I wish CAC would sticker ANACS
Morgan13
Posts: 2,284 ✭✭✭✭✭
At least the soapbox holders. The grades seem accurate and to some extent conservative.
I wonder why they dont.
Has anyone heard from JA why they dont?
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7 JWP BruceS bigjpst
JWP
7
Comments
Not going to say which coin, but I have a rare CC date that was originally in a Anacs soap box holder crossed to pcgs then stickered several years ago, placed in auction by a major firm, word got out about it being in a prior anacs holder, and sticker was removed by cac due to talk/negative publicity. I still have pic of the coin (pcgs) with same serial number with cac sticker on it. I bidded on it many years ago because i liked it then (didnt win it), and was able to find it again somewhat recently and buy it, I like it now, so do a few others. It wont sticker again due to the above, but I figured if it was nice enough and warranted a sticker then, its still worthy of one today. I don't have to have a sticker to enjoy the coin while I own it. Probably saved me 20k additional without sticker.
My soapbox holder coins were downgraded when crossed to PCGS.
Why does it matter the holder it use to be in? I’m sure lots of PCGS coins are ex-old ANACS.
Wow did not know that happened.
It shouldn’t matter. And it’s hard to imagine that there wasn’t more to the story regarding the nature of the negative publicity and CAC’s reason for removing the sticker.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I wish I could submit a PCGS/NGC coin myself to be stickered at a major show. Their membership for stickering is closed and you have to go through a third-party, now.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Thats unfortunate. For me I am pretty good at grading now. I find that most of my coins would cross but I will not remove them from the soapbox holder no matter what.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7 JWP BruceS bigjpst
JWP
@jdimmick there’s got to be more to that story.
The only time I could imagine a sticker being removed is if CAC has to buy back a coin due to doctoring/damage that they did not catch.
Just previously being in an ANACS holder (or SEGS, PCI, whatever) would not matter.
Could you elaborate on what happened without identifying the coin?
I have a few, primarily Morgans and Peace dollars, and they all seem to be graded conservatively. I would say about 90% of what I have are in the old ANA holders.
Looking for PCGS AU58 Washington's, 32-63.
I believe I’ve read somewhere that there is a visibility (edge?) problem with the soapbox holder, insofar as stickering.
And NGC?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Good point.
If it’s controversial, my guess is that PCGS upgraded it by quite a bit and CAC agreed. The controversy ignores that every major grading service has undergraded coins at some point.
What would be interesting is if the coin was blast white or close to it, and showed up as a rainbow toner a short time after appearing in the ANACS holder. Of course I’m just speculating.
JA has covered this many times, as I remember it he felt that the acceptance rate would be low and he didn't want submitters spending lots of money on failed submissions. I also recall that when CAC started ANACS did not have a comprehensive cert verification system that included many of the old very early generation of holders. However, it has been years and this is just from memory and I may not be remembering all the details correctly. So don't take what I've written as gospel. Ultimately it is his choice, just as he made the choice to not sticker moderns or some series like Jefferson nickels (aside from a few).
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
JA has said this but I’m not sure I agree (not that it matters). After 1996 or so and well into the 21st century, NGC loosened considerably but he still reviews those. I also suppose we could further refine the discussion by focusing on the early ANACS slabs with the blue text label and ANA hologram which I believe was just as strict as PCGS at the time. Of course, if he openly trashed a company’s later products that could create some issues which I suspect is a huge part of the decision.
I anticipated my ANACS OWH coins would likely not cross at the same grade. They were graded too high by my standards, which approximate PCGS standards. Actually, I wasn't that concerned about the grade. I just wanted to purchase decent examples. In general, ANACS tends to have more relaxed standards than PCGS. That and the additional volume of holders may be why CAC doesn't cross ANACS coins.
If I crossed this coin from PCGS to CACG, I would not be surprised if CACG net graded it down to VF25 for the weak E in Liberty and the hit to the "6." CACG has their own grading system and they will net grade coins to the netherworld if the E in Liberty is weak or missing.
1886 ANACS VF35 -> PCGS VF30
1873-CC WA Berlinghof hoard, ANACS F15 -> PCGS F12 and closer to VG10, IMO
I'd think that rigorous assessments of coins that may warrant cracking out and resubmission would be better. If you're only paying for the coins that sticker, not for the failures, you're still limited to 20 certified coins a year. And if they sticker you're charged over $20 per coin. I've seen a lot of variability in grading, I've even had upgrades from ICG to NGC and cacg, which would have been unlikely had they accepted crossovers of those coins.
I may be in the minority on this but I tend to think of CAC stickers counting way more when you are looking at more expensive coins and more from an investor point of view. As a collector I love the small soap box holders but I would guess by now many of the coins considered under graded and or of a higher dollar value (over a $1,000?) ; have already been cracked out long ago. I would not pay a premium for a CAC sticker on a soap box , maybe other would, but investors tend to like that PCGS/CAC combo. James
@seatedlib3991 its not necessarily about upgrades.
I believe there are still many, many soapbox holders with accurate grades. It also boils down to A,B and C coins. Its my belief that many soapbar coins would green sticker.
Also many of these soapbox holders have been in collections for many years. If someone deceids to sell the opportunity for purchasing nice coins (undergraded) still does exist.
I do agree that a good amount of upgrades have occurred for sure.
The current ANACS hold are just ugly IMHO. I will still buy one if the coin is nice but I cannot stand the esthetics of the slab.
I also want to add that my favorite holder is the current PCGS gold shield with a CAC sticker. They just look good and 99.9% of the time grades are reliable.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7 JWP BruceS bigjpst
JWP
I find it interesting that you choose to openly trash NGC (a violation of the rules of this board by the way) and then call out JA for supposedly trashing ANACS. I haven't followed everything that JA has ever said or written about any TPG, but having spoken to him directly and listened to several videos of him I really don't think I would see him as someone that "trashes" anyone or any TPG. Do you not think that the grading at PCGS is different today vs 1989? I think all of the TPG's have gone through periods of tight or loose grading due to ownership/grading staff changes, nothing stays static forever. Should he focus on and only sticker coins graded at PCGS during the periods of tight grading vs those considered as loose in your opinion?
As you can see from the post above by @Barberian PCGS has downgraded at least those two previously ANACS graded coins. Is it your stance that those two are outliers and no other coin previously graded at ANACS has or will ever be downgraded by another TPG? In that case this may be of interest to you, this 1881 Morgan was previously straight graded by ANACS in one of the first gen lamp gold foil reverse small white holders. I sure wish now that I had not cracked and submitted it but if you believe strongly that ANACS grading is on par with PCGS which opinion do you agree with? The straight grade at ANACS or the alt surface from PCGS.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
>
So you bought it for @$20k [your guess] cheaper the second go-round, you're going to keep the photo to show the next buyer once you jack up the price from what was recently paid? Just a guess...
I never accused JA of trashing ANACS. I said if he said he was going to only consider the old ANACS coins from a certain period (either before Amos Press sold it or from when it was owned by the ANA) THEN it would be seen as trashing later iterations of ANACS and might create problems from him. I’m saying that I believe part of the decision is being politically correct to avoid creating conflict.
As for my other comments, both PCGS and NGC have loosened, but NGC has had much weaker periods. I think the market agrees with that perception and bears out that view. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. If I am not mistaken, part of CAC’s purpose in addition to identifying solid coins was to level the playing field for solid coins in NGC holders but someone should fact check that.
As for my comments on ANACS, the coin posted by Barberian posted is not what I am talking about. That was from the Amos Press ownership days. While respectable it was not as tough as ANACS from when the ANA owned it. Those holders have blue text and a gold ANA hologram. It is my belief that those were on par with PCGS of the day. That doesn’t mean that there weren’t errors however and for any valuable coin not in top tier modern TPG plastic, there is always a reason to ask why.
Finally with respect to CAC, I wish JA would consider the older ANA style ANACS coins alluded to by me before. I do believe those would yield a sticker rate at least equal to the modern services and would help collectors who like the nostalgia of older plastic and the stability it indicates for the coins inside. I would even support extending it to the holders from the Amos Press days like Barberian’s coin, but I believe the sticker rate would be lower and JA might not think it is worth his time.
Generally speaking, ANACS and NGC have a lower "floor" for say XF40 than PCGS does. What I find interesting is that JA will occasionally sticker VF35 wear coins at XF40 when they would likely grade at VF35 with PCGS. From what I can see, those NGC coins will have nice surfaces. This NGC 40 CAC 1869 is a good example of this emphasis on surfaces rather than wear. IMO, it has VF35 wear, but the surfaces when examined in-hand are excellent = XF40 CAC.
(photo by GFRC and edited to better match the coin in-hand)
If the surfaces are a bit rough or some black schmutz has corroded away the E in Liberty, then the realized grade at CACG will be abysmal. This 1859-S shows VF30/35 details, but the surfaces show some corrosion and the E in LIBERTY is worn/corroded away. I expected this coin to either be rejected or net graded downward to F15-VF20, but I didn't expect it to be net graded down 5 steps to VG10. The Facebook LSCC guys were unanimous in their criticism of JA's grading here for the low VG10 grade. While surprised, I knew the coin had surface issues. JA is an interesting grader to figure out. I also think he puts too much emphasis on the wear on LIBERTY and not enough on overall wear. It's all good, because the only thing a buyer and seller need to agree upon is the price, not the grade.
1859-S CACG VG10
And as for your coin, I cannot see the surfaces well on my phone, and the photo looks blurry. Nevertheless, the luster does look very subdued. PCGS is likely correct, but I wouldn’t make any wager without better pictures.
I find it interesting that CACG silently netgraded the last coin rather than giving it a details grade. I suspect if it was in a PCGS holder with the same grade, CAC the sticker service would have rejected it. Alternatively, have CAC standards loosened some?
The CACG VG10 1859-S was purchased raw off eBay for about $150, which is about the price for an F12. I haven't seen their standards loosening. However, there are always a few stickered coins that I don't understand how they even straight graded, let alone stickered. They hammer or reject my coins when I submit them, so they're maintaining their high standards. My first submission to CACG included 12 coins that I thought would do well, and eight coins that had some issues so I could see how they would grade those coins. Nine of 12 "good" coins made it into CACG holders, while 2 of 8 of the sketchy coins made it. That 1859-S in VG10 was one of those "sketchy" coins.
Regarding stickering, I just submitted 24 coins to CAC that I think are nice for the grade, but we'll see how good I am at selecting midgrade raw coins off of eBay. Submitting coins for grading is an adventure for me.
@Barberian I remember you posting that “10” before and thinking it was perhaps the most undergraded coin I’d ever seen.
Cross at grade back to PCGS and then see if JA will gold sticker himself
I couldn’t have more respect for him as a numismatist or grader, and all my nice coins go to CAC…..but I think his finger must’ve slipped on the keyboard on this one as he was trying to grade it a 20.
I've actually thought of that for one coin that was rejected by CACG and I have no clue why. Regarding the VG10 '59-S, he's a stickler for having a full LIBERTY for VF, though, and the E was missing.
I've already made JA squirm a bit over a P45 CAC-green that was regraded at P40 CAC-green after a postal accident. Why not a gold sticker? Fortunately, I feel it is properly graded now as a solid XF40. JA has posted to me that he doesn't like two grading steps for XF coins, but that's the grading system we have at the moment. Grading is tough and I can understand some of these odd outcomes. PCGS was clearly tightening up their grading during that period after a period of more relaxed, NGC-like grading standards. At least that's how I see it.
Tpring,
Not jacking up price, its not for sale until Im dead and gone, then my sons can dispose of it along with the other stuff.
And coin is not doctored IMO
But, Maybe there is something that cac does not like about it after reviewing second time around, I do not know the answer to that. I was not the one that submitted to CAC, All I know is that it was stickered first time around once originally crossed to pcgs. The dealer whom I will not name, but is a major player in the business was the one who tried to get it re-stickered but was unsuccesfull. He was not aware of the entire backstory of this coin until I informed him.
Yes!!
To my knowledge, no grading service that allow ANACS crossovers has had a bad outcome. PCGS always has, NGC used to, CACG never has. ANACS accepts CAC slabs for cross over.
We have worked with both NGC and PCGS on resealing coins that were cracked and sent back for resealing. Both ways. No problem. Hidden rim defects are the the usual reason.
I find it hard to believe that CACG does this in an effort to save time and money for the submitters. I have been told
that some dealers believe such a bias against ANACS is real.
ANACS has a conservative and competitive productand allowing successful crossovers would only diminish their brand. Maybe so, you'd have to ask them. J.P. Martin
62 yrs in Coins, 42 yrs Certifying/Grading, CoinWorld's Most Influential People In Numismatics, 1960-2020. 30 consecutive yrs teaching ANA Summer seminar, Numismatic Ambassador award, 1998 Doctorate in Numismatics, Glenn Smedley Award, ANA Governor 2009/2011, Author/ Host of ANA's best selling video's, courses on grading & counterfeit detection. Taught over 1,100 paying students, Secret service agents, San Diego to Boston, Anchorage to Miami, including 2 coin cruise lecturer. many Free presentations. NLG book and video awards. ANA photographer, SEM operator, ASA Appraiser, Contributor to Redbook, Numismatist, Coin World, Numismatic News, ANA Grading Guides, 40,000 Volume Library, Founder ANAAB, ICG, 1995 ANA collector services appraisal/conservation, First full service Ancient coin grading service. Navy 75-77, WIU 77-81, Dealer1981-1984, ANA 1984-1998, 60 year Collector U.S./ 50 Year Ancient coins. ANA Advisory Committee. Life member ANA, ANS. Semi-retired grader in Denver area
That's a pretty rude assumption.
Btw...jdimmick has been around for quite a bit....good guy from everything I have seen on the boards in that time. Throwing cold water at him like that is pretty unwarranted and just rude
He's one of the ones on here I'd trust.
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
It's intersting that this thread came up. I just picked up this 59-O Dollar graded VG-10. Pictures are a bit rough because of the dark toning, but clearly the grading was based on the "Liberty" on the shield. Most of the coin has F- VF details, but the shield is basically blank. You can make out the L and Y, and barely some other letters, but because of the odd wear pattern, I'm thinking it may have been intentionally done to hide some other damage (possibly grafitti) and was given a pass and a net grade because of the rest of the coin.
My Ebay Store
Interesting. I just had a coin straight grade with CACG that has evidence of tooling to reduce the conspicuousness of a scratch on the obverse. Look at the scratch above the foot and note the back-and-forth light areas perpendicular to that scratch. From a toothpick?
Regrade (for a new serial number) and resubmit to CAC. Or is the coin too unusual he might remember it?
Wait, hold up. CAC unstickered a coin in a PCGS holder, because they found out it had previously been in an ANACS holder?
I would bet that the facts aren’t nearly as straight forward or absurd as that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
"Absurd" is a good word. There are numerous stickered coins that used to be in ANACS holders.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Be patient. They’ll be looking for new revenue streams eventually
I dealt with Jim in the past and he was always helpful and a straight shooter. One of the good guys here.
It's been said here many times that if you call John he'll gladly tell you why he didn't sticker a/the coin. Don't know what he'd say about that one. I wonder if he'd remember the coin if submitted in a holder with a new cert number.
I have a slab box of Anacs and ICG coins. Nice coins. No sticker needed.
When do you think they will stop stickering period and just do CACG?
Good point. I dont think anytime in the near future. Why do away with the goose that lays the golden egg.
Not that there is anything wrong with that at all.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7 JWP BruceS bigjpst
JWP
Thread needs
Pictures
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
I dont know what John told him, the dealer I bought it from, as I said he didnt know the back story of the coin. However, I have known this dealer for 20+ years, (and he will tell me) when i see him in Savanna., Ill ask him what john told him as to why it didn't sticker, since he is the one who tried for re-sticker. All I know is after the big discussion when it was listed in auction years ago after being crossed, CAC removed the sticker having come from an Anacs holder. Ill update then