Looking closer at your photos of the first coin, I’m not so sure it was the reverse that kept it from grading at CACG. The obverse fields may have been the reason.
These coins and I’m going to assume countless more to come are IMO going to force CAC to change strategy if they plan to keep both services open. Maintaining consistent standards between two separate locations with separate graders is already proving difficult. I imagine it’s only going to get worse as the volume of coins increases.
As far as the new 1873-s shown, what is going on to the left of the shield extending to the star? I also agree with cacg not holdering this coin.
That looks like a die crack. The coin looks fully original and problem free based on the pics and deserves a straight grade. Please call CACG to find out why they gave it a details grade and let us know what they say. This could be an opportunity for a learning experience.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
As far as the new 1873-s shown, what is going on to the left of the shield extending to the star? I also agree with cacg not holdering this coin.
That looks like a die crack. The coin looks fully original and problem free based on the pics and deserves a straight grade. Please call CACG to find out why they gave it a details grade and let us know what they say. This could be an opportunity for a learning experience.
When I first looked at the area, I agree with you about the possibility of a die crack. But then I looked at the left 2 lines on the shield and see the indentation on them with no crack between them, leading me to believe it’s a scratch.
@scubafuel said:
It sounds like CACG is looking for reasons not to grade coins. I think both coins look like they should grade.
Watch out for those CACG L coins though, especially when the L stands for “Newman”.
Why do you say that? A relatively high percentage of Newman coins received stickers (at least the gold). Do you think CAC was more forgiving with these?
Conspiracy theory 101:
Wondering if CACG has a long term strategy to be tough in their early "Gen 1" days we're in now. Less grading fees now, but the ones that pass sell for high premiums and then the biz takes off.
I decided to add an image from another thread that illustrates a graded XF Details cleaned 1871CC Quarter by NGC. Clearly this is not an apples to apples comparison but an image is often worth 1000 words in trying to explain grading and how it is subjective. The 1871-cc deserved a details grade. Personally I see an EF details grade as generous -as in very generous- but the cleaning also enhanced the surfaces giving the impression of greater reflectivity that in turn creates the possibility of a higher grade- even if it is a details grade. And that seems to be the readers digest condensed explanation of what we have with that submission. Look at the surviving detail which in part is attributable to an incomplete strike but it clearly exhibits significant wear. And that wear, in my view, is far greater than what we have with the 1860-o.
With respect to the 1860-o, the surfaces have enough lustre even though mutted by oxidation and originality to easily grade in the EF spectrum. The 1860-o was not enhanced. While it has signs of obvious circulation in the form of some minor scuffs and hairlining, that does not give rise to a details grade. This coin, in my view, has a look that a minority of collectors find attractive. The obverse shield collected grime as did the date- some would argue and suggest it would benefit from some level of enhancement. That is clearly what the grading history for this coin reflects after leaving the ANACS holder which is unfortunate.
Seems it will be difficult for the remaining population of original coins to survive with grading outcomes such as this-
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@REALGATOR said:
Conspiracy theory 101:
Wondering if CACG has a long term strategy to be tough in their early "Gen 1" days we're in now. Less grading fees now, but the ones that pass sell for high premiums and then the biz takes off.
That’s what I’m thinking as well, albeit my only information is via what’s been posted by forum members and their actual experiences and results. I realize this is but a snippet of the whole picture, but it looks like they’re applying draconian standards, giving the appearance that coins in their holders are perfect and perhaps under graded relative to other TPGs.
@bigjpst said:
So this could be in the other thread where the question is if most here agree it looks to be a 40-45 and PCGS calls it a 35. Is PCGS wrong? Or do we think they net graded it to 35 because of the small scratch in reverse?
Pcgs threw a bone to the submitter and graciously net graded it a 35. I’m in the camp of agreeing with cacg details grade / refusal to holder.
Except that CACG will straight grade it now that it has a CAC sticker. So, like all other grading services, CACG doesn't always agree with itself.
The real test is to now send it to CACG and see what happens. IF they grade it, then you have the case to send it back to them/call them and say, well, you done messed that up and I want a refund of my original grading fees. Now that would be superb.
But, CAC is loathe to grade anything that has that much dirt embedded in the devices and clean fields, IMHO. Meaning that they know it has been cleaned in some way shape or form. And they originally declined to grade it. So...maybe they should stick with their gut call. Again tho, as others have pointed out, the grading services are NOT necessarily consistent day to day and they'd just likely call this a matter of inconsistency.
Surf
Now that the coin is stickered, they don't really have a choice not to cross it at that grade. This is an unfortunate consequence of having two separate locations, and one of them is expected to perfectly emulate the standards of the other.
I would point out that this "mistake" is akin to PCGS sending a coin back in a details holder, and straight grading it on the next go-around, which we know is not a highly unusual occurrence. Being in the early stages of their infancy, inconsistencies such as this are going to be magnified and used against them, when the inescapable reality is that grading by humans will never be as accurate as we hope.
Ben the Coin Geek had a great example in one of his first CACG crossover videos. There was a CBH graded as PCGS 62. He cracked it and sent it to NGC, came back AU58. Back to PCGS, QC Details. Off to NGC again, AU Details Cleaned. CACG graded it AU58. I would hope that JA and the CACG team can synchronize enough that the coin would come back as an AU58 again, or be stickered as an AU58 if PCGS graded it, but there will always be coins that are right on the line and could go either way.
In summary, there's never been a better time to buy the coin, and not the holder.
@bigjpst said:
So this could be in the other thread where the question is if most here agree it looks to be a 40-45 and PCGS calls it a 35. Is PCGS wrong? Or do we think they net graded it to 35 because of the small scratch in reverse?
Pcgs threw a bone to the submitter and graciously net graded it a 35. I’m in the camp of agreeing with cacg details grade / refusal to holder.
Except that CACG will straight grade it now that it has a CAC sticker. So, like all other grading services, CACG doesn't always agree with itself.
The real test is to now send it to CACG and see what happens. IF they grade it, then you have the case to send it back to them/call them and say, well, you done messed that up and I want a refund of my original grading fees. Now that would be superb.
But, CAC is loathe to grade anything that has that much dirt embedded in the devices and clean fields, IMHO. Meaning that they know it has been cleaned in some way shape or form. And they originally declined to grade it. So...maybe they should stick with their gut call. Again tho, as others have pointed out, the grading services are NOT necessarily consistent day to day and they'd just likely call this a matter of inconsistency.
Surf
Now that the coin is stickered, they don't really have a choice not to cross it at that grade. This is an unfortunate consequence of having two separate locations, and one of them is expected to perfectly emulate the standards of the other.
Yes, but this is the risk HE (JA) chose, thus should also be held accountable for it. Seems pretty simple to me. Your stores screw up in two different locations? One store makes it right. Period. Else business suffers at both locations.
@bigjpst said:
So this could be in the other thread where the question is if most here agree it looks to be a 40-45 and PCGS calls it a 35. Is PCGS wrong? Or do we think they net graded it to 35 because of the small scratch in reverse?
Pcgs threw a bone to the submitter and graciously net graded it a 35. I’m in the camp of agreeing with cacg details grade / refusal to holder.
Except that CACG will straight grade it now that it has a CAC sticker. So, like all other grading services, CACG doesn't always agree with itself.
The real test is to now send it to CACG and see what happens. IF they grade it, then you have the case to send it back to them/call them and say, well, you done messed that up and I want a refund of my original grading fees. Now that would be superb.
But, CAC is loathe to grade anything that has that much dirt embedded in the devices and clean fields, IMHO. Meaning that they know it has been cleaned in some way shape or form. And they originally declined to grade it. So...maybe they should stick with their gut call. Again tho, as others have pointed out, the grading services are NOT necessarily consistent day to day and they'd just likely call this a matter of inconsistency.
Surf
Now that the coin is stickered, they don't really have a choice not to cross it at that grade. This is an unfortunate consequence of having two separate locations, and one of them is expected to perfectly emulate the standards of the other.
Yes, but this is the risk HE (JA) chose, thus should also be held accountable for it. Seems pretty simple to me. Your stores screw up in two different locations? One store makes it right. Period. Else business suffers at both locations.
Held accountable for what exactly? Who "screwed up" and who didn't?
@bigjpst said:
So this could be in the other thread where the question is if most here agree it looks to be a 40-45 and PCGS calls it a 35. Is PCGS wrong? Or do we think they net graded it to 35 because of the small scratch in reverse?
Pcgs threw a bone to the submitter and graciously net graded it a 35. I’m in the camp of agreeing with cacg details grade / refusal to holder.
Except that CACG will straight grade it now that it has a CAC sticker. So, like all other grading services, CACG doesn't always agree with itself.
The real test is to now send it to CACG and see what happens. IF they grade it, then you have the case to send it back to them/call them and say, well, you done messed that up and I want a refund of my original grading fees. Now that would be superb.
But, CAC is loathe to grade anything that has that much dirt embedded in the devices and clean fields, IMHO. Meaning that they know it has been cleaned in some way shape or form. And they originally declined to grade it. So...maybe they should stick with their gut call. Again tho, as others have pointed out, the grading services are NOT necessarily consistent day to day and they'd just likely call this a matter of inconsistency.
Surf
Now that the coin is stickered, they don't really have a choice not to cross it at that grade. This is an unfortunate consequence of having two separate locations, and one of them is expected to perfectly emulate the standards of the other.
Yes, but this is the risk HE (JA) chose, thus should also be held accountable for it. Seems pretty simple to me. Your stores screw up in two different locations? One store makes it right. Period. Else business suffers at both locations.
Yeah I’m confused by this statement as well. If you’re saying CACG originally screwed up, cac stickering fixed it, allowing CACG to now holder the coin. Customer just has to pay for the fix, allowing business to flourish at both locations.
@bigjpst said:
So this could be in the other thread where the question is if most here agree it looks to be a 40-45 and PCGS calls it a 35. Is PCGS wrong? Or do we think they net graded it to 35 because of the small scratch in reverse?
Pcgs threw a bone to the submitter and graciously net graded it a 35. I’m in the camp of agreeing with cacg details grade / refusal to holder.
Except that CACG will straight grade it now that it has a CAC sticker. So, like all other grading services, CACG doesn't always agree with itself.
The real test is to now send it to CACG and see what happens. IF they grade it, then you have the case to send it back to them/call them and say, well, you done messed that up and I want a refund of my original grading fees. Now that would be superb.
But, CAC is loathe to grade anything that has that much dirt embedded in the devices and clean fields, IMHO. Meaning that they know it has been cleaned in some way shape or form. And they originally declined to grade it. So...maybe they should stick with their gut call. Again tho, as others have pointed out, the grading services are NOT necessarily consistent day to day and they'd just likely call this a matter of inconsistency.
Surf
Now that the coin is stickered, they don't really have a choice not to cross it at that grade. This is an unfortunate consequence of having two separate locations, and one of them is expected to perfectly emulate the standards of the other.
Yes, but this is the risk HE (JA) chose, thus should also be held accountable for it. Seems pretty simple to me. Your stores screw up in two different locations? One store makes it right. Period. Else business suffers at both locations.
Yeah I’m confused by this statement as well. If you’re saying CACG originally screwed up, cac stickering fixed it, allowing CACG to now holder the coin. Customer just has to pay for the fix, allowing business to flourish at both locations.
OR did CACG make the right call, and PCGS and CAC screwed up the second time? These are rhetorical questions of course, I was just trying to shed some light from a different angle.
Has PCGS been known to "make it right" when a submitter had to grade a coin multiple times before they put it into the "correct" holder? (also rhetorical) 😉
@DeplorableDan said:
I would point out that this "mistake" is akin to PCGS sending a coin back in a details holder, and straight grading it on the next go-around, which we know is not a highly unusual occurrence. Being
@bigjpst said:
So this could be in the other thread where the question is if most here agree it looks to be a 40-45 and PCGS calls it a 35. Is PCGS wrong? Or do we think they net graded it to 35 because of the small scratch in reverse?
Pcgs threw a bone to the submitter and graciously net graded it a 35. I’m in the camp of agreeing with cacg details grade / refusal to holder.
Except that CACG will straight grade it now that it has a CAC sticker. So, like all other grading services, CACG doesn't always agree with itself.
The real test is to now send it to CACG and see what happens. IF they grade it, then you have the case to send it back to them/call them and say, well, you done messed that up and I want a refund of my original grading fees. Now that would be superb.
But, CAC is loathe to grade anything that has that much dirt embedded in the devices and clean fields, IMHO. Meaning that they know it has been cleaned in some way shape or form. And they originally declined to grade it. So...maybe they should stick with their gut call. Again tho, as others have pointed out, the grading services are NOT necessarily consistent day to day and they'd just likely call this a matter of inconsistency.
Surf
Now that the coin is stickered, they don't really have a choice not to cross it at that grade. This is an unfortunate consequence of having two separate locations, and one of them is expected to perfectly emulate the standards of the other.
Yes, but this is the risk HE (JA) chose, thus should also be held accountable for it. Seems pretty simple to me. Your stores screw up in two different locations? One store makes it right. Period. Else business suffers at both locations.
Yeah I’m confused by this statement as well. If you’re saying CACG originally screwed up, cac stickering fixed it, allowing CACG to now holder the coin. Customer just has to pay for the fix, allowing business to flourish at both locations.
OR did CACG make the right call, and PCGS and CAC screwed up the second time? These are rhetorical questions of course, I was just trying to shed some light from a different angle.
Has PCGS been known to "make it right" when a submitter had to grade a coin multiple times before they put it into the "correct" holder? (also rhetorical) 😉
Ok, here's my line of thinking. Feel free to disagree, no problem.
Independent coin company grades a coin as 45. CACG says, no, it does not grade (e.g. problem coin). Second coin company says it grades 45 (or in this case 35, whatever, doesn't matter, it straight grades). Now there are two independent coin companies that say the coin straight grades, and CACG said it doesn't. NOW the parent company of CACG AGREES with the independent coin companies and says it is TOP 10% for the (currently) assigned grade. Thus CAC has now disagreed with itself and essentially admitted that CACG made a mistake.
So to me, this is pretty clear cut. A company with two locations SHOULD be sync'd together, and they aren't. Fine. They need to make it right to the submitter for the CACG fees, and then holder it, free of charge, IF the submitter so wants. Otherwise, refund the fees associated with the CACG grading plus shipping.
I work in a scientific laboratory that has 3 locations. We are monitored by outside agencies so we DON'T make mistakes like this. If we do, we have to own up to them, make them right, then change our policies and procedures so we don't make the same mistake. Now, while that might be a bit tough with coin grading, the least they can do, when faced with this kind of evidence, is make it right, which I outlined above.
OR did CACG make the right call, and PCGS and CAC screwed up the second time? These are rhetorical questions of course, I was just trying to shed some light from a different angle.
Information from the SAME company should be consistent. It was not. Thus, this line of thinking/rhetorical question has a false premise.
Has PCGS been known to "make it right" when a submitter had to grade a coin multiple times before they put it into the "correct" holder? (also rhetorical) 😉
The correct holder? There was no evidence presented prior to this that their opinion/grade was in error (and in fact, it sounds like in many of these situations PCGS is consistent many, many times, and then perhaps "makes a mistake" with a better grade -- I'm sure the submitter does NOT resubmit the coin again after getting a higher grade.) Only the submitter's opinion, who is not an "expert." AND I'm pretty sure the coin gets cracked out each time, thus if PCGS goes 10/11 on a "raw" submission of the same coin, I'd say this is pretty damn good. Same can apply to NGC or CACG. If PCGS was presented with the above situation, my guess is they might make the original submission right. Maybe not. I'm not them, but I do know what I would do.
Surf, I fully agree with the philosophy that companies should right their wrongs. And, honestly I’ve heard of more instances where JA has made someone whole when CAC admits a mistake was made, than the other two companies.
I just feel that we might be unfairly holding CAC/CACG to a much higher standard than P or N, when the fact of the matter is that grades are just the opinion of a group of humans at a given time. Sure, there’s are some coins that will probably grade the same thing 8 or 9 times out of 10 at any grading company, but there are others that sit right on the threshold in between grades, or the threshold of being cleaned. I’ve spoken with JA about this very subject and he admits that there’s some that he could go either way on, it’s an unavoidable circumstance of trying to quantify an opinion.
All I’m saying is that there are coins out there that have probably had 4-5 different grades assigned by PCGS over a period a time if not more, and several of them might be details grades. You suggest that If presented with the above situation, PCGS might offer to make the submitter whole or reimburse for wasted grading fees. I can virtually guarantee that there isn’t the snowballest chance in hell of that happening. Knowing JA, he might even offer to holder the coin now at no further expense to OP if he were told this story, but he’s certainly under no obligation to do so and nor are the other services.
Reverse in the original photo looks gently cleaned although some might find it market acceptable. Does not look "original" in any event. Some coins are going to be on the border for grade-able. I am a bit surprised it stickered.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
@bigjpst said:
So this could be in the other thread where the question is if most here agree it looks to be a 40-45 and PCGS calls it a 35. Is PCGS wrong? Or do we think they net graded it to 35 because of the small scratch in reverse?
Pcgs threw a bone to the submitter and graciously net graded it a 35. I’m in the camp of agreeing with cacg details grade / refusal to holder.
Except that CACG will straight grade it now that it has a CAC sticker. So, like all other grading services, CACG doesn't always agree with itself.
The real test is to now send it to CACG and see what happens. IF they grade it, then you have the case to send it back to them/call them and say, well, you done messed that up and I want a refund of my original grading fees. Now that would be superb.
But, CAC is loathe to grade anything that has that much dirt embedded in the devices and clean fields, IMHO. Meaning that they know it has been cleaned in some way shape or form. And they originally declined to grade it. So...maybe they should stick with their gut call. Again tho, as others have pointed out, the grading services are NOT necessarily consistent day to day and they'd just likely call this a matter of inconsistency.
Surf
Now that the coin is stickered, they don't really have a choice not to cross it at that grade. This is an unfortunate consequence of having two separate locations, and one of them is expected to perfectly emulate the standards of the other.
Yes, but this is the risk HE (JA) chose, thus should also be held accountable for it. Seems pretty simple to me. Your stores screw up in two different locations? One store makes it right. Period. Else business suffers at both locations.
Yeah I’m confused by this statement as well. If you’re saying CACG originally screwed up, cac stickering fixed it, allowing CACG to now holder the coin. Customer just has to pay for the fix, allowing business to flourish at both locations.
OR did CACG make the right call, and PCGS and CAC screwed up the second time? These are rhetorical questions of course, I was just trying to shed some light from a different angle.
Has PCGS been known to "make it right" when a submitter had to grade a coin multiple times before they put it into the "correct" holder? (also rhetorical) 😉
The reason this is such an interesting scenario is that cac, pcgs, and ANACS thought the coin should merit a straight grade, but cacg when asked to cross it said no straight grade was acceptable let’s detail it. I would use this information to create a hierarchy of quality and say cacg straight graded slabbed coins are solid A+ for the grade, pcgs/ngc cac coins are A- to B+ coins, pcgs are B coins, ngc are B- coins, ANACS are C coins. Something along those lines and purchase accordingly.
When cacg came along, silly me thought a cacg coin would be of equal quality to a pcgs cac coin in the same grade. That is clearly not the case, they are most likely superior.
@DeplorableDan said:
Surf, I fully agree with the philosophy that companies should right their wrongs. And, honestly I’ve heard of more instances where JA has made someone whole when CAC admits a mistake was made, than the other two companies.
I haven't, and respect your insight and stories. I haven't, likely cuz I'm not that in-tuned with the market as you are.
I just feel that we might be unfairly holding CAC/CACG to a much higher standard than P or N, when the fact of the matter is that grades are just the opinion of a group of humans at a given time. Sure, there’s are some coins that will probably grade the same thing 8 or 9 times out of 10 at any grading company, but there are others that sit right on the threshold in between grades, or the threshold of being cleaned. I’ve spoken with JA about this very subject and he admits that there’s some that he could go either way on, it’s an unavoidable circumstance of trying to quantify an opinion.
I think, personally, that CAC/CACG has made a MARKET at saying they are the best in the business by running adds for years stating that their "coins" bring more money than non-stickered coins. So, are we being unfair, or are we just merely applying the philosophy/cult of personality that CAC/CACG has built FOR ITSELF over the last 10 years? I kinda think the latter. (see @1madman comment above) Sure, are they allowed to make mistakes? Yes. Of course. But if you are going to say/imply you are the best at this particular facet of the coin world, well, then you'd better own it. And unfairly holding them to the fire seems a bit of a long shot to me. Kinda like me sending coins to them thinking I'll get better than a 30% green bean rate
All I’m saying is that there are coins out there that have probably had 4-5 different grades assigned by PCGS over a period a time if not more, and several of them might be details grades. You suggest that If presented with the above situation, PCGS might offer to make the submitter whole or reimburse for wasted grading fees. I can virtually guarantee that there isn’t the snowballest chance in hell of that happening. Knowing JA, he might even offer to holder the coin now at no further expense to OP if he were told this story, but he’s certainly under no obligation to do so and nor are the other services.
I agree than none of the companies are liable or even remotely obligated to "make this right" or any other situation. But I'd say positive press goes a long ways, as you have intimated above.
...
When cacg came along, silly me thought a cacg coin would be of equal quality to a pcgs cac coin in the same grade. That is clearly not the case, they are most likely superior.
Or they aren't. On paper, they're supposed to be equivalent. Examples like this one are purely anecdotal. CACG's disadvantage is that they have to establish consistency between stickering and grading. Time will tell how much of a problem this is and how the "grading arbitrage" game will have to be played.
I think, personally, that CAC/CACG has made a MARKET at saying they are the best in the business by running adds for years stating that their "coins" bring more money than non-stickered coins. So, are we being unfair, or are we just merely applying the philosophy/cult of personality that CAC/CACG has built FOR ITSELF over the last 10 years? I kinda think the latter. (see @1madman comment above) Sure, are they allowed to make mistakes? Yes. Of course. But if you are going to say/imply you are the best at this particular facet of the coin world, well, then you'd better own it. And unfairly holding them to the fire seems a bit of a long shot to me. Kinda like me sending coins to them thinking I'll get better than a 30% green bean rate
I will concede to that point. Though I don't believe it was JA's intention to do that, greysheet and other associates' marketing may have given many that impression. Most don't realize that JA never trashes non-cac coins. He will be the first to say that there are so many great coins out there that just don't make the cut for stickering, yet they shouldn't be ignored.
CAC has always been fallible just like any other group of humans, but due to the higher expectations of their performance, and now having a spin-off operation (CACG) under the same umbrella, their mistakes will be under greater scrutiny. I still believe they make significantly fewer mistakes than the other two, but at the end of the day, we can and will find mistakes in any holder.
I agree than none of the companies are liable or even remotely obligated to "make this right" or any other situation. But I'd say positive press goes a long ways, as you have intimated above.
fun conversation!
Surf
Positive press never hurts, that its for sure. Very good conversation, that's what makes this forum great!
You suggest that If presented with the above situation, PCGS might offer to make the submitter whole or reimburse for wasted grading fees. I can virtually guarantee that there isn’t the snowballest chance in hell of that happening. Knowing JA, he might even offer to holder the coin now at no further expense to OP if he were told this story, but he’s certainly under no obligation to do so and nor are the other services.
We have all heard several first hand anecdotes about JA specifically making clients whole even though, in those circumstances, he had no ethical call to do so (IMO) and certainly no legal obligation. He does it because he's a stand-up guy who puts the collector first and backs that up out of his pocket.
I have heard and personally experienced many issues with PCGS. Overall I still like the company but they would rather pay multiple customer service reps for hours to make excuses and equivocate when they are in the wrong rather than offer a $50 reimbursement (or similar).
PCGS came through for me several years ago and "made me whole" after an expensive coin I'd purchased was
proven to be doctored. I think PCGS and CAC/CACG are both first rate. As others have stated, graders are only
human, and some inconsistency is to be expected.
Comments
It sounds like CACG is looking for reasons not to grade coins. I think both coins look like they should grade.
Watch out for those CACG L coins though, especially when the L stands for “Newman”.
Looking closer at your photos of the first coin, I’m not so sure it was the reverse that kept it from grading at CACG. The obverse fields may have been the reason.
These coins and I’m going to assume countless more to come are IMO going to force CAC to change strategy if they plan to keep both services open. Maintaining consistent standards between two separate locations with separate graders is already proving difficult. I imagine it’s only going to get worse as the volume of coins increases.
My Ebay Store
I think it is a small planchet defect.
My guess is ANACS 35 to CACG 40.
That looks like a die crack. The coin looks fully original and problem free based on the pics and deserves a straight grade. Please call CACG to find out why they gave it a details grade and let us know what they say. This could be an opportunity for a learning experience.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
When I first looked at the area, I agree with you about the possibility of a die crack. But then I looked at the left 2 lines on the shield and see the indentation on them with no crack between them, leading me to believe it’s a scratch.
Why do you say that? A relatively high percentage of Newman coins received stickers (at least the gold). Do you think CAC was more forgiving with these?
Conspiracy theory 101:
Wondering if CACG has a long term strategy to be tough in their early "Gen 1" days we're in now. Less grading fees now, but the ones that pass sell for high premiums and then the biz takes off.
Sad...
The more I read the more I see that there is some explaining to do. There are simply no winners with this outcome.
I see two original coins that capture the look and expectations for a 45 grade.
@Crepidodera - best of luck with your registry set and trying to illustrate what is possible against the odds.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
For whatever it is worth, I would have guessed XF40.
I decided to add an image from another thread that illustrates a graded XF Details cleaned 1871CC Quarter by NGC. Clearly this is not an apples to apples comparison but an image is often worth 1000 words in trying to explain grading and how it is subjective. The 1871-cc deserved a details grade. Personally I see an EF details grade as generous -as in very generous- but the cleaning also enhanced the surfaces giving the impression of greater reflectivity that in turn creates the possibility of a higher grade- even if it is a details grade. And that seems to be the readers digest condensed explanation of what we have with that submission. Look at the surviving detail which in part is attributable to an incomplete strike but it clearly exhibits significant wear. And that wear, in my view, is far greater than what we have with the 1860-o.
With respect to the 1860-o, the surfaces have enough lustre even though mutted by oxidation and originality to easily grade in the EF spectrum. The 1860-o was not enhanced. While it has signs of obvious circulation in the form of some minor scuffs and hairlining, that does not give rise to a details grade. This coin, in my view, has a look that a minority of collectors find attractive. The obverse shield collected grime as did the date- some would argue and suggest it would benefit from some level of enhancement. That is clearly what the grading history for this coin reflects after leaving the ANACS holder which is unfortunate.
Seems it will be difficult for the remaining population of original coins to survive with grading outcomes such as this-
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
That’s what I’m thinking as well, albeit my only information is via what’s been posted by forum members and their actual experiences and results. I realize this is but a snippet of the whole picture, but it looks like they’re applying draconian standards, giving the appearance that coins in their holders are perfect and perhaps under graded relative to other TPGs.
Now that the coin is stickered, they don't really have a choice not to cross it at that grade. This is an unfortunate consequence of having two separate locations, and one of them is expected to perfectly emulate the standards of the other.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I would point out that this "mistake" is akin to PCGS sending a coin back in a details holder, and straight grading it on the next go-around, which we know is not a highly unusual occurrence. Being in the early stages of their infancy, inconsistencies such as this are going to be magnified and used against them, when the inescapable reality is that grading by humans will never be as accurate as we hope.
Ben the Coin Geek had a great example in one of his first CACG crossover videos. There was a CBH graded as PCGS 62. He cracked it and sent it to NGC, came back AU58. Back to PCGS, QC Details. Off to NGC again, AU Details Cleaned. CACG graded it AU58. I would hope that JA and the CACG team can synchronize enough that the coin would come back as an AU58 again, or be stickered as an AU58 if PCGS graded it, but there will always be coins that are right on the line and could go either way.
In summary, there's never been a better time to buy the coin, and not the holder.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Bingo!
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Yes, but this is the risk HE (JA) chose, thus should also be held accountable for it. Seems pretty simple to me. Your stores screw up in two different locations? One store makes it right. Period. Else business suffers at both locations.
Held accountable for what exactly? Who "screwed up" and who didn't?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Yeah I’m confused by this statement as well. If you’re saying CACG originally screwed up, cac stickering fixed it, allowing CACG to now holder the coin. Customer just has to pay for the fix, allowing business to flourish at both locations.
OR did CACG make the right call, and PCGS and CAC screwed up the second time? These are rhetorical questions of course, I was just trying to shed some light from a different angle.
Has PCGS been known to "make it right" when a submitter had to grade a coin multiple times before they put it into the "correct" holder? (also rhetorical) 😉
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Ok, here's my line of thinking. Feel free to disagree, no problem.
Independent coin company grades a coin as 45. CACG says, no, it does not grade (e.g. problem coin). Second coin company says it grades 45 (or in this case 35, whatever, doesn't matter, it straight grades). Now there are two independent coin companies that say the coin straight grades, and CACG said it doesn't. NOW the parent company of CACG AGREES with the independent coin companies and says it is TOP 10% for the (currently) assigned grade. Thus CAC has now disagreed with itself and essentially admitted that CACG made a mistake.
So to me, this is pretty clear cut. A company with two locations SHOULD be sync'd together, and they aren't. Fine. They need to make it right to the submitter for the CACG fees, and then holder it, free of charge, IF the submitter so wants. Otherwise, refund the fees associated with the CACG grading plus shipping.
I work in a scientific laboratory that has 3 locations. We are monitored by outside agencies so we DON'T make mistakes like this. If we do, we have to own up to them, make them right, then change our policies and procedures so we don't make the same mistake. Now, while that might be a bit tough with coin grading, the least they can do, when faced with this kind of evidence, is make it right, which I outlined above.
Information from the SAME company should be consistent. It was not. Thus, this line of thinking/rhetorical question has a false premise.
The correct holder? There was no evidence presented prior to this that their opinion/grade was in error (and in fact, it sounds like in many of these situations PCGS is consistent many, many times, and then perhaps "makes a mistake" with a better grade -- I'm sure the submitter does NOT resubmit the coin again after getting a higher grade.) Only the submitter's opinion, who is not an "expert." AND I'm pretty sure the coin gets cracked out each time, thus if PCGS goes 10/11 on a "raw" submission of the same coin, I'd say this is pretty damn good. Same can apply to NGC or CACG. If PCGS was presented with the above situation, my guess is they might make the original submission right. Maybe not. I'm not them, but I do know what I would do.
Surf
Surf, I fully agree with the philosophy that companies should right their wrongs. And, honestly I’ve heard of more instances where JA has made someone whole when CAC admits a mistake was made, than the other two companies.
I just feel that we might be unfairly holding CAC/CACG to a much higher standard than P or N, when the fact of the matter is that grades are just the opinion of a group of humans at a given time. Sure, there’s are some coins that will probably grade the same thing 8 or 9 times out of 10 at any grading company, but there are others that sit right on the threshold in between grades, or the threshold of being cleaned. I’ve spoken with JA about this very subject and he admits that there’s some that he could go either way on, it’s an unavoidable circumstance of trying to quantify an opinion.
All I’m saying is that there are coins out there that have probably had 4-5 different grades assigned by PCGS over a period a time if not more, and several of them might be details grades. You suggest that If presented with the above situation, PCGS might offer to make the submitter whole or reimburse for wasted grading fees. I can virtually guarantee that there isn’t the snowballest chance in hell of that happening. Knowing JA, he might even offer to holder the coin now at no further expense to OP if he were told this story, but he’s certainly under no obligation to do so and nor are the other services.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Reverse in the original photo looks gently cleaned although some might find it market acceptable. Does not look "original" in any event. Some coins are going to be on the border for grade-able. I am a bit surprised it stickered.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
The reason this is such an interesting scenario is that cac, pcgs, and ANACS thought the coin should merit a straight grade, but cacg when asked to cross it said no straight grade was acceptable let’s detail it. I would use this information to create a hierarchy of quality and say cacg straight graded slabbed coins are solid A+ for the grade, pcgs/ngc cac coins are A- to B+ coins, pcgs are B coins, ngc are B- coins, ANACS are C coins. Something along those lines and purchase accordingly.
When cacg came along, silly me thought a cacg coin would be of equal quality to a pcgs cac coin in the same grade. That is clearly not the case, they are most likely superior.
I haven't, and respect your insight and stories. I haven't, likely cuz I'm not that in-tuned with the market as you are.
I think, personally, that CAC/CACG has made a MARKET at saying they are the best in the business by running adds for years stating that their "coins" bring more money than non-stickered coins. So, are we being unfair, or are we just merely applying the philosophy/cult of personality that CAC/CACG has built FOR ITSELF over the last 10 years? I kinda think the latter. (see @1madman comment above) Sure, are they allowed to make mistakes? Yes. Of course. But if you are going to say/imply you are the best at this particular facet of the coin world, well, then you'd better own it. And unfairly holding them to the fire seems a bit of a long shot to me. Kinda like me sending coins to them thinking I'll get better than a 30% green bean rate
I agree than none of the companies are liable or even remotely obligated to "make this right" or any other situation. But I'd say positive press goes a long ways, as you have intimated above.
fun conversation!
Surf
>
Or they aren't. On paper, they're supposed to be equivalent. Examples like this one are purely anecdotal. CACG's disadvantage is that they have to establish consistency between stickering and grading. Time will tell how much of a problem this is and how the "grading arbitrage" game will have to be played.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I will concede to that point. Though I don't believe it was JA's intention to do that, greysheet and other associates' marketing may have given many that impression. Most don't realize that JA never trashes non-cac coins. He will be the first to say that there are so many great coins out there that just don't make the cut for stickering, yet they shouldn't be ignored.
CAC has always been fallible just like any other group of humans, but due to the higher expectations of their performance, and now having a spin-off operation (CACG) under the same umbrella, their mistakes will be under greater scrutiny. I still believe they make significantly fewer mistakes than the other two, but at the end of the day, we can and will find mistakes in any holder.
Positive press never hurts, that its for sure. Very good conversation, that's what makes this forum great!
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
We have all heard several first hand anecdotes about JA specifically making clients whole even though, in those circumstances, he had no ethical call to do so (IMO) and certainly no legal obligation. He does it because he's a stand-up guy who puts the collector first and backs that up out of his pocket.
I have heard and personally experienced many issues with PCGS. Overall I still like the company but they would rather pay multiple customer service reps for hours to make excuses and equivocate when they are in the wrong rather than offer a $50 reimbursement (or similar).
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
PCGS came through for me several years ago and "made me whole" after an expensive coin I'd purchased was
proven to be doctored. I think PCGS and CAC/CACG are both first rate. As others have stated, graders are only
human, and some inconsistency is to be expected.
Doug