Has anyone had a CAC coin upgrade and then restickered by CAC at the new higher grade?

drddm

I am ONLY talking about coins that started out with a green CAC sticker, as I already know ones with a gold sticker can get a green CAC sticker at the higher grade.

Share your stories/experiences....thanks!

fishteeth

I had a coin fail to sticker at EF40 only to find it stickered at AU55. That one got me mad

desslok

I recall that someone once posted here that he had a coin that failed to CAC at its assigned grade, was cracked out and resubmitted (to the same TPG), got a higher grade on the resubmit, and later got a green bean on the higher-grade slab.

AMRC

No, but I have only had one opportunity to try since I do not usually play the upgrade game.

panexpoguy

Yes. Cracked out of a rattler with green bean, regraded two grades higher and green beaned again.

LanceNewmanOCC

@desslok said:
I recall that someone once posted here that he had a coin that failed to CAC at its assigned grade, was cracked out and resubmitted (to the same TPG), got a higher grade on the resubmit, and later got a green bean on the higher-grade slab.

i've seen this too many times.

haven't played this game yet myself.
.

TommyType

I get the feeling that if you looked deep enough, CAC is less about grade, and more about "quality and originality". The experiences noted here kind of back that up.

BAJJERFAN

How many have had a PCGS + coin upgrade and still get the +?

Walkerfan

This happens more often than you know.

VanHalen

I had a $10 Lib Green sticker at PCGS 62 and re-Green sticker at PCGS MS63. It was kind of beat up for a 63 but had great luster/strike.

TONEDDOLLARS

Yes, actually four of them

Catbert

Yes. OGH 63 green bean reconsidered to 64+ and rebeaned green.

panexpoguy

In my instance, the coin was in an early rattler which was quite scuffed up and hazy and had been so when it was sent to CAC. I know that they will decline to CAC some holders that are too bad, and this one must have been close. When I was polishing the holder up I felt the coin was clearly undergraded. SO I had it graded again raw and sent to CAC in a brand new holder that is also of clearer plastic. This is the coin. Originally a 64.

drddm

@fishteeth said:
I had a coin fail to sticker at EF40 only to find it stickered at AU55. That one got me mad

I find this really odd, then again, not surprised with how subjective grading is.

Interesting stories so far. I think I'm beginning to think TommyType summed it up pretty well in that it's more about the "quality and originality" of the coin that gets the green bean.

UltraHighRelief

I had a really nice PCGS MS-62 Bust dime fail to sticker, than I regraded the coin at PCGS and it didn't upgrade.

I then sent it back to CAC, where it gold stickered!

georgiacop50

Yes.

logger7

Yes; but have also had coins that upgrade fail to sticker. Even CAC coins that I resubmitted, same coin, then downgrade.

BryceM

I bought a no-motto seated dollar in a PCGS AU50 holder, submitted it, and it did not sticker. I sent it back to our hosts with a few other coins with my yearly "free" submission of 8 coins and it came back at AU53. This time it stickered green.

Is that a problem for me? Not really. It's subjective and it's a game. The old holder was a bit rough. The newer holder showed the coin better. The rims were now visible, etc, etc. In a world of millions of grading events, the expected thing usually happens. The unexpected thing happens occasionally, and it's easy to find anecdotal stories of really bizarre occurrences.

CascadeChris

Maybe it's not really about the coin as much as if John would buy it in the current slab it's in?

steveben

yes

Type2

LOL takes me back to the days I saw this when I was younger. The Sneetches "Stars" "+" "CAC" PL and so on Just funny.

https://bing.com/videos/search?q=doctor+seuss&&view=detail&mid=9AD307805CC8883E9B889AD307805CC8883E9B88&FORM=VRDGAR

blu62vette

Yes and like said above, happens more often then you would think.

panexpoguy

Here is another thing to consider about coins that did not sticker and then restickered when regraded. I suspect that once a coin goes to CAC and does not sticker, it is not even reviewed if it is resubmitted by subsequent owners when in the same holder. I bet they pull those before the ever make it to the graders again. So if it went in in an old holder that was hard to see through, they likely rejected it just as PCGS or NGC would do for a crossover that was hard to evaluate.

Once the coin is holdered with a new cert number because of a regrade, CAC database says the coin has never been reviewed so it goes to the graders. IN a newer clearer holder the coin gets a fresh opinion.

logger7

What coins were the graders at CAC or elsewhere looking at before grading your coins? The mind/memory/eyes judge based on comparisons, no single coin exists in a vacuum or theoretically. If they rejected a bunch of coins like yours previously yours looks a lot better and either gets the upgrade or approval by comparison.

Type2

@panexpoguy said:
Here is another thing to consider about coins that did not sticker and then restickered when regraded. I suspect that once a coin goes to CAC and does not sticker, it is not even reviewed if it is resubmitted by subsequent owners when in the same holder. I bet they pull those before the ever make it to the graders again. So if it went in in an old holder that was hard to see through, they likely rejected it just as PCGS or NGC would do for a crossover that was hard to evaluate.

Once the coin is holdered with a new cert number because of a regrade, CAC database says the coin has never been reviewed so it goes to the graders. IN a newer clearer holder the coin gets a fresh opinion.

Ok say they do this. Do they send it back saying all of this like needs a new holder? So now you know it needs a new holder or do they just send it back and you think it did not make the cut so you off it and some one else see's this sends it in for a new holder and then they get the upgrade and you lose.

Bochiman

@panexpoguy said:
Here is another thing to consider about coins that did not sticker and then restickered when regraded. I suspect that once a coin goes to CAC and does not sticker, it is not even reviewed if it is resubmitted by subsequent owners when in the same holder. I bet they pull those before the ever make it to the graders again.

Actually, I know that in at least 1 case, this isn't true.

I sent in a coin a couple of years ago, with about 60 other coins (mine and a few other people that wanted some sent in). I had requested to talk to JA when it was done.
When he called, we talked about the few that didn't sticker. One was one I had sent in. He mentioned that he was surprised/impressed that only 1 of the coins had been sent in before (I guess that it had been happening a lot) and that he liked the coin, but as a XF40 instead of XF45. We spent about 30 seconds discussing that particular coin.

So, if it had not been reviewed, even though it had been sent in before, then he had copious notes from before on it.
Instead, I honestly believe he knew it had been sent in before (they do look at their own database) but that he also DID look at the coin and evaluate it (again). Didn't change the no sticker and it was a coin I thought was better than XF40 (maybe low end XF45, but still better than XF40), so it still resides in its holder, sans sticker.

brg5658

Yes. Lots of example posted on the boards over the years...don't put too much stock in shiny green stickers.

oih82w8

I have done that once, it was an 1818 Capped Bust Half that was Green CAC'ed at PCGS AU53. I cracked it (one of the few that I have ever done) sent in for grading, came back as AU55 and Green Beaned again.

robec

I have a 1916 MPL that stickered green as PR66BN and again at PR67BN.

panexpoguy

@Bochiman said:

@panexpoguy said:
Here is another thing to consider about coins that did not sticker and then restickered when regraded. I suspect that once a coin goes to CAC and does not sticker, it is not even reviewed if it is resubmitted by subsequent owners when in the same holder. I bet they pull those before the ever make it to the graders again.

Actually, I know that in at least 1 case, this isn't true.

I sent in a coin a couple of years ago, with about 60 other coins (mine and a few other people that wanted some sent in). I had requested to talk to JA when it was done.
When he called, we talked about the few that didn't sticker. One was one I had sent in. He mentioned that he was surprised/impressed that only 1 of the coins had been sent in before (I guess that it had been happening a lot) and that he liked the coin, but as a XF40 instead of XF45. We spent about 30 seconds discussing that particular coin.

So, if it had not been reviewed, even though it had been sent in before, then he had copious notes from before on it.
Instead, I honestly believe he knew it had been sent in before (they do look at their own database) but that he also DID look at the coin and evaluate it (again). Didn't change the no sticker and it was a coin I thought was better than XF40 (maybe low end XF45, but still better than XF40), so it still resides in its holder, sans sticker.

I suspect it depends on the coin. Was it a more valuable coin? And my thought is not based on first hand knowledge, just a hunch.

Ronyahski

I owned a proof seated half in PCGS 66, sent it in to CAC and it did not sticker. Four months later it sat in a PCGS PR67+ CAM holder with a CAC sticker.

That is but one of several instances.

It will take some time, but eventually the perceived value of a CAC sticker will wane as systematic inconsistency and bias are outed.

Traz

@drddm said:
I am ONLY talking about coins that started out with a green CAC sticker, as I already know ones with a gold sticker can get a green CAC sticker at the higher grade.

Share your stories/experiences....thanks!

A LOT of coins I've purchased were/were not CAC, went in for regrade and trueview, came back a grade higher and then were (re)stickered at a higher grade. My 'best' though has to be a 1901 $20 that went from MS65 to pop 4/0 MS66. The 4/0 pop hasn't moved from 4/0 since I bought it 6 years ago.... Original coin: https://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-double-eagles/double-eagles/1901-20-ms65-pcgs-cac/a/1138-2701.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

Bochiman

@panexpoguy said:

I suspect it depends on the coin. Was it a more valuable coin? And my thought is not based on first hand knowledge, just a hunch.

$4000+

spacehayduke

As others have said, it happens more than one would think. The only thing CAC does is evaluate whether they would like to buy the coin in the grade given on the slab, this is their thing, they make a market in coins they like. What they like is coins with minimal human intervention to none at all. And in terms of grade at any level, as we all know there is alot of subjectivity. So it would not be surprising to get a bean on different grades for the same coin, or not.

Best, SH

Analyst

SpaceHayDuke: The only thing CAC does is evaluate whether they would like to buy the coin in the grade given on the slab, this is their thing, they make a market in coins they like.

This statement is false and misleading. This is not the "only thing CAC does"! There are various activities. Moreover, CAC accepts submissions of all coins they know well, regardless of whether they "make a market" in them or are very interested in buying them. There are types of coins that CAC rarely if ever buys, yet experts at CAC devote time and effort to accurately evaluating these same coins when submitted. The experts at CAC are among the most honest and talented in the coin business. I was just talking to JA on the phone. I know for sure that they take every coin seriously that is accepted for evaluation. Each submitted coin is viewed by JA and by one other expert, among three who are involved. In addition to JA, the other three all formerly graded at NGC, long ago.

Ronyahski: I owned a proof seated half in PCGS 66, sent it in to CAC and it did not sticker. Four months later it sat in a PCGS PR67+ CAM holder with a CAC sticker. ... That is but one of several instances.

This is a misleading use of the word 'several'! CAC evaluates more than 400 coins every business day! Experts at CAC are very consistent. No service can be perfectly consistent.

I disagree with CAC on some coins, too. But, I agree with the certified grades of more than two-thirds of the coins in stickered holders, which I have seen. Most experts who I know do as well. There is widescale agreement that CAC provides a valuable and very worthwhile service.

Because Ted Williams had trouble with some pitchers, it would not make sense to doubt his skills. Someone could put together a list of the instances in which Babe Ruth struck out and then conclude Babe Ruth was not a good baseball player.

I have publicly referred to JA as the Ted Williams of coin grading, and I stand by this declaration. He has the highest batting average. Even so, when someone is considering spending more than $25k on a coin, it makes sense to obtain additional opinions, including an analysis of the reasons for a numerical grade rather than just being told that the assigned numerical grade is okay or not. Like playing baseball, grading coins is far more difficult than most observers or collectors realize.

Ronyahski: It will take some time, but eventually the perceived value of a CAC sticker will wane as systematic inconsistency and bias are outed.

This is an inaccurate and unfair remark. The value is real, not just perceived. CAC is very consistent.

In some cases, I believe that CAC is in error. It is important, however, to view the bigger picture.

Let us consider two type sets of classic U.S. coins, all certified. For each coin in the first set, there is a parallel coin in the second set that has the same certified grade (from the same service) and was struck from the same pair of dies. If all the coins in one set were rejected at CAC, and all the coins in the other set have stickers, then I am certain that the set with stickers would be clearly superior in terms of widely accepted grading criteria and would justifiably be worth much more than the type set of coins that failed at CAC.

How will Coin Collectors Interpret Certified Coin Grades in the Future?

Insightful10@gmail.com

Ronyahski

@Analyst said:

Ronyahski: I owned a proof seated half in PCGS 66, sent it in to CAC and it did not sticker. Four months later it sat in a PCGS PR67+ CAM holder with a CAC sticker. ... That is but one of several instances.

Analyst This is a misleading use of the word 'several'!

No it's not. How about this... "That is but one of several instances of personally experiencing CAC as being inconsistent in its certification process. On several occasions I submitted coins to CAC that did not sticker, only to see them later sticker in higher graded slabs." Heck, I had several proof seated halves where this happened. I was surprised when the coin I mentioned did not come back with a gold sticker.

Analyst: I disagree with CAC on some coins, too. But, I agree with the certified grades of more than two-thirds of the coins in stickered holders, which I have seen. Most experts who I know do as well. There is widescale agreement that CAC provides a valuable and very worthwhile service.

Please explain how you can disagree with the grade of a coin in a stickered holder up to one-third of the time and still believe that stickered holders are a valuable and very worthwhile service. If I was Ted Williams batting .667, well... I'd be better than Ted Williams! If I was a coin collector spending more than $25k on single coins and batting .667, well.... I'd be in deep doo-doo.

Ronyahski: It will take some time, but eventually the perceived value of a CAC sticker will wane as systematic inconsistency and bias are outed.

Analyst: This is an inaccurate and unfair remark. The value is real, not just perceived. CAC is very consistent.

Just my opinion on the future value of a CAC sticker. You state that CAC is very consistent. Read the responses to the OP. And based also on my experience, not an unfair remark. Inaccurate? Again, just my opinion, and only time will tell.

Analyst

Ronyahski: Heck, I had several Proof seated halves where this happened. I was surprised when the coin I mentioned did not come back with a gold sticker.

As I will soon say in an article to be published, 'While coins with CAC gold stickers are usually undergraded, in terms of current widely accepted standards, coins with regular CAC green stickers may be undergraded as well. A green sticker refers to a minimum grade, not a maximum grade, the minimum being in the middle of the range indicated by the numerical grade that has already beeen assigned by PCGS or NGC.' Copyright 2016 Greg Reynolds

So, if a coin is PCGS graded as MS-65 and has a CAC green sticker, this means that experts at CAC determined that its grade is AT LEAST in the middle of the MS-65 range. It may be higher, perhaps much higher.

Do all coins that CAC experts think are undergraded receive Gold CAC stickers? NO! They are reluctant to award gold stickers. Although I have discussed the matter with JA on multiple occasions, the criteria for a gold sticker are hard for me to explain. IMO, as I have told him, the gold sticker concept should be discontinued. People are drawing too many conclusions from the presence or absence of a gold CAC sticker. In any event, serious collectors should contact CAC regarding gold stickers. I concede the point that gold stickers could have been awarded more consistently or with more of an explanation regarding definitions at CAC.

In my post above, I was referring to coins passing or failing at CAC. In that sense, CAC is very consistent. Of course, it happens that a coin that failed at CAC may pass at a later time, but such an event is very rare. Ted Williams rarely struck out, but he did once in a while.

Again, experts at CAC evaluate more than 400 coins every business day. Many coins are in holders that are scratched or scuffed. The rims and edges of coins are not always entirely visible. I stand by my replies above to the criticism of CAC in this thread.

Analyst (cited by Ronyahski): " I disagree with CAC on some coins, too. But, I agree with the certified grades of more than two-thirds of the coins in stickered holders, which I have seen. Most experts who I know do as well. There is widescale agreement that CAC provides a valuable and very worthwhile service."

Ronyahski: "Please explain how you can disagree with the grade of a coin in a stickered holder up to one-third of the time and still believe that stickered holders are a valuable and very worthwhile service. If I was Ted Williams batting .667, well... I'd be better than Ted Williams!"

We are talking past each other here. JA's batting average relates to how consistent he is with himself and how consistent he is in spotting doctored coins. JA's batting average is not a function of how consistent his grades are with my grades. I admit that my batting average is not as high as his. Also, it is relevant that I weigh originality more heavily than PCGS, NGC or CAC.

In my view, a coin that is deeply toned and features multiple mint-caused imperfections (like adjustment marks) might be a fabulous coin, often deserving of a higher grade than a corresponding dipped-bright coin that was struck on a problem-free planchet. Also, some of the CAC stickered, PCGS graded 66 to 68, dipped-bright-white Barber coins and Morgans are unappealing to me, though I understand why these have received their respective grades. It is important to not confuse philosophical differences with consistency.

Understanding Classic U.S. Coins and Building Excellent Coin Collections, Part 2: Dipped Coins

There are doctored coins that JA spots, which I miss (curveballs or spitballs), and sometimes there are doctored coins that I spot that he misses. I have been analyzing rarities and reviewing coin auctions for more than 20 years. I know most of the other top graders. In the past, I frequently tested my skills by discussing coins with them. While JA's batting average is higher with gold than with silver, he is the top grader overall.

Even so, for expensive coins, it really makes sense for collectors to seek multiple opinions and to discuss the precise physical characteristics of coins with experts. It is important to think about why a coin grades 65 rather than 66, or 62 rather than 58. To be at least a somewhat knowledgeable buyer, there is a need to know more about the quality of a coin than its numerical grade.

Ronyahski: You state that CAC is very consistent. Read the responses to the OP. And based also on my experience, not an unfair remark.

It was an "unfair remark." Ronyahski's "experience" is not sufficient to publicly declare such a conclusion. The number of coins mentioned in this thread is not large and the number of coins owned by Ronyahski could not be that larger either, unless he has spent $200 million on classic U.S. coins.

CAC has purchased more than $440 million worth of coins. JA was the sole founder of NGC and of CAC. During other eras of his career, he has been paid to grade and find coins for big-money dealers. I have been paid to grade coins by collectors.

I have been viewing and taking notes about rarities for decades. I carefully viewed many of the coins in the Eliasberg '96 and '97 sales, the Pittman sales of '97 and '98, the Newman sales of '13 and '14, the Gardner sales of '14 and '15, plus in countless Platinum Night and Rarities Night events. A few examples mentioned by collectors in a thread are not sufficient to prove that JA is inconsistent.

If a coin fails to sticker that I believe is accurately graded, I usually understand the reasons, which often relate to a conflict of visions, rather than internal inconsistencies. There are deeply toned Liberty Seated Proofs that thrill me that I know that JA will not sticker or would be reluctant to sticker.

Predictions regarding the values of particular certifications in the future should be communicated in other threads, as this thread is about grading issues in the present.

How will Coin Collectors Interpret Certified Coin Grades in the Future?

Insightful10@gmail.com

spacehayduke

@Analyst said:
SpaceHayDuke: The only thing CAC does is evaluate whether they would like to buy the coin in the grade given on the slab, this is their thing, they make a market in coins they like.

This statement is false and misleading. This is not the "only thing CAC does"! There are various activities. Moreover, CAC accepts submissions of all coins they know well, regardless of whether they "make a market" in them or are very interested in buying them. There are types of coins that CAC rarely if ever buys, yet experts at CAC devote time and effort to accurately evaluating these same coins when submitted. The experts at CAC are among the most honest and talented in the coin business. I was just talking to JA on the phone. I know for sure that they take every coin seriously that is accepted for evaluation. Each submitted coin is viewed by JA and by one other expert, among three who are involved. In addition to JA, the other three all formerly graded at NGC, long ago.

Analyst,
What you say is true, what I say is true and more or less we are saying the same thing. You just elaborated more.

Best, SH

roadrunner

Sure this happens, but typically more with generic and lower priced coins. From what I've seen in this thread big changes are not the rule if a coin> @Ronyahski said:

I owned a proof seated half in PCGS 66, sent it in to CAC and it did not sticker. Four months later it sat in a PCGS PR67+ CAM holder with a CAC sticker.

That is but one of several instances.

It will take some time, but eventually the perceived value of a CAC sticker will wane as systematic inconsistency and bias are outed.

I agree with all the points that Ronyahski has stated. It's really absurd that a killer looking PCGS PF66 seated half could come back as unstickered....and later go PR67+ CAM with sticker. That's a night and day difference, and far outside the typical band of expert grader variation. And if Ronyahski wasn't the recipient of this upgrade, that's just wrong....and big a part of the what's been wrong with this market for the past 8-15 years.

And it makes perfect sense that CAC's influence will wane as they certify more coins, and make more errors. Their under-graded coins will come back in higher holders to be restickered at higher levels. Their lower end B coins (or even some C's that slipped through) will stay on the market and accumulate. This is the same maturity curve that PCGS and NGC have gone through. In my experience the TPG's accuracy or repeatability is around the 66% level. I expect CAC to be much than that. If they can't do 80-85% or higher (preferably 90%), they shouldn't be doing it. 66% is not good enough. I've always wanted the TPG's to be at 85% but that's never going to happen as that kind of accuracy butts heads with revenues/profits.

It's one thing to look at major rarities and assign grades to them. In some ways that's almost meaningless as all the big guns know the condition census by heart....so the grades assigned really don't matter, only which coin ranks higher than the next. We've probably seen more gradeflation in the rarities than we have in the typical bread and butter $1K to $15K coin. PF68 1804 $ is a good example. The finest 1894-s dime and 1913 Lib 5c might not make those grades if they were common dates. It's different standards for those 2 markets imo. In the lower priced $1K to $20K market I'd probably trust Ronyahski's opinion much more than someone who has focused more on rarities where the coins rank themselves. You can't rank all the PF66/67 seated halves as there are too many of them....you need to grade those technically right. I've had people solicit me for grading opinions all the time. And I'm sure R. has done that as well. I had one of the best TPG ex-graders/dealer ever hire me to grade the ANA auctions with him.... with $hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line. Another point to consider is that someone with 55-70 year old eyes is probably a shadow of their former grading self....no matter how skilled they were in the 1980's or 1990's. It's hard to beat 18-48 year old eyes.

Nearly all of my top coins went into CAC in November 2008 when they first opened up and had standards that were fresh and pretty much unyielding....not unlike PCGS/NGC in 1987/1988. I see a lot has changed since then as Ronyahski is suggesting.

Ronyahski

Analyst - To quote Spacehayduke, What you say is true, what I say is true and more or less we are saying the same thing. You just elaborated more.

We agree that CAC has a grading bias.

CAC likes the coins it likes, you like the coins you like, and I like the coins I like (which, by the way, my tastes are more in line with yours than CAC's). So, what's the value to you and me if CAC stickers one of those dipped bright white 66 to 68 Morgans you mention that are unappealing to you, and to me? What's the value if CAC does not sticker one of those deeply toned Liberty Seated Proofs that thrill you and me? What's the value to the coin market and what is the general collector market to make of it?

Agree that we are talking past each other on the issue of consistency.

Roadrunner has ably clarified this point. I say "inconsistent", you say "very consistent". The touchstone should be consistency relative to the TPGs. If CAC cannot be more consistent than the TPG's, then where is the value? Moreover, how does one discern between consistency and bias? Did a coin not sticker because CAC did not agree with the grade, or because it does not suit CSC's tastes?

(These comments are not about the ability of J.A. to grade coins, they are about the value of a CAC sticker.)

Analyst

Roadrunner: It's really absurd that a killer looking PCGS PF66 seated half could come back as unstickered....and later go PR67+ CAM with sticker. That's a night and day difference, and far outside the typical band of expert grader variation. And if Ronyahski wasn't the recipient of this upgrade, that's just wrong....and big a part of the what's been wrong with this market for the past 8-15 years.

Of any one design type, there are some coins that are much easier to grade than others. We really need to examine this specific coin, for several minutes, before using its grading history as primary evidence or defending against its use in this manner. Supposing that the appearance of this coin, if it is certainly the identical coin in both 66 and 67 holders, has not changed significantly over the relevant time period and that the story being told here is the whole truth. We are postulating these points without evidence.) If so, CAC would have 'batted out' on one of the two submissions; we do not know which one. This coin could have scratches that are very hard to see and could easily be missed by expert graders. Further, this coin could have been artificially toned or a patch of AT could have been added to a naturally toned coin to cover up a contact mark. Moreover, there could be a group of hairlines on this coin that are noticeable at some angles, but not at other angles. Ted Williams did not commit errors during the few times that he struck out. Such 'outs' are part of the nature of the game; no one can bat 1.000!

As for "what's been wrong" with the whole system, I have addressed such topics. Please consider:

How will Coin Collectors Interpret Certified Coin Grades in the Future?

The Specter of Coin Doctoring and The Survival of Great Coins

The PCGS SecurePlus Program, Part 2: Reform

Roadrunner: And it makes perfect sense that CAC's influence will wane as they certify more coins, and make more errors. ... I've always wanted the TPG's to be at 85% but that's never going to happen as that kind of accuracy butts heads with revenues/profits.

I disagree. It is not accurate to place CAC in the same category as all other TPGs. 1) Only a small % of CAC profits come from evaluating/stickering fees. 2) JA is the finalizer for EVERY SINGLE coin sent to CAC. There is no one person with such a role at any other TPG. 3) Regardless of grade-inflation, experts at CAC detect many doctored coins that experts elsewhere have missed. There is NO ONE better at detecting doctored gold coins than JA!

Insightful10@gmail.com

WHPRATT

There is a 1901 Proof $10 Lib PR66+ DCAM CAC in the FUN Heritage auction. Look at the previous sold coins list for the type from last month.

It just got dipped and upgraded 2.5 points from a PR64DCAM CAC and re-stickered.... On the reverse, look at the A and M in America - you'll see a die chip and a straight line. Confirms it's the same coin.

roadrunner

Analyst, the fact that more and more coins are being stickered by CAC is the very reason they will lose influence over time. More coins, more dilution....less influence. That's the nature of slabbing and stickering....the total product always grows, never shrinks. At least total product available hasn't yet shrunk since 1986. My comment had nothing to do with CAC's grading abilities per se. But, it is true that JA's eyes are aging, just like yours and mine. Others will substitute in as needed. I could finalize coins too, though with 62 year old eyes, I will miss stuff that I didn't miss 20 years ago.

As far as that PF66 no sticker seated half getting a sticker after a 67+ upgrade, that's beyond just missing "something." There should not be anything that can hide from qualified TPG/CAC eyes at that level. Nada. And proof seated halves aren't exactly hard to grade with their big open fields. If CAC saw some marks or damage when it was a 66 that they didn't see at the 67 level, that's just not acceptable. Sorry, but we disagree widely here. This is not Ted Williams batting 1.000 (impossible) or just .406 (incredible). But, this is JA grading 65% at times vs. 85%-90%. I don't accept CAC adding any value to the market place if their success rate is 65%. I do at 85% or higher. 65% accuracy is not acceptable on $5,000 Proof seated halves. A coin that later upgraded to 67+ had to be a no brainer 66 to begin with. Show me exceptions if you will by finding similar coins. I'm not asking JA to bat 1.000 or even 0.950. For me 0.850 is good enough. The top TPG graders should be capable of that given adequate time to review a coin thoroughly. A batting average under 0.650 at the TPG's or any other professional service is unacceptable. That's being wrong at least 1/3 of the time. I batted at least that good during my prime years and I was no standout by any means. 0.650 may be amazing in baseball....but it basically is marginal at the upper levels of professional grading.

Any nice PF66 seated 25c/50c I owned in the 2001-2006 period sometimes upgraded to 67 a few years later via new owners. You couldn't get a PCGS 67 on seated coins prior to around 1996 as tight standards rarely allowed it. I can't recall a single instance of a gem non-CAC seated coin (failed to sticker) that I ever handled bumping up a grade and getting stickered. I've submitted enough raw gem seated coins over the past 30 years to know that the difference from 66 to higher end 67 is enormous. 66 coins today are often just so-so....nice but not necessarily really impressive. At the CAC 67 level seated coins almost have to be mind-boggling as CAC almost NEVER stickers anything seated grading 68.

roadrunner

Let's face it. CAC is a TPG. How can it be otherwise? While they might only be a "crossing" TPG (coin kept in the holder) they are performing those same QA functions as finalizing appraisers. If CAC weren't the equivalent of a TPG the premium assigned to their coins would be minimal to zero. And that's not the case. One could say that CAC has taken the step beyond a TPG as they carry more influence than PCGS or NGC. It matters not where CAC's bulk of revenues/profits come from. If they've certified the grade on nearly half a million coins, that's a TPG. We have other grading services that have seen millions of coins....and while they are "technically" TPGs, their opinions are not respected by the market place and hence nearly useless. CAC carries the highest level of respect in the market....what better definition for TPG could their be? If a 35 year old Dave Akers or Jim Halperin were still around and reviewing slabbed coins for anyone....I'd call them TPGs too.

mercurydimeguy

Several times.

Analyst

Roadrunner: My comment had nothing to do with CAC's grading abilities per se. But, it is true that JA's eyes are aging, just like yours and mine.

People with an aptitude for grading learn from experience and from discussing coins with other experts. I am a much better grader now than I was ten years ago. Aging has lead to sharper skills. I hope that no one is talking my baseball analogy too far. In some ways, grading coins is more like being a detective than playing a physical sport. Some of the best police or private detectives are elderly.

Roadrunner: There should not be anything that can hide from qualified TPG/CAC eyes at that level. Nada. And proof seated halves aren't exactly hard to grade with their big open fields. If CAC saw some marks or damage when it was a 66 that they didn't see at the 67 level, that's just not acceptable. Sorry, but we disagree widely here.

We sure "disagree widely here." Bust dollars have even more open fields that are larger than those of Liberty Seated halves, yet coin doctors add films, sheens, layers of AT and other matter that deceptively covers hairlines and contact marks. Many of the added films are matched to colors that experts would expect to be there, anyway. As toning on Proof Liberty Seated halves is often thick, it is not that difficult for coin doctors to add matter that almost appears like it belongs there. An expert can strike out by missing doctoring, or a hit a pop fly by thinking that a totally NT coin has some AT. Assuming that the story about this one Proof Liberty Seated half is true, it came across JA's plate at least twice, and JA failed to get on base once; we here do not know which time, and we are exaggerating the significance of this one event.

Also, CAC evaluates more than 400 coins every business day. We are talking about a small number of outs in this thread. I do not know how Roadrunner is figuring the batting averages that he cites in his post above.

Roadrunner: The fact that more and more coins are being stickered by CAC is the very reason they will lose influence over time.

No, if there were only a small number of CAC stickered coins, then few people could collect them or even think about them. I know many people who take the CAC concept to an extreme by buying only CAC approved coins. An increase in the number of CAC stickered coins means an increase in the number of such people, and more discussion of CAC coins, plus more publicity for CAC.

Personally, I believe that it makes sense to ask questions of experts and learn about coins, rather than rely upon CAC or TPGs. If a coin is in a 66 holder and I grade it as 65, then I would suggest paying a 65-level price and understanding the reasons why it may not ever be CAC approved. In my auction reviews, I have cited examples of coins in 66 holders bring 65-level money at auction.

In a post above, I mentioned Proof Liberty Seated coins that I like, which fail at CAC. I understand the reasons why they fail. Coins should be bought and sold with explanations and discussions, not merely numerical grades. It is fine to buy coins that fail at CAC providing the buyer seeks assistance in understanding the likely reasons why such coins fail at CAC and learning about the coins.

For collectors who tend towards rarities, it may not be practical to buy CAC-only. In my current article, I point out that, "As CAC has approved just 19 coins in total of this 1838-39 Gobrecht [Eagle] design type, collectors may have to consider coins without stickers." Yes, someone building a type set of eagles ($10 coins), may have to consider some coins without stickers to complete the set at a reasonable cost within a few years.

Building a Type Set of Eagles

Insightful10@gmail.com

machoponcho

Yes, two separate cases of MS65 green stickered Morgans later going MS67 green sticker. Many others jumping a single grade while retaining the green sticker.

SeattleSlammer

I feel like there is some serious coin brotherhood happening in this thread and I like it.

roadrunner

Analyst should consider himself lucky if his grading skills are sharper at say age 60 than they were at age 50. If he's not 50 yet, then it's no comparison. Ask Colonel Jessup if he grades better today than 10 yrs ago with his 30-40 years of market experience to assist him.

Let's not compare messing with the big fields of bust dollars vs. gem proof seated halves. How many gem proof bust dollars have you seen with messed up fields? It's not worthy of a discussion. Novadels? A PF66 seated half not stickering and then going 67+ with a sticker is a huge deviation from the norm. That's probably a 1 in 10,000 type event imo...and just should not happen. Roadrunner is figuring his estimates on hit/misses from 40 years of experience. You might be surprised what one can do with personal experiences, thousands of submissions, pop reports, bourse floor and auction appearances, and even personal anecdotes from sharp people like Ronyakski, Elcontador, TDN, etc. Dismiss our experiences in the trenches if you want. We actually go out and buy coins for our own accounts taking the full risks. If we make a big mistake it comes out of our hides...not a client's pocket.

No, if there were only a small number of CAC stickered coins, then few people could collect them or even think about them. I know many people who take the CAC concept to an extreme by buying only CAC approved coins. An increase in the number of CAC stickered coins means an increase in the number of such people, and more discussion of CAC coins, plus more publicity for CAC.

More coins and more publicity is no guarantee of success. As the TPG's have piled more coins into their pops reports over the past 30 yrs what has happened? Quite simply, the bar of what is scarce enough to be considered a decent long term investment keeps getting raised every single year without fail. It's actually rather depressing. What might have been "good enough" in 2014 is marginal today. 80% of the worthy coins from 1989 are no longer even worthy. They've continued to drop in price or at best stagnated. I suspect 30-50% from the 2004-2008 bull market are off the "worthy" list permanently too. Every year, more coins get added. And more coins drop off. CAC isn't going to end up with a different result. It's economics 101. And in a roundabout way, as CAC continues to reject more coins from the market place, that has to be a negative factor on the entire coin market. You can't have 50-60% of the entire slabbed market as "unworthy" and not expect that to negatively influence the other 40-50%. CAC's successes could lead to the demise of our current market such that a complete revamp or reset will be needed. CAC might end up becoming obsolete. From my view, I think that's already underway.

Why do coins fail at CAC? The simple reason is that JA doesn't want to include that coin in his wheel house of acceptable coins....at the current price level/risk for that coin. Pretty simple. The assigned grade may not mean as much as the slab/coin's place in the market, liquidity, and numerous other factors. The exact grade level (low end, mid, or high end) is simply one of the many factors. Dealers on the bourse floors (or at auctions) reject the vast majority of the coins offered or available to them. They're fussy. They want to make money....ideally, as easy as possible. JA is not immune to those market factors.

DoubleEagle59

Dipping certainly pays off!