I agree. If there were an equivalent level grader and that grader were recognized by the broad market for not only skills but also ethics, then it's possible for another successful similar service. The closest one I can think of is Rick Snow. My understanding is that his product is very good and is highly regarded by the broad market for Flying Eagles and IHCs.
We’re in the early foothills of machine grading but it 1) will become an eventual standard in this hobby (how it shapes up is to be determined but that’s absolutely coming) and 2) will eliminate a ton of subjectivity, which has always been the Achilles heel for Sheldon grading.
This will eventually eliminate ‘grade clerics’ which now are a thing, but probably won’t be in another decade or two. I’ve never been a fan of that sort of thing anyway. The hobby has always sort of accepted that ‘John Doe is the real grade expert on capped bust halves’ or whatever, but you don’t have to dig too deep to realize that process is fraught with inconsistency and isn’t much more reliable than anything else.
@cameonut2011 said:
Did you see the thread where there was a five interval gap between CACG and PCGS (AU 55 to MS63 on a Peace Dollar)? You would think your argument would be sound, but some of these grading swings undermine that argument.
Apples and oranges, grading swings between grading firms is known and is different from a sticker that confirms the original grading opinion.
When a coin fails to sticker, who is right? What if a coin receives a PCGS grade that receives a CMQ or Eagle Eye sticker that fails CAC? What if a CACG/CAC coin fails CMQ?
There is no right and there is no wrong because each company uses its own standards. When two companies agree it's because the coin meets the standards of both companies where the standards overlap.
I agree that it strengthens the argument for consensus coins. But there are many non-consensus coins out there.
I agree that a failure to sticker or be affirmed by another company is not indicate a deficiency in the coin, but most likely the coin falls outside of the overlap band of two different standards.
I don't disagree with any of that, but doesn't that undermine the quoted text below?
"The market has proven that they value having multiple opinions on a slab. One grade opinion could easily be a fluke or a mistake. But two almost eliminates the possibility."
If they are using different standards, then it eliminates nothing as the two aren't really comparable. If there is divergence then who conforms closer to the market "standard" (and I use that tongue in cheek) particularly when there are more than 2 opinions (e.g. sticker services)? I think CAC, CMQ, and Eagle Eye are all well respected.
For consensus coins, you'll hear no counter argument from me. For non-consensus coins the calculus changes. And I think there are more non-consensus coins than many of us would like to think.
And while we are on the topic, I have collected PL coinage extensively in the past. I have seen far too many PCGS or NGC PL coins with CAC stickers that did not meet the published standards particularly for Morgan Dollars.
@cameonut2011 said:
Did you see the thread where there was a five interval gap between CACG and PCGS (AU 55 to MS63 on a Peace Dollar)? You would think your argument would be sound, but some of these grading swings undermine that argument.
Apples and oranges, grading swings between grading firms is known and is different from a sticker that confirms the original grading opinion.
When a coin fails to sticker, who is right? What if a coin receives a PCGS grade that receives a CMQ or Eagle Eye sticker that fails CAC? What if a CACG/CAC coin fails CMQ?
There is no right and there is no wrong because each company uses its own standards. When two companies agree it's because the coin meets the standards of both companies where the standards overlap.
I agree that it strengthens the argument for consensus coins. But there are many non-consensus coins out there.
I agree that a failure to sticker or be affirmed by another company is not indicate a deficiency in the coin, but most likely the coin falls outside of the overlap band of two different standards.
I don't disagree with any of that, but doesn't that undermine the quoted text below?
"The market has proven that they value having multiple opinions on a slab. One grade opinion could easily be a fluke or a mistake. But two almost eliminates the possibility."
If they are using different standards, then it eliminates nothing as the two aren't really comparable. If there is divergence then who conforms closer to the market "standard" (and I use that tongue in cheek) particularly when there are more than 2 opinions (e.g. sticker services)? I think CAC, CMQ, and Eagle Eye are all well respected.
For consensus coins, you'll hear no counter argument from me. For non-consensus coins the calculus changes. And I think there are more non-consensus coins than many of us would like to think.
I don't think it undermines that statement at all, but it emphasizes that a failure to sticker does not or should not be taken as an indication of being misgraded. Because again, we always have to ask "misgraded by whose standards?" Particularly when you also consider that CAC's sticker does not represent simple agreement with the grade, it represents an agreement with the grade that falls into the "A" or "B" category and your non CAC-stickered coin may simply be an accurately graded "C" coin. I think that for the coins where the grading standards overlap and they do deserve stickers, it's just serendipity that can give collectors confidence (and thus extra value) for those cases.
And while we are on the topic, I have collected PL coinage extensively in the past. I have seen far too many PCGS or NGC PL coins with CAC stickers that did not meet the published standards particularly for Morgan Dollars.
Yes, PL/DMPL coinage is tough as I think it's one of the hardest attributes to measure/assess. Still I value a CAC sticker on a PL/DMPL coin because when I'm shopping online, having the reassurance from a second party that has evaluated the mirror quality is invaluable even if there are inconsistencies. I have heard that there is a good chance that JA (and other graders) adjust their PL/DMPL criteria based on the date/mint mark and give some of the harder/rarer ones more leeway.
I view it as a decision tree. CAC / CACG are more strict and more consistent than PCGS or NGC. As a result, if a coin is CAC/ CACG it is already past the PCGS/ NGC step in the decision tree where a PCGS/ NGC sticker would change anything.
PS: Eagle Eye Photo Seal would matter, almost as much as CAC/CACG, if I collected Flying Eagle and Indian Cents.
Comments
We’re in the early foothills of machine grading but it 1) will become an eventual standard in this hobby (how it shapes up is to be determined but that’s absolutely coming) and 2) will eliminate a ton of subjectivity, which has always been the Achilles heel for Sheldon grading.
This will eventually eliminate ‘grade clerics’ which now are a thing, but probably won’t be in another decade or two. I’ve never been a fan of that sort of thing anyway. The hobby has always sort of accepted that ‘John Doe is the real grade expert on capped bust halves’ or whatever, but you don’t have to dig too deep to realize that process is fraught with inconsistency and isn’t much more reliable than anything else.
I don't disagree with any of that, but doesn't that undermine the quoted text below?
"The market has proven that they value having multiple opinions on a slab. One grade opinion could easily be a fluke or a mistake. But two almost eliminates the possibility."
If they are using different standards, then it eliminates nothing as the two aren't really comparable. If there is divergence then who conforms closer to the market "standard" (and I use that tongue in cheek) particularly when there are more than 2 opinions (e.g. sticker services)? I think CAC, CMQ, and Eagle Eye are all well respected.
For consensus coins, you'll hear no counter argument from me. For non-consensus coins the calculus changes. And I think there are more non-consensus coins than many of us would like to think.
And while we are on the topic, I have collected PL coinage extensively in the past. I have seen far too many PCGS or NGC PL coins with CAC stickers that did not meet the published standards particularly for Morgan Dollars.
I don't think it undermines that statement at all, but it emphasizes that a failure to sticker does not or should not be taken as an indication of being misgraded. Because again, we always have to ask "misgraded by whose standards?" Particularly when you also consider that CAC's sticker does not represent simple agreement with the grade, it represents an agreement with the grade that falls into the "A" or "B" category and your non CAC-stickered coin may simply be an accurately graded "C" coin. I think that for the coins where the grading standards overlap and they do deserve stickers, it's just serendipity that can give collectors confidence (and thus extra value) for those cases.
Yes, PL/DMPL coinage is tough as I think it's one of the hardest attributes to measure/assess. Still I value a CAC sticker on a PL/DMPL coin because when I'm shopping online, having the reassurance from a second party that has evaluated the mirror quality is invaluable even if there are inconsistencies. I have heard that there is a good chance that JA (and other graders) adjust their PL/DMPL criteria based on the date/mint mark and give some of the harder/rarer ones more leeway.
The CAC sticker and CACG holder are the only stickered ones that matter to me (procurement) as they get the CAC bump up on CDN CPG.
Not knocking the others just going by the CDN.
I view it as a decision tree. CAC / CACG are more strict and more consistent than PCGS or NGC. As a result, if a coin is CAC/ CACG it is already past the PCGS/ NGC step in the decision tree where a PCGS/ NGC sticker would change anything.
PS: Eagle Eye Photo Seal would matter, almost as much as CAC/CACG, if I collected Flying Eagle and Indian Cents.