are coming to auction now, and the November issue linked below shows some. And they are going for more comparable non-CAC sticker slabs from other TPG's:
You realize it's a gimmick though, right? I could start ProofCollection grading service where I take your PCGS and NGC coins and cross them over at [Grade - 1] and they would all bring premiums because people would see that they're fantastic coins when assessed against the criteria for the newly assigned grades. Then I too can publish articles about how my slabs bring premiums.
I see CAC material as a seperate inventory class. As a PCGS submitter PCGS is the recognized industry standard for many of us. I do have CACG (and acquire them if reasonable procurement) but they are going to have to step up and pay the money for them. And this has happened for me at shows. At last show 2 ladies (70-80 ish) stepped and bought a 2023 CACG MS69 Morgan Dollar from my table.
Not long ago a fellow posted a diagram illustrating (his take) CACG half point more conservative than non CAC. I drew myself a diagram of that. Then when procure CACG coins analyze their grading (my office what I call Area 51 lol) vs that concept. Some of these CACG coins I got have single digit pops. Means I probably have only one in the bourse room, sweet.
@Cougar1978 said:
I see CAC material as a seperate inventory class. As a PCGS submitter PCGS is the recognized industry standard for many of us. I do have CACG (and acquire them if reasonable procurement) but they are going to have to step up and pay the money for them. And this has happened for me at shows. At last show 2 ladies (70-80 ish) stepped and bought a 1923 CACG MS69 Morgan Dollar from my table.
Not long ago a fellow posted a diagram illustrating (his take) CACG half point more conservative than non CAC. I drew myself a diagram of that. Then when procure CACG coins analyze their grading vs that concept.
How much did you get for a 1923 Morgan!? In a CACG no less. Must be yowza money. 💰
@Cougar1978 said:
I see CAC material as a seperate inventory class. As a PCGS submitter PCGS is the recognized industry standard for many of us. I do have CACG (and acquire them if reasonable procurement) but they are going to have to step up and pay the money for them. And this has happened for me at shows. At last show 2 ladies (70-80 ish) stepped and bought a 1923 CACG MS69 Morgan Dollar from my table.
Not long ago a fellow posted a diagram illustrating (his take) CACG half point more conservative than non CAC. I drew myself a diagram of that. Then when procure CACG coins analyze their grading vs that concept.
How much did you get for a 1923 Morgan!? In a CACG no less. Must be yowza money. 💰
CDN CAC CPG. They doled out the cash as soon as they saw it. Correction - it was a 2023.
‘’Respectfully, it’s the answer only so long as the PCGS registry is the only game in town. Some of us like the flexibility of the CACG registry. It acknowledges that there are great coins in stickered NGC holders.’’
Understood. And, for now, it’s “the only game in town” for most serious collectors. If (20) years from now, things change, I hope I’m here to not only watch it happen, but to consider participating in it too. Meanwhile, every time PCGS offers its $10 crossover special, massive hoards of some of the greatest NGC and ANACS (etc) coins migrate into PCGS holders. And, of course, some find their way back to other holders at higher grade levels where the “arbitrage” makes sense.
As always, just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
You realize it's a gimmick though, right? I could start ProofCollection grading service where I take your PCGS and NGC coins and cross them over at [Grade - 1] and they would all bring premiums because people would see that they're fantastic coins when assessed against the criteria for the newly assigned grades. Then I too can publish articles about how my slabs bring premiums.
You state this as if dropping coins one grade is standard policy at CACG. Have you submitted any coins to them? I haven’t sent a whole bunch yet, but my crossovers—both NGC and PCGS, none having stickers—have all crossed at grade so far.
New to the discussion, but you are essentially asking if a coin permitted in the PCGS Registry might be worth more than an identical coin NOT permitted in the PCGS Registry- yes? Well, that is the answer then-right?
Wondercoin.
Respectfully, it’s the answer only so long as the PCGS registry is the only game in town. Some of us like the flexibility of the CACG registry. It acknowledges that there are great coins in stickered NGC holders.
That's a double edge sword. As a PCGS-only collector I do not want to compete with NGC collectors who can obtain coins at a significant discount to what they go for in PCGS slabs. If I were a CACG collector I would not want to compete with NGC or PCGS collectors for the same reason.
This is what you're dealing with. These are different two MS69's in an MS70 holder I just got back.
Comments
Serious question: How can they misgrade if grading criteria is different for every TPG?
My Carson City Morgan Registry Set
Because if they determine a coin falls into the "C" spectrum, the grade they assign is one grade lower. So that MS65 "C" coin you send them, they know it should be MS65 but they put MS64 on the label instead.
Thus grading it by their own standard and not the standard of another TPG, which is in perfect agreement with your statement that each TPG has its own measuring stick.
My Carson City Morgan Registry Set
I get what you're saying but it's two different things because they do recognize (for example) a 65 "C" coin as a 65, they just refuse to label it as such. Their measuring stick says 65 "C". They just refuse to label it as such per their standard.
When you don't get the grade you want, or think it is, it is a misgrade...
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
No. If they considered it a 65, it would be in a 65 holder. They do NOT consider it to be a 65, just because P or N do.
Full disclaimer: I am not a fan of CAC.
So, either (i) CACG grades are different from CAC (green) stickered coins (not what has been advertised, IMO), or (ii) your "No" is incorrect.
Is this the item you use for CACG-slabbed coins? Looks like a good solution for higher value coins.
Still NO.
I think vpeople are confusing the Legacy crossovers with regular grading.
CACG puts a 65 on ALL COINS that it deems to be 65s. Please show me any evidence to the contrary. Whether they view all N or P 65s as 65s is another matter.
While CAC stickering has always said that failure to sticker has never meant that the coin was overgraded, they also never indicated that none of those coins were overgraded. Some will even get details grades.
You are assuming that all PCGS 65s are 65s. By CAC's more rigid standards, they are not. It is simply not accurate and stated without evidence that CACG is putting MS65 C coins in 64 holders. It would be accurate to say that CACG views SOME PCGS 65 coins as details coins or 64s. That is inevitable if you have a stricter standard.
If PCGS puts a SEGS 66 in a 65 holder, would you call that PCGS downgrading a 66 C coin?
CACG modern coins also have a tougher standard. Below all from the CACG website. Of note is that NO post-mint damage is allowed.
Hobbyists and collectors will have total confidence in a coin certified by CAC as we determine a coin's grade by quality alone. We are confident that fewer coins submitted to us will achieve the ultimate grade of 70 than historical industry standards, letting CAC modern coins speak for themselves in the market.
Modern Grading Standards
Though grading is a subjective concept, we have tried to put our modern grading standards into words. Note that none of these standards allow for post-mint damage, so significant or discernable contact marks, such as reed marks, are unacceptable.
MS or PR70: There is no such thing as a “perfect” coin. Our MS70 or PR70 coin is a coin that is nearly flawless when viewed at x5 magnification. It is exceptionally well-struck with minimal mint-made flaws.
MS or PR69: A well-struck coin with very slight mint-made imperfections. These imperfections do not detract from the eye appeal of the coin.
MS or PR68: A well-struck coin that has some mint-made imperfections that may detract from the overall eye appeal of the coin.
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
Update: Have a slab box of CACG but they are going to have to pay me the money to get them. Buyer if deal is there. I have an Anacs 70 ASE that’s a tad nicer than one of my CACG 70 ASE so as far as the holder game YMMV.
I keep a copy of our hosts grading standards for quick reference (as needed) along with my CDN publications.
I don't even think you needed to dig in that far, there was a word left out the completely changes the foundation of that argument:
"CAC explicitly says on its website that failure to receive a CAC sticker does NOT mean that the coin was misgraded."
Incorrect. The way it reads is -
"CAC explicitly says on its website that failure to receive a CAC sticker does not NECESSARILY mean that the coin was misgraded."
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Yes. I agree without reservations. I was getting to illustrate the point. I'm not sure where this urban legend that all 65 C coins are automatically being downgraded even came from yet it's been repeated by multiple people in multiple threads. I doubt CACG would even bother to check their database on crossovers. I'm sure they simply look at the coin and apply a grade.
These two statements that you have written are incongruent and incorrect in some ways. But the real problem here is that too many have taken the A,B,C, concept to heart and want to apply it like it is a hard and fast rule, it is not. The whole A,B,C, thing was a way to explain, in a very basic way, why some coins will fail to receive a bean without tanking the market for coins without a bean.
CACG operates slightly differently but within the same construct, if a coin is low end they feel it should be given a lower grade; with a + if it really rides the line. The concept is (imo) when you see a CACG MS65 coin you say wow that is a really nice 65, not wow what a doggy 65 which has been said for many other TPG coins. This is not a conspiracy to hoodwink submitters or buyers, just (as you wrote) a different grading standard and concept than is used by PCGS and NGC. And it is one of the reasons why CACG coins are selling for top end prices, and top end priced coins often tend to sell at a slightly slower pace.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
The so-called “urban legend” you mentioned is the result of comments from CACG personnel and a lengthy discussion on the CAC website. As I recall, it was stated that CACG didn’t want low-end coins in their holders, so C- quality coins would be graded a point lower and have a plus added. In other words, as an example, a 65-C would be graded 64+. It didn’t sound realistic or like a good idea to me.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
How many of us wish that CAC had simply said “ IN OUR OPINION coins that do not receive a sticker deserve a lower numeric grade, or have an inaccurate designation (e.g. as PL, full head, red, etc.), or might even deserve a ‘details’ grade.”
That would mean coins that were low end (with accurate designations) and worthy of straight grades would receive stickers. And that would run contrary to their stated policy.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I’m saying that there are no “low end” coins deserving a specific numeric grade. No such thing as a C coin deserving grade xx. At least that’s what I’m trying to get at.
The “soft” policy statements by CAC are likely meant to placate the other services, and to restate the obvious - that grades are an opinion - but create confusion and ambiguity.
How about: “If a coin has our green sticker, it means that JA agrees with the descriptors on the holder, but is not giving an opinion as to any plus designation”.
Sure there are low-end coins for assigned grades, just as there are high-end ones. The former are coins which many/most knowledgeable graders feel just make the grade, but make it, nevertheless.
At the same time, I agree about the “soft” policy statements.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
HEAVY old dip and splotchy residue re-toning.
This coin would NEVER see a sticker in a P or N holder due to surface issues and yet CACG straight graded.
I'm a huge CAC fan, my personal collection is CAC driven, but CACG is nonsense.
This is where I'm at for my mid-grade Barber half set. It doesn't make sense for me to pay a premium for a piece and then turn around and cross it over to PCGS for even more money.
But they use identical grading standards for CAC stickering and CACG grading. If that half got a CACG grade, it means it would sticker at that grade. Do you mean to say that you have never seen coins you did not like in other TPG holders?
Here is a better set of images for it. Mottled toning like this can form in many ways, it does not mean the coin had a “HEAVY old dip”. I have seen 10000s of coins in all 3 major TPG’s holders I don’t like. But that does not mean they are ’nonsense’…………..
CAC allows all 3 major TPG’s in their registry. I am switching mine over to CAC bc I don’t want to, for example, cross my stunning coins that are in old NGC Fatty’s that can’t be in my PCGS registry, or cross my coins in old PCGS holders. Thus the combination of being able to have all 3 TPG holders does not limit me for collecting if I put them in a registry, and I can instead focus on getting the best coin for my interests……….. To each their own on how they want to collect though………………...
Maybe I'm being misunderstood. CACG recognizes low end material, aka "C" coins. They very well do recognize a coin as a low end 65 but refuse to call it that, instead giving it 64 or 64+ in this example. I don't believe their graders look at a problem free PCGS 65 "C" and don't acknowledge it to be a low end 65 in their head, but the CAC standards mandate that it be labelled a 64. The opposite of when your mother-in-law brings her casserole over and you recognize that it's not great, but you say it's good anyway.
Except what that implies to me is that a PCGS 65C is a CACG 64+. It's a different standard. It is not logical to take that to mean that CACG considers the coin by its standard to be a 65C but slaps a 64+ on it.
The entire ABC thing is being twisted around and i wonder if JA is duty he ever used the metaphor. No matter what your standard is, there will ALWAYS be 65C coins if you take the C to indicate the bottom 30 or 40% of the distribution.
I agree with that interpretation. But that is simply a different, stricter standard.
The last 30 or so comments generally concern a beaten-down topic -- are CACG grading standards appropriate/strict/inconsistent?
But the OP topic is a different one (and a lot more interesting to me) - how are CACG coins doing in the market price-wise?
Dan and Mark and Bill Jones at least answered the question. It would be interesting to get John F's take as well.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
I’ve not purchased any CACG coins yet but have several PCGS graded coins with stickers. I’m afraid of overpaying for CACG due to hype. The statements made earlier regarding pricing seem logical to me, that CACG should be worth less than PCGS + CAC. In the latter case two independent grading companies have examined the coin and agree on the grade, versus just one for CACG.
But if CAC grading standards are identical to CACG grading standards, which, I believe this to be the case and CAC/CACG has stated as such, then why would PCGS+CAC be more valuable than CACG?
My experience is that most experienced numismatists recognize this, and value equally CACG slabbed coins vs. other TPG+CAC stickered coins, but it appears many are sold on the idea that a TPG+CAC stickered coins is better (or what they want) so easier to sell as there are more people interested in these. For now. Registries have alot to do with this. I suspect that will change with time. CACG has only been around for a very short time and still their impact on the marketplace is huge and growing strongly. And they have an edge in their registry by allowing coins from other TPG’s into theirs. After all, who wants to cross a valuable coin in a Fatty (just one example) to something else and reduce its value just so it can be in a specific registry, when a registry exists where one does not have to do this? etc. But it will take time……………..
I would venture to say that this is because regardless, 2 opinions are better than one. CAC and CACG make mistakes too. Getting a second opinion on record pretty much eliminates the possibility that the grade on the label is a mistake or fluke.
This. Not only are two opinions better than one, but it’s going to take time to be sure that CACG’s standards really are the same as CAC’s. It’s easy for them to say that and I have a lot of trust in their expertise, but still. If enough people are upset about otherwise market acceptable coins getting details grades, they may have to adjust to the market. So far the CACG coins I have looked at online look to be a cut above, with the exception of the ugly mottled bust half someone posted earlier.
How strict can it be if your policy is to assign a different grade than what the coin otherwise deserves, say per ANA standards?
I consider PCGS's grading criteria to be the current industry standard. At least we know where to send our raw coins if we want them to be undergraded.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
No one exactly uses the ANA standard suck hasn't changed in 50 years. Ifc you think they do, then you do not believe in gradeflation. And if you believe there has been gradeflation, then a tighter standards at CACG would be closer to the ANA standard. I'll let you decide what you believe.
‘’But if CAC grading standards are identical to CACG grading standards, which, I believe this to be the case and CAC/CACG has stated as such, then why would PCGS+CAC be more valuable than CACG?’’
New to the discussion, but you are essentially asking if a coin permitted in the PCGS Registry might be worth more than an identical coin NOT permitted in the PCGS Registry- yes? Well, that is the answer then-right?
Wondercoin.
There are whole threads in the past here on mottled coins. I encourage anyone to read through them. One either likes mottled coins. Or not. Doesn’t have anything to do with which TPG slab they are in. Aplenty are in PCGS slabs. Since I have not seen the coin above in hand, I am not going to pass judgement on it. It might have a stunning luster beneath the tone and it might thus be stunning, the images won’t show that. Hmm……….
Sure the CACG standards could change and might slightly (probably) over time. But look at the fluctuations the other TPG’s have gone through, you can’t believe any grade without seeing them in hand and it helps if they have a CAC sticker. John Albanese has emphasized alot of key points that seem to support their effort for consistency going forward, including weekly review by the graders of their grading sets, not putting coins in a say, 65 holder that aren’t, like with surfaces that deserve to be detailed, etc. You can either believe him or not. I do, and my experience of submitting to CAC (over 300) over 15 years, and CACG (50 so far) is consistent with their message of consistency.
CACG has done a very smart thing, they have decided to grade moderns and I am sure, like PCGS, it is the lions share of their buisness. So they won’t have any financial incentive to change their grading standards on classic US coins bc it won’t be the key part of their buis. In fact, if you go to websites selling modern coins in CACG holders, they sell them for more than those in PCGS holders in many cases. They must be getting more for them or they could not list them at a higher price than the competition’s holders with the same coin. So this seems to be consistent with what I have seen for classic US coins - CACG coins go for more than other TPG coins without a CAC sticker on them.
BTW, there are not enough CACG coins in the wild yet to fully determine their value compared to TPG+CAC sticker, compared to TPG without sticker. But CACG runs a monthly newsletter documenting higher values for anything CAC. More CACG coins are coming to auction now, and the November issue linked below shows some. And they are going for more comparable non-CAC sticker slabs from other TPG's:
https://www.cacgrading.com/post/cac-coins-bring-premiums-in-november-2024/
Respectfully, it’s the answer only so long as the PCGS registry is the only game in town. Some of us like the flexibility of the CACG registry. It acknowledges that there are great coins in stickered NGC holders.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
You realize it's a gimmick though, right? I could start ProofCollection grading service where I take your PCGS and NGC coins and cross them over at [Grade - 1] and they would all bring premiums because people would see that they're fantastic coins when assessed against the criteria for the newly assigned grades. Then I too can publish articles about how my slabs bring premiums.
I see CAC material as a seperate inventory class. As a PCGS submitter PCGS is the recognized industry standard for many of us. I do have CACG (and acquire them if reasonable procurement) but they are going to have to step up and pay the money for them. And this has happened for me at shows. At last show 2 ladies (70-80 ish) stepped and bought a 2023 CACG MS69 Morgan Dollar from my table.
Not long ago a fellow posted a diagram illustrating (his take) CACG half point more conservative than non CAC. I drew myself a diagram of that. Then when procure CACG coins analyze their grading (my office what I call Area 51 lol) vs that concept. Some of these CACG coins I got have single digit pops. Means I probably have only one in the bourse room, sweet.
How much did you get for a 1923 Morgan!? In a CACG no less. Must be yowza money. 💰
CDN CAC CPG. They doled out the cash as soon as they saw it. Correction - it was a 2023.
‘’Respectfully, it’s the answer only so long as the PCGS registry is the only game in town. Some of us like the flexibility of the CACG registry. It acknowledges that there are great coins in stickered NGC holders.’’
Understood. And, for now, it’s “the only game in town” for most serious collectors. If (20) years from now, things change, I hope I’m here to not only watch it happen, but to consider participating in it too. Meanwhile, every time PCGS offers its $10 crossover special, massive hoards of some of the greatest NGC and ANACS (etc) coins migrate into PCGS holders. And, of course, some find their way back to other holders at higher grade levels where the “arbitrage” makes sense.
As always, just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin.
Joking; but a mislabeled CACG as such might have brought some solid bucks.
You state this as if dropping coins one grade is standard policy at CACG. Have you submitted any coins to them? I haven’t sent a whole bunch yet, but my crossovers—both NGC and PCGS, none having stickers—have all crossed at grade so far.
I think you’re making mountains out of molehills.
That's a double edge sword. As a PCGS-only collector I do not want to compete with NGC collectors who can obtain coins at a significant discount to what they go for in PCGS slabs. If I were a CACG collector I would not want to compete with NGC or PCGS collectors for the same reason.
This is what you're dealing with. These are different two MS69's in an MS70 holder I just got back.
Proof that’s why I don’t have more than a 20 coin slab box of them.
Proof collection
I specifically mentioned stickered NGC
coins, which I believe are what is allowed for NGC-graded classic coins on the CACG registry.
And unstickered PCGS coins are often less valuable than stickered NGC coins to many discerning collectors.
As for moderns like the coin you posted, I cannot comment as I don’t buy or sell in that space.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.