I agree with Mark ( which probably doesn’t surprise you). I think you are taking one statement off the CAC website and interpreting it in a way that makes little sense to most of us who have dealt with CAC for years.
I do think it is fair that all TPGs struggle to articulate their standards in written form. John Albanese has said that CAC has not always marketed itself as well as it could.
I believe that JA would explain that C coins are not problem coins that should get detailed. Rather they are coins with an assigned grade that he was not comfortable stickering because stickering implied that he would make a market for the coin at that grade.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
@Carterofmars said:
Silly question but if CACG is the most stringent, isn't it better to get coins graded by them?
If by “get”, you meant “buy”, it depends upon what you have to pay for the coins. And if you meant submit for grading, it depends upon what you’ll be able to obtain for the coins. Grades shouldn’t be looked at in a vacuum.
I'm very happy buying this stringent graded CACG Layfayette dollar !
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
It's not a category, it's a spectrum. As JA said (and remember I referred you to listening to some interviews you can probably find on Youtube). Take 100 [problem free, non-details] PCGS MS65 Morgan dollars and rank them from worst to best, the top portion are A coins, bottom portion are C coins, and middle are B. Simple as that.
I get that. I was responding to the comment that problem coins exist in all 3 categories and could get a details grade at CACG. I would think coins with issues would fall into the C portion of the spectrum, not the A and B portion.
Again, @DisneyFan nailed it. Why would only coins falling in the C portion of a grade's spectrum have PVC on them, or some other problem? Theoretically problems would be evenly distributed across spectrum.
@Manifest_Destiny said:
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part.
You keep saying this and then go on to explain why you disagree with what everyone else is saying. That doesn't sound to me like you are saying the same thing that everyone else is.
We're all saying CACG details grades PCGS/NGC straight graded coins. I think they either do that to C category coins or they have other categories that they don't publicly acknowledge which is what Dan was saying with his "D", "E" and "F" comment.
Hopefully that helps you understand better.
Not trying to be argumentative here, just trying to learn. But can you point to where CACG has said there are only A, B and C coins?
Understood, and thanks for being cordial. This comes from the CAC/CACG website.
And not stated (likely because they thought it would be obvious) is that in the opinion of CAC/CACG there are also 1) straight-grade coins, which are overgraded. Call them D, E, Z, fail or whatever you want. And 2) problem coins, which should receive detail grades.
That’s five categories, in all.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
For example, a PCGS MS65+ with PVC. Plus coins are by definition, "A" coins.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
A “problem” coin wouldn’t be an A, B or C coin - it would be a detail-grade coin. If the problem happened to be PVC and the PVC could be removed with no damage having been done to the coin, it could then be eligible for a straight grade classification.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
A “problem” coin wouldn’t be an A, B or C coin - it would be a detail-grade coin. If the problem happened to be PVC and the PVC could be removed with no damage having been done to the coin, it could then be eligible for a straight grade classification.
I agree. But, somehow, people are starting to talk about details coins being A, B and C coins rather than a separate category.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
I'm not the one saying it is.
I know. I'm just not sure why anyone is saying it.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
A “problem” coin wouldn’t be an A, B or C coin - it would be a detail-grade coin. If the problem happened to be PVC and the PVC could be removed with no damage having been done to the coin, it could then be eligible for a straight grade classification.
I agree. But, somehow, people are starting to talk about details coins being A, B and C coins rather than a separate category.
I believe the reference is to PCGS A, B, and C coins that would grade Details at CACG.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
A “problem” coin wouldn’t be an A, B or C coin - it would be a detail-grade coin. If the problem happened to be PVC and the PVC could be removed with no damage having been done to the coin, it could then be eligible for a straight grade classification.
I agree. But, somehow, people are starting to talk about details coins being A, B and C coins rather than a separate category.
I believe the reference is to PCGS A, B, and C coins that would grade Details at CACG.
But it doesn't really make sense unless you consider PCGS incompetent. Even if PCGS let's a problem slide, they still v know it's there. So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
I'm also not sure it makes sense to talk about a PCGS A coin. They don't make such a distinction. CAC does when evaluating PCGS coins. But you can't really apply such a standard to your own coin. There is always a C coin in your own grading because it sinply represents the bottom of the distribution.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
A “problem” coin wouldn’t be an A, B or C coin - it would be a detail-grade coin. If the problem happened to be PVC and the PVC could be removed with no damage having been done to the coin, it could then be eligible for a straight grade classification.
I agree. But, somehow, people are starting to talk about details coins being A, B and C coins rather than a separate category.
I believe the reference is to PCGS A, B, and C coins that would grade Details at CACG.
But it doesn't really make sense unless you conduct PCGS incompetent. Even if PCGS let's a problem slide, they still v know it's there. So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
I'm also not sure it makes sense to talk about a PCGS A coin. They don't make such a distinction. CAC does when evaluating PCGS coins. But you can't really apply such a standard to your own coin. There is always a C coin in your own grading because it sinply represents the bottom of the distribution.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details. Clearly, at least to me because it is too prevalent, this is a difference in standards rather than isolated mistakes.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it. Other examples, and I've seen a few, are scratches that PCGS deemed minor but CACG deemed not minor and Details. Why can't that coin be an "A" MS63 or MS64? 63's and 64's have plenty of marks on them.
A specific example might be this coin. PCGS calls it an AU50 and IMO it is a nice "A" or "B" AU50, but I speculate that CACG would Details it for the scratches.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
A “problem” coin wouldn’t be an A, B or C coin - it would be a detail-grade coin. If the problem happened to be PVC and the PVC could be removed with no damage having been done to the coin, it could then be eligible for a straight grade classification.
I agree. But, somehow, people are starting to talk about details coins being A, B and C coins rather than a separate category.
I believe the reference is to PCGS A, B, and C coins that would grade Details at CACG.
But it doesn't really make sense unless you conduct PCGS incompetent. Even if PCGS let's a problem slide, they still v know it's there. So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
I'm also not sure it makes sense to talk about a PCGS A coin. They don't make such a distinction. CAC does when evaluating PCGS coins. But you can't really apply such a standard to your own coin. There is always a C coin in your own grading because it sinply represents the bottom of the distribution.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details. Clearly, at least to me because it is too prevalent, this is a difference in standards rather than isolated mistakes.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it. Other examples, and I've seen a few, are scratches that PCGS deemed minor but CACG deemed not minor and Details. Why can't that coin be an "A" MS63 or MS64? 63's and 64's have plenty of marks on them.
A specific example might be this coin. PCGS calls it an AU50 and IMO it is a nice "A" or "B" AU50, but I speculate that CACG would Details it for the scratches.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
I don’t even see the relevance of the MS64+ Peace dollar results. They don’t appear to show any inconsistency or particularly tight grading, just different results with and without the presence of PVC.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
A “problem” coin wouldn’t be an A, B or C coin - it would be a detail-grade coin. If the problem happened to be PVC and the PVC could be removed with no damage having been done to the coin, it could then be eligible for a straight grade classification.
I agree. But, somehow, people are starting to talk about details coins being A, B and C coins rather than a separate category.
I believe the reference is to PCGS A, B, and C coins that would grade Details at CACG.
But it doesn't really make sense unless you conduct PCGS incompetent. Even if PCGS let's a problem slide, they still v know it's there. So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
I'm also not sure it makes sense to talk about a PCGS A coin. They don't make such a distinction. CAC does when evaluating PCGS coins. But you can't really apply such a standard to your own coin. There is always a C coin in your own grading because it sinply represents the bottom of the distribution.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details. Clearly, at least to me because it is too prevalent, this is a difference in standards rather than isolated mistakes.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it. Other examples, and I've seen a few, are scratches that PCGS deemed minor but CACG deemed not minor and Details. Why can't that coin be an "A" MS63 or MS64? 63's and 64's have plenty of marks on them.
A specific example might be this coin. PCGS calls it an AU50 and IMO it is a nice "A" or "B" AU50, but I speculate that CACG would Details it for the scratches.
What did I say that isn't consistent with that?
You said:
So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
So I provided examples of PCGS A coins that CACG would have assigned Details to.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
No, I'd had the coin for 10+ years. I'm getting better at seeing and recognizing it.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
I don’t even see the relevance of the MS64+ Peace dollar results. They don’t appear to show any inconsistency or particularly tight grading, just different results with and without the presence of PVC.
Because @jmlanzaf said that he could see no reason for a PCGS A coin to be graded Details, so I provided one.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
A “problem” coin wouldn’t be an A, B or C coin - it would be a detail-grade coin. If the problem happened to be PVC and the PVC could be removed with no damage having been done to the coin, it could then be eligible for a straight grade classification.
I agree. But, somehow, people are starting to talk about details coins being A, B and C coins rather than a separate category.
I believe the reference is to PCGS A, B, and C coins that would grade Details at CACG.
But it doesn't really make sense unless you conduct PCGS incompetent. Even if PCGS let's a problem slide, they still v know it's there. So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
I'm also not sure it makes sense to talk about a PCGS A coin. They don't make such a distinction. CAC does when evaluating PCGS coins. But you can't really apply such a standard to your own coin. There is always a C coin in your own grading because it sinply represents the bottom of the distribution.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details. Clearly, at least to me because it is too prevalent, this is a difference in standards rather than isolated mistakes.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it. Other examples, and I've seen a few, are scratches that PCGS deemed minor but CACG deemed not minor and Details. Why can't that coin be an "A" MS63 or MS64? 63's and 64's have plenty of marks on them.
A specific example might be this coin. PCGS calls it an AU50 and IMO it is a nice "A" or "B" AU50, but I speculate that CACG would Details it for the scratches.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
No, I'd had the coin for 10+ years. I'm getting better at seeing and recognizing it.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
I don’t even see the relevance of the MS64+ Peace dollar results. They don’t appear to show any inconsistency or particularly tight grading, just different results with and without the presence of PVC.
Because @jmlanzaf said that he could see no reason for a PCGS A coin to be graded Details, so I provided one.
You didn’t provide one, as at the time the coin had PVC, it wasn’t an “A” coin in the eyes of CAC.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
A “problem” coin wouldn’t be an A, B or C coin - it would be a detail-grade coin. If the problem happened to be PVC and the PVC could be removed with no damage having been done to the coin, it could then be eligible for a straight grade classification.
I agree. But, somehow, people are starting to talk about details coins being A, B and C coins rather than a separate category.
I believe the reference is to PCGS A, B, and C coins that would grade Details at CACG.
But it doesn't really make sense unless you conduct PCGS incompetent. Even if PCGS let's a problem slide, they still v know it's there. So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
I'm also not sure it makes sense to talk about a PCGS A coin. They don't make such a distinction. CAC does when evaluating PCGS coins. But you can't really apply such a standard to your own coin. There is always a C coin in your own grading because it sinply represents the bottom of the distribution.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details. Clearly, at least to me because it is too prevalent, this is a difference in standards rather than isolated mistakes.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it. Other examples, and I've seen a few, are scratches that PCGS deemed minor but CACG deemed not minor and Details. Why can't that coin be an "A" MS63 or MS64? 63's and 64's have plenty of marks on them.
A specific example might be this coin. PCGS calls it an AU50 and IMO it is a nice "A" or "B" AU50, but I speculate that CACG would Details it for the scratches.
What did I say that isn't consistent with that?
You said:
So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
So I provided examples of PCGS A coins that CACG would have assigned Details to.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
No, I'd had the coin for 10+ years. I'm getting better at seeing and recognizing it.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
I don’t even see the relevance of the MS64+ Peace dollar results. They don’t appear to show any inconsistency or particularly tight grading, just different results with and without the presence of PVC.
Because @jmlanzaf said that he could see no reason for a PCGS A coin to be graded Details, so I provided one.
You didn’t provide one, as at the time the coin had PVC, it wasn’t an “A” coin in the eyes of CAC.
It was in the eyes of PCGS.
When are we going to stop pretending that coins with problems can't be graded? It was an MS64+ coin with PVC. You can have an MS64+ coin that has been cleaned. You can have an MS64+ coin with a planchet flaw. Just because TPGs are not willing to put grades on some of these coins doesn't mean the coins can't fall into the A and B portions of the 1 to 70 spectrum or the corollary, that they all somehow fall only into the C portion of the spectrum.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
A “problem” coin wouldn’t be an A, B or C coin - it would be a detail-grade coin. If the problem happened to be PVC and the PVC could be removed with no damage having been done to the coin, it could then be eligible for a straight grade classification.
I agree. But, somehow, people are starting to talk about details coins being A, B and C coins rather than a separate category.
I believe the reference is to PCGS A, B, and C coins that would grade Details at CACG.
But it doesn't really make sense unless you conduct PCGS incompetent. Even if PCGS let's a problem slide, they still v know it's there. So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
I'm also not sure it makes sense to talk about a PCGS A coin. They don't make such a distinction. CAC does when evaluating PCGS coins. But you can't really apply such a standard to your own coin. There is always a C coin in your own grading because it sinply represents the bottom of the distribution.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details. Clearly, at least to me because it is too prevalent, this is a difference in standards rather than isolated mistakes.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it. Other examples, and I've seen a few, are scratches that PCGS deemed minor but CACG deemed not minor and Details. Why can't that coin be an "A" MS63 or MS64? 63's and 64's have plenty of marks on them.
A specific example might be this coin. PCGS calls it an AU50 and IMO it is a nice "A" or "B" AU50, but I speculate that CACG would Details it for the scratches.
What did I say that isn't consistent with that?
You said:
So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
So I provided examples of PCGS A coins that CACG would have assigned Details to.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
No, I'd had the coin for 10+ years. I'm getting better at seeing and recognizing it.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
I don’t even see the relevance of the MS64+ Peace dollar results. They don’t appear to show any inconsistency or particularly tight grading, just different results with and without the presence of PVC.
Because @jmlanzaf said that he could see no reason for a PCGS A coin to be graded Details, so I provided one.
You didn’t provide one, as at the time the coin had PVC, it wasn’t an “A” coin in the eyes of CAC.
It was in the eyes of PCGS.
When are we going to stop pretending that coins with problems can't be graded? It was an MS64+ coin with PVC. You can have an MS64+ coin that has been cleaned. You can have an MS64+ coin with a planchet flaw. Just because TPGs are not willing to put grades on some of these coins doesn't mean the coins can't fall into the A and B portions of the 1 to 70 spectrum or the corollary, that they all somehow fall only into the C portion of the spectrum.
Please stop exaggerating. No one's pretending that coins with problems can't be graded. They can be and are being graded, including by CACG. However, It's a matter of what the type and degree of the problem is. And that's as it should be.
As for one of your examples above, I sure wouldn't want an MS64+ coin that had been cleaned. Apparently, we have very different levels of tolerance for problems.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
A “problem” coin wouldn’t be an A, B or C coin - it would be a detail-grade coin. If the problem happened to be PVC and the PVC could be removed with no damage having been done to the coin, it could then be eligible for a straight grade classification.
I agree. But, somehow, people are starting to talk about details coins being A, B and C coins rather than a separate category.
I believe the reference is to PCGS A, B, and C coins that would grade Details at CACG.
But it doesn't really make sense unless you conduct PCGS incompetent. Even if PCGS let's a problem slide, they still v know it's there. So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
I'm also not sure it makes sense to talk about a PCGS A coin. They don't make such a distinction. CAC does when evaluating PCGS coins. But you can't really apply such a standard to your own coin. There is always a C coin in your own grading because it sinply represents the bottom of the distribution.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details. Clearly, at least to me because it is too prevalent, this is a difference in standards rather than isolated mistakes.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it. Other examples, and I've seen a few, are scratches that PCGS deemed minor but CACG deemed not minor and Details. Why can't that coin be an "A" MS63 or MS64? 63's and 64's have plenty of marks on them.
A specific example might be this coin. PCGS calls it an AU50 and IMO it is a nice "A" or "B" AU50, but I speculate that CACG would Details it for the scratches.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
No, I'd had the coin for 10+ years. I'm getting better at seeing and recognizing it.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
I don’t even see the relevance of the MS64+ Peace dollar results. They don’t appear to show any inconsistency or particularly tight grading, just different results with and without the presence of PVC.
Because @jmlanzaf said that he could see no reason for a PCGS A coin to be graded Details, so I provided one.
A details coin is not anyone's A coin. That is the fallacy in your entire argument. Take an MS69 coin, dip it in PVC residur and put it in an MS67 holder, it is NOT an MS67 A Coin. It's a details coin. Period
There are multiple considerations to be considered before you make a decision on a grading service, not the least of which is why you want to send coins to a grading firm at all.
Reason- to get the most accurate grade possible for my coin. I want the slab to reflect reality.
The most stringent grade isn’t necessarily the most accurate. Every major grading company grades some coins too liberally and others, too conservatively.
And they all have slightly different standards. One in the past has been more forgiving of deep toning. Another doesn't seem to like weakly struck coins.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
PCGS and CACG do have different standards. A PCGS + CAC coin is considered an A coin. However, a PCGS + CAC coin is not automatically a CACG + (A) coin.
Getting a PLUS grade from CACG is tough! In reviewing the latest Classic Commemoratives population statistics from CACG the percentage of the population receiving a plus grade remains at 11% These statistics don't include coins "body bagged" for PVC,
Total Graded 1724
Less: Details (330)
Straight Graded 1394 = 81% of the Population
Less: Coin in Grades Not Eligible for + (144)
Coins Eligible for + Grade 1250
Coins Awarded + Grade 137 = 11% of the Population
@DisneyFan said:
PCGS and CACG do have different standards. A PCGS + CAC coin is considered an A coin. However, a PCGS + CAC coin is not automatically a CACG + (A) coin.
Getting a PLUS grade from CACG is tough! In reviewing the latest Classic Commemoratives population statistics from CACG the percentage of the population receiving a plus grade remains at 11% These statistics don't include coins "body bagged" for PVC,
Total Graded 1724
Less: Details (330)
Straight Graded 1394 = 81% of the Population
Less: Coin in Grades Not Eligible for + (144)
Coins Eligible for + Grade 1250
Coins Awarded + Grade 137 = 11% of the Population
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
A “problem” coin wouldn’t be an A, B or C coin - it would be a detail-grade coin. If the problem happened to be PVC and the PVC could be removed with no damage having been done to the coin, it could then be eligible for a straight grade classification.
I agree. But, somehow, people are starting to talk about details coins being A, B and C coins rather than a separate category.
I believe the reference is to PCGS A, B, and C coins that would grade Details at CACG.
But it doesn't really make sense unless you conduct PCGS incompetent. Even if PCGS let's a problem slide, they still v know it's there. So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
I'm also not sure it makes sense to talk about a PCGS A coin. They don't make such a distinction. CAC does when evaluating PCGS coins. But you can't really apply such a standard to your own coin. There is always a C coin in your own grading because it sinply represents the bottom of the distribution.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details. Clearly, at least to me because it is too prevalent, this is a difference in standards rather than isolated mistakes.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it. Other examples, and I've seen a few, are scratches that PCGS deemed minor but CACG deemed not minor and Details. Why can't that coin be an "A" MS63 or MS64? 63's and 64's have plenty of marks on them.
A specific example might be this coin. PCGS calls it an AU50 and IMO it is a nice "A" or "B" AU50, but I speculate that CACG would Details it for the scratches.
What did I say that isn't consistent with that?
You said:
So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
So I provided examples of PCGS A coins that CACG would have assigned Details to.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
No, I'd had the coin for 10+ years. I'm getting better at seeing and recognizing it.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
I don’t even see the relevance of the MS64+ Peace dollar results. They don’t appear to show any inconsistency or particularly tight grading, just different results with and without the presence of PVC.
Because @jmlanzaf said that he could see no reason for a PCGS A coin to be graded Details, so I provided one.
You didn’t provide one, as at the time the coin had PVC, it wasn’t an “A” coin in the eyes of CAC.
It was in the eyes of PCGS.
When are we going to stop pretending that coins with problems can't be graded? It was an MS64+ coin with PVC. You can have an MS64+ coin that has been cleaned. You can have an MS64+ coin with a planchet flaw. Just because TPGs are not willing to put grades on some of these coins doesn't mean the coins can't fall into the A and B portions of the 1 to 70 spectrum or the corollary, that they all somehow fall only into the C portion of the spectrum.
Please stop exaggerating. No one's pretending that coins with problems can't be graded. They can be and are being graded, including by CACG. However, It's a matter of what the type and degree of the problem is. And that's as it should be.
As for one of your examples above, I sure wouldn't want an MS64+ coin that had been cleaned. Apparently, we have very different levels of tolerance for problems.
I agree but I'm not exaggerating. What part of spectrum don't you get? Take an MS65 A coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS65 B coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS65 C coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS64+ A coin. Whether the coin has PVC or not through that entire process, the coin traversed ABC spectrum. Any coin with issues can fall on any part of the spectrum. Having PVC or any other issue doesn't exclude it from being an A or B coin.
I sure wouldn't want an MS64+ coin that had been cleaned. Apparently, we have very different levels of tolerance for problems.
Take an MS65 A coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS65 B coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS65 C coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS64+ A coin. Whether the coin has PVC or not through that entire process, the coin traversed ABC spectrum. Any coin with issues can fall on any part of the spectrum. Having PVC or any other issue doesn't exclude it from being an A or B coin.
That's the whole point of CAC, it excludes coins from the ABC spectrum that have been cleaned or have PVC.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
A “problem” coin wouldn’t be an A, B or C coin - it would be a detail-grade coin. If the problem happened to be PVC and the PVC could be removed with no damage having been done to the coin, it could then be eligible for a straight grade classification.
I agree. But, somehow, people are starting to talk about details coins being A, B and C coins rather than a separate category.
I believe the reference is to PCGS A, B, and C coins that would grade Details at CACG.
But it doesn't really make sense unless you conduct PCGS incompetent. Even if PCGS let's a problem slide, they still v know it's there. So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
I'm also not sure it makes sense to talk about a PCGS A coin. They don't make such a distinction. CAC does when evaluating PCGS coins. But you can't really apply such a standard to your own coin. There is always a C coin in your own grading because it sinply represents the bottom of the distribution.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details. Clearly, at least to me because it is too prevalent, this is a difference in standards rather than isolated mistakes.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it. Other examples, and I've seen a few, are scratches that PCGS deemed minor but CACG deemed not minor and Details. Why can't that coin be an "A" MS63 or MS64? 63's and 64's have plenty of marks on them.
A specific example might be this coin. PCGS calls it an AU50 and IMO it is a nice "A" or "B" AU50, but I speculate that CACG would Details it for the scratches.
What did I say that isn't consistent with that?
You said:
So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
So I provided examples of PCGS A coins that CACG would have assigned Details to.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
No, I'd had the coin for 10+ years. I'm getting better at seeing and recognizing it.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
I don’t even see the relevance of the MS64+ Peace dollar results. They don’t appear to show any inconsistency or particularly tight grading, just different results with and without the presence of PVC.
Because @jmlanzaf said that he could see no reason for a PCGS A coin to be graded Details, so I provided one.
You didn’t provide one, as at the time the coin had PVC, it wasn’t an “A” coin in the eyes of CAC.
It was in the eyes of PCGS.
When are we going to stop pretending that coins with problems can't be graded? It was an MS64+ coin with PVC. You can have an MS64+ coin that has been cleaned. You can have an MS64+ coin with a planchet flaw. Just because TPGs are not willing to put grades on some of these coins doesn't mean the coins can't fall into the A and B portions of the 1 to 70 spectrum or the corollary, that they all somehow fall only into the C portion of the spectrum.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
A “problem” coin wouldn’t be an A, B or C coin - it would be a detail-grade coin. If the problem happened to be PVC and the PVC could be removed with no damage having been done to the coin, it could then be eligible for a straight grade classification.
I agree. But, somehow, people are starting to talk about details coins being A, B and C coins rather than a separate category.
I believe the reference is to PCGS A, B, and C coins that would grade Details at CACG.
But it doesn't really make sense unless you conduct PCGS incompetent. Even if PCGS let's a problem slide, they still v know it's there. So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
I'm also not sure it makes sense to talk about a PCGS A coin. They don't make such a distinction. CAC does when evaluating PCGS coins. But you can't really apply such a standard to your own coin. There is always a C coin in your own grading because it sinply represents the bottom of the distribution.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details. Clearly, at least to me because it is too prevalent, this is a difference in standards rather than isolated mistakes.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it. Other examples, and I've seen a few, are scratches that PCGS deemed minor but CACG deemed not minor and Details. Why can't that coin be an "A" MS63 or MS64? 63's and 64's have plenty of marks on them.
A specific example might be this coin. PCGS calls it an AU50 and IMO it is a nice "A" or "B" AU50, but I speculate that CACG would Details it for the scratches.
What did I say that isn't consistent with that?
You said:
So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
So I provided examples of PCGS A coins that CACG would have assigned Details to.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
No, I'd had the coin for 10+ years. I'm getting better at seeing and recognizing it.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
I don’t even see the relevance of the MS64+ Peace dollar results. They don’t appear to show any inconsistency or particularly tight grading, just different results with and without the presence of PVC.
Because @jmlanzaf said that he could see no reason for a PCGS A coin to be graded Details, so I provided one.
You didn’t provide one, as at the time the coin had PVC, it wasn’t an “A” coin in the eyes of CAC.
It was in the eyes of PCGS.
When are we going to stop pretending that coins with problems can't be graded? It was an MS64+ coin with PVC. You can have an MS64+ coin that has been cleaned. You can have an MS64+ coin with a planchet flaw. Just because TPGs are not willing to put grades on some of these coins doesn't mean the coins can't fall into the A and B portions of the 1 to 70 spectrum or the corollary, that they all somehow fall only into the C portion of the spectrum.
Please stop exaggerating. No one's pretending that coins with problems can't be graded. They can be and are being graded, including by CACG. However, It's a matter of what the type and degree of the problem is. And that's as it should be.
As for one of your examples above, I sure wouldn't want an MS64+ coin that had been cleaned. Apparently, we have very different levels of tolerance for problems.
I agree but I'm not exaggerating. What part of spectrum don't you get? Take an MS65 A coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS65 B coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS65 C coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS64+ A coin. Whether the coin has PVC or not through that entire process, the coin traversed ABC spectrum. Any coin with issues can fall on any part of the spectrum. Having PVC or any other issue doesn't exclude it from being an A or B coin.
Yes. It does. If it had PVC, it is off the spectrum completely as it is more a problem/details coin.
I don’t doubt there are graded coins out there that would be given details or whatever. The important thing is to know how to grade and look at coins. Another factor is players need to practice quick turnover.
Some coins can go bad in the holder quickly, some not. Remember if it’s stickered - so what- that’s just a point in time.
Where is it advisable to send a collection for grading today?
It turned into this ABC discussion again which goes on and on every few months.
My advice is to send your coins to any grading service you want. I prefer PCGS, but there are obviously plenty of other viable services to consider.
Tokens and medals seem to require some prior grading or historical experience with what they looked like when struck. I have found big variances between NGC, ANACS, and PCGS, especially if the service selected has not graded many of a specific example before.
@SimonW said:
This conversation is part of the reason I shifted from US to world coinage. Splitting hairs over minute differences.
Losing or gaining huge sums of money based on the opinion of one person and a very very very small difference in the “grade” is crazy to me.
Are coins identified as have been cleaned or have PVC splitting hairs over minute differences?
Sometimes. “Cleaned” “Inappropriately Cleaned” “Harshly Cleaned.” These get used frequently, especially on early coinage. Coins are frequently “conserved” in order to make them more marketable. Coins are cleaned frequently so they can attain a fractionally higher grade. This is true in CAC PCGS or any other holder.
Many coins are cleaned that are considered market “acceptable.” And yes, frequently it’s done to increase the desirability of a coin. Sometimes it’s a home run when they upgrade, even if it’s a minute difference.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
A “problem” coin wouldn’t be an A, B or C coin - it would be a detail-grade coin. If the problem happened to be PVC and the PVC could be removed with no damage having been done to the coin, it could then be eligible for a straight grade classification.
I agree. But, somehow, people are starting to talk about details coins being A, B and C coins rather than a separate category.
I believe the reference is to PCGS A, B, and C coins that would grade Details at CACG.
But it doesn't really make sense unless you conduct PCGS incompetent. Even if PCGS let's a problem slide, they still v know it's there. So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
I'm also not sure it makes sense to talk about a PCGS A coin. They don't make such a distinction. CAC does when evaluating PCGS coins. But you can't really apply such a standard to your own coin. There is always a C coin in your own grading because it sinply represents the bottom of the distribution.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details. Clearly, at least to me because it is too prevalent, this is a difference in standards rather than isolated mistakes.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it. Other examples, and I've seen a few, are scratches that PCGS deemed minor but CACG deemed not minor and Details. Why can't that coin be an "A" MS63 or MS64? 63's and 64's have plenty of marks on them.
A specific example might be this coin. PCGS calls it an AU50 and IMO it is a nice "A" or "B" AU50, but I speculate that CACG would Details it for the scratches.
What did I say that isn't consistent with that?
You said:
So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
So I provided examples of PCGS A coins that CACG would have assigned Details to.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
No, I'd had the coin for 10+ years. I'm getting better at seeing and recognizing it.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
I don’t even see the relevance of the MS64+ Peace dollar results. They don’t appear to show any inconsistency or particularly tight grading, just different results with and without the presence of PVC.
Because @jmlanzaf said that he could see no reason for a PCGS A coin to be graded Details, so I provided one.
You didn’t provide one, as at the time the coin had PVC, it wasn’t an “A” coin in the eyes of CAC.
It was in the eyes of PCGS.
When are we going to stop pretending that coins with problems can't be graded? It was an MS64+ coin with PVC. You can have an MS64+ coin that has been cleaned. You can have an MS64+ coin with a planchet flaw. Just because TPGs are not willing to put grades on some of these coins doesn't mean the coins can't fall into the A and B portions of the 1 to 70 spectrum or the corollary, that they all somehow fall only into the C portion of the spectrum.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
A “problem” coin wouldn’t be an A, B or C coin - it would be a detail-grade coin. If the problem happened to be PVC and the PVC could be removed with no damage having been done to the coin, it could then be eligible for a straight grade classification.
I agree. But, somehow, people are starting to talk about details coins being A, B and C coins rather than a separate category.
I believe the reference is to PCGS A, B, and C coins that would grade Details at CACG.
But it doesn't really make sense unless you conduct PCGS incompetent. Even if PCGS let's a problem slide, they still v know it's there. So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
I'm also not sure it makes sense to talk about a PCGS A coin. They don't make such a distinction. CAC does when evaluating PCGS coins. But you can't really apply such a standard to your own coin. There is always a C coin in your own grading because it sinply represents the bottom of the distribution.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details. Clearly, at least to me because it is too prevalent, this is a difference in standards rather than isolated mistakes.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it. Other examples, and I've seen a few, are scratches that PCGS deemed minor but CACG deemed not minor and Details. Why can't that coin be an "A" MS63 or MS64? 63's and 64's have plenty of marks on them.
A specific example might be this coin. PCGS calls it an AU50 and IMO it is a nice "A" or "B" AU50, but I speculate that CACG would Details it for the scratches.
What did I say that isn't consistent with that?
You said:
So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
So I provided examples of PCGS A coins that CACG would have assigned Details to.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
No, I'd had the coin for 10+ years. I'm getting better at seeing and recognizing it.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
I don’t even see the relevance of the MS64+ Peace dollar results. They don’t appear to show any inconsistency or particularly tight grading, just different results with and without the presence of PVC.
Because @jmlanzaf said that he could see no reason for a PCGS A coin to be graded Details, so I provided one.
You didn’t provide one, as at the time the coin had PVC, it wasn’t an “A” coin in the eyes of CAC.
It was in the eyes of PCGS.
When are we going to stop pretending that coins with problems can't be graded? It was an MS64+ coin with PVC. You can have an MS64+ coin that has been cleaned. You can have an MS64+ coin with a planchet flaw. Just because TPGs are not willing to put grades on some of these coins doesn't mean the coins can't fall into the A and B portions of the 1 to 70 spectrum or the corollary, that they all somehow fall only into the C portion of the spectrum.
Please stop exaggerating. No one's pretending that coins with problems can't be graded. They can be and are being graded, including by CACG. However, It's a matter of what the type and degree of the problem is. And that's as it should be.
As for one of your examples above, I sure wouldn't want an MS64+ coin that had been cleaned. Apparently, we have very different levels of tolerance for problems.
I agree but I'm not exaggerating. What part of spectrum don't you get? Take an MS65 A coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS65 B coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS65 C coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS64+ A coin. Whether the coin has PVC or not through that entire process, the coin traversed ABC spectrum. Any coin with issues can fall on any part of the spectrum. Having PVC or any other issue doesn't exclude it from being an A or B coin.
Yes. It does. If it had PVC, it is off the spectrum completely as it is more a problem/details coin.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
A “problem” coin wouldn’t be an A, B or C coin - it would be a detail-grade coin. If the problem happened to be PVC and the PVC could be removed with no damage having been done to the coin, it could then be eligible for a straight grade classification.
I agree. But, somehow, people are starting to talk about details coins being A, B and C coins rather than a separate category.
I believe the reference is to PCGS A, B, and C coins that would grade Details at CACG.
But it doesn't really make sense unless you conduct PCGS incompetent. Even if PCGS let's a problem slide, they still v know it's there. So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
I'm also not sure it makes sense to talk about a PCGS A coin. They don't make such a distinction. CAC does when evaluating PCGS coins. But you can't really apply such a standard to your own coin. There is always a C coin in your own grading because it sinply represents the bottom of the distribution.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details. Clearly, at least to me because it is too prevalent, this is a difference in standards rather than isolated mistakes.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it. Other examples, and I've seen a few, are scratches that PCGS deemed minor but CACG deemed not minor and Details. Why can't that coin be an "A" MS63 or MS64? 63's and 64's have plenty of marks on them.
A specific example might be this coin. PCGS calls it an AU50 and IMO it is a nice "A" or "B" AU50, but I speculate that CACG would Details it for the scratches.
What did I say that isn't consistent with that?
You said:
So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
So I provided examples of PCGS A coins that CACG would have assigned Details to.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
No, I'd had the coin for 10+ years. I'm getting better at seeing and recognizing it.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
I don’t even see the relevance of the MS64+ Peace dollar results. They don’t appear to show any inconsistency or particularly tight grading, just different results with and without the presence of PVC.
Because @jmlanzaf said that he could see no reason for a PCGS A coin to be graded Details, so I provided one.
You didn’t provide one, as at the time the coin had PVC, it wasn’t an “A” coin in the eyes of CAC.
It was in the eyes of PCGS.
When are we going to stop pretending that coins with problems can't be graded? It was an MS64+ coin with PVC. You can have an MS64+ coin that has been cleaned. You can have an MS64+ coin with a planchet flaw. Just because TPGs are not willing to put grades on some of these coins doesn't mean the coins can't fall into the A and B portions of the 1 to 70 spectrum or the corollary, that they all somehow fall only into the C portion of the spectrum.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
A “problem” coin wouldn’t be an A, B or C coin - it would be a detail-grade coin. If the problem happened to be PVC and the PVC could be removed with no damage having been done to the coin, it could then be eligible for a straight grade classification.
I agree. But, somehow, people are starting to talk about details coins being A, B and C coins rather than a separate category.
I believe the reference is to PCGS A, B, and C coins that would grade Details at CACG.
But it doesn't really make sense unless you conduct PCGS incompetent. Even if PCGS let's a problem slide, they still v know it's there. So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
I'm also not sure it makes sense to talk about a PCGS A coin. They don't make such a distinction. CAC does when evaluating PCGS coins. But you can't really apply such a standard to your own coin. There is always a C coin in your own grading because it sinply represents the bottom of the distribution.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details. Clearly, at least to me because it is too prevalent, this is a difference in standards rather than isolated mistakes.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it. Other examples, and I've seen a few, are scratches that PCGS deemed minor but CACG deemed not minor and Details. Why can't that coin be an "A" MS63 or MS64? 63's and 64's have plenty of marks on them.
A specific example might be this coin. PCGS calls it an AU50 and IMO it is a nice "A" or "B" AU50, but I speculate that CACG would Details it for the scratches.
What did I say that isn't consistent with that?
You said:
So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
So I provided examples of PCGS A coins that CACG would have assigned Details to.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
No, I'd had the coin for 10+ years. I'm getting better at seeing and recognizing it.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
I don’t even see the relevance of the MS64+ Peace dollar results. They don’t appear to show any inconsistency or particularly tight grading, just different results with and without the presence of PVC.
Because @jmlanzaf said that he could see no reason for a PCGS A coin to be graded Details, so I provided one.
You didn’t provide one, as at the time the coin had PVC, it wasn’t an “A” coin in the eyes of CAC.
It was in the eyes of PCGS.
When are we going to stop pretending that coins with problems can't be graded? It was an MS64+ coin with PVC. You can have an MS64+ coin that has been cleaned. You can have an MS64+ coin with a planchet flaw. Just because TPGs are not willing to put grades on some of these coins doesn't mean the coins can't fall into the A and B portions of the 1 to 70 spectrum or the corollary, that they all somehow fall only into the C portion of the spectrum.
Please stop exaggerating. No one's pretending that coins with problems can't be graded. They can be and are being graded, including by CACG. However, It's a matter of what the type and degree of the problem is. And that's as it should be.
As for one of your examples above, I sure wouldn't want an MS64+ coin that had been cleaned. Apparently, we have very different levels of tolerance for problems.
I agree but I'm not exaggerating. What part of spectrum don't you get? Take an MS65 A coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS65 B coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS65 C coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS64+ A coin. Whether the coin has PVC or not through that entire process, the coin traversed ABC spectrum. Any coin with issues can fall on any part of the spectrum. Having PVC or any other issue doesn't exclude it from being an A or B coin.
Yes. It does. If it had PVC, it is off the spectrum completely as it is more a problem/details coin.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
A “problem” coin wouldn’t be an A, B or C coin - it would be a detail-grade coin. If the problem happened to be PVC and the PVC could be removed with no damage having been done to the coin, it could then be eligible for a straight grade classification.
I agree. But, somehow, people are starting to talk about details coins being A, B and C coins rather than a separate category.
I believe the reference is to PCGS A, B, and C coins that would grade Details at CACG.
But it doesn't really make sense unless you conduct PCGS incompetent. Even if PCGS let's a problem slide, they still v know it's there. So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
I'm also not sure it makes sense to talk about a PCGS A coin. They don't make such a distinction. CAC does when evaluating PCGS coins. But you can't really apply such a standard to your own coin. There is always a C coin in your own grading because it sinply represents the bottom of the distribution.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details. Clearly, at least to me because it is too prevalent, this is a difference in standards rather than isolated mistakes.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it. Other examples, and I've seen a few, are scratches that PCGS deemed minor but CACG deemed not minor and Details. Why can't that coin be an "A" MS63 or MS64? 63's and 64's have plenty of marks on them.
A specific example might be this coin. PCGS calls it an AU50 and IMO it is a nice "A" or "B" AU50, but I speculate that CACG would Details it for the scratches.
What did I say that isn't consistent with that?
You said:
So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
So I provided examples of PCGS A coins that CACG would have assigned Details to.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
No, I'd had the coin for 10+ years. I'm getting better at seeing and recognizing it.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
I don’t even see the relevance of the MS64+ Peace dollar results. They don’t appear to show any inconsistency or particularly tight grading, just different results with and without the presence of PVC.
Because @jmlanzaf said that he could see no reason for a PCGS A coin to be graded Details, so I provided one.
You didn’t provide one, as at the time the coin had PVC, it wasn’t an “A” coin in the eyes of CAC.
It was in the eyes of PCGS.
When are we going to stop pretending that coins with problems can't be graded? It was an MS64+ coin with PVC. You can have an MS64+ coin that has been cleaned. You can have an MS64+ coin with a planchet flaw. Just because TPGs are not willing to put grades on some of these coins doesn't mean the coins can't fall into the A and B portions of the 1 to 70 spectrum or the corollary, that they all somehow fall only into the C portion of the spectrum.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
A “problem” coin wouldn’t be an A, B or C coin - it would be a detail-grade coin. If the problem happened to be PVC and the PVC could be removed with no damage having been done to the coin, it could then be eligible for a straight grade classification.
I agree. But, somehow, people are starting to talk about details coins being A, B and C coins rather than a separate category.
I believe the reference is to PCGS A, B, and C coins that would grade Details at CACG.
But it doesn't really make sense unless you conduct PCGS incompetent. Even if PCGS let's a problem slide, they still v know it's there. So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
I'm also not sure it makes sense to talk about a PCGS A coin. They don't make such a distinction. CAC does when evaluating PCGS coins. But you can't really apply such a standard to your own coin. There is always a C coin in your own grading because it sinply represents the bottom of the distribution.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details. Clearly, at least to me because it is too prevalent, this is a difference in standards rather than isolated mistakes.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it. Other examples, and I've seen a few, are scratches that PCGS deemed minor but CACG deemed not minor and Details. Why can't that coin be an "A" MS63 or MS64? 63's and 64's have plenty of marks on them.
A specific example might be this coin. PCGS calls it an AU50 and IMO it is a nice "A" or "B" AU50, but I speculate that CACG would Details it for the scratches.
What did I say that isn't consistent with that?
You said:
So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
So I provided examples of PCGS A coins that CACG would have assigned Details to.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
No, I'd had the coin for 10+ years. I'm getting better at seeing and recognizing it.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
I don’t even see the relevance of the MS64+ Peace dollar results. They don’t appear to show any inconsistency or particularly tight grading, just different results with and without the presence of PVC.
Because @jmlanzaf said that he could see no reason for a PCGS A coin to be graded Details, so I provided one.
You didn’t provide one, as at the time the coin had PVC, it wasn’t an “A” coin in the eyes of CAC.
It was in the eyes of PCGS.
When are we going to stop pretending that coins with problems can't be graded? It was an MS64+ coin with PVC. You can have an MS64+ coin that has been cleaned. You can have an MS64+ coin with a planchet flaw. Just because TPGs are not willing to put grades on some of these coins doesn't mean the coins can't fall into the A and B portions of the 1 to 70 spectrum or the corollary, that they all somehow fall only into the C portion of the spectrum.
Please stop exaggerating. No one's pretending that coins with problems can't be graded. They can be and are being graded, including by CACG. However, It's a matter of what the type and degree of the problem is. And that's as it should be.
As for one of your examples above, I sure wouldn't want an MS64+ coin that had been cleaned. Apparently, we have very different levels of tolerance for problems.
I agree but I'm not exaggerating. What part of spectrum don't you get? Take an MS65 A coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS65 B coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS65 C coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS64+ A coin. Whether the coin has PVC or not through that entire process, the coin traversed ABC spectrum. Any coin with issues can fall on any part of the spectrum. Having PVC or any other issue doesn't exclude it from being an A or B coin.
Yes. It does. If it had PVC, it is off the spectrum completely as it is more a problem/details coin.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
A “problem” coin wouldn’t be an A, B or C coin - it would be a detail-grade coin. If the problem happened to be PVC and the PVC could be removed with no damage having been done to the coin, it could then be eligible for a straight grade classification.
I agree. But, somehow, people are starting to talk about details coins being A, B and C coins rather than a separate category.
I believe the reference is to PCGS A, B, and C coins that would grade Details at CACG.
But it doesn't really make sense unless you conduct PCGS incompetent. Even if PCGS let's a problem slide, they still v know it's there. So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
I'm also not sure it makes sense to talk about a PCGS A coin. They don't make such a distinction. CAC does when evaluating PCGS coins. But you can't really apply such a standard to your own coin. There is always a C coin in your own grading because it sinply represents the bottom of the distribution.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details. Clearly, at least to me because it is too prevalent, this is a difference in standards rather than isolated mistakes.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it. Other examples, and I've seen a few, are scratches that PCGS deemed minor but CACG deemed not minor and Details. Why can't that coin be an "A" MS63 or MS64? 63's and 64's have plenty of marks on them.
A specific example might be this coin. PCGS calls it an AU50 and IMO it is a nice "A" or "B" AU50, but I speculate that CACG would Details it for the scratches.
What did I say that isn't consistent with that?
You said:
So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
So I provided examples of PCGS A coins that CACG would have assigned Details to.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
No, I'd had the coin for 10+ years. I'm getting better at seeing and recognizing it.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
I don’t even see the relevance of the MS64+ Peace dollar results. They don’t appear to show any inconsistency or particularly tight grading, just different results with and without the presence of PVC.
Because @jmlanzaf said that he could see no reason for a PCGS A coin to be graded Details, so I provided one.
You didn’t provide one, as at the time the coin had PVC, it wasn’t an “A” coin in the eyes of CAC.
It was in the eyes of PCGS.
When are we going to stop pretending that coins with problems can't be graded? It was an MS64+ coin with PVC. You can have an MS64+ coin that has been cleaned. You can have an MS64+ coin with a planchet flaw. Just because TPGs are not willing to put grades on some of these coins doesn't mean the coins can't fall into the A and B portions of the 1 to 70 spectrum or the corollary, that they all somehow fall only into the C portion of the spectrum.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
@breakdown said:
I think there are a few categories of coins that fail to sticker and some people get these categories mixed up. C coins should end up in straight grade holders. Coins that are deemed over graded by CAC should also. The third category -
problem coins - get detail holders.
In other words, a C coin is not a problem coin. That’s my understanding anyway.
That’s the way John Albanese has explained it for years. I think I’ll go with his analysis, rather than that of others who predict that most C coins will receive detail grades.
CAC and CACG are using the A,B,C system. They don't mention a 4th category, so where do straight graded PCGS/NGC coins end up when they get details graded by CACG. They had to be "C" coins. There's no other explanation unless there's a secret 4th category that CAC/CACG doesn't publicly acknowledge. It can't be both ways.
It’s not very complicated or mysterious. Formerly straight graded NGC and PCGS that failed to sticker at CAC were in their opinion, either:
1) straight-grade worthy but of C quality
2) straight-grade worthy but overgraded (as in deserving of a lower numerical grade)
3) problem coins that should have received detail grades. This category would be your “4th category”.
So coins that receive detail-grades at CACG need not have been C quality coins in the eyes of CAC. They would have fallen into group 3 above, not group 1. Problem coins aren’t a subset of the C quality coin group, as you’ve mistakenly categorized them.
Again, according to John Albanese, most C quality coins will be straight graded by CACG, but at the next numerical grade down with a plus.
We're probably saying the same thing for the most part. My contention is that CAC/CACG are telling us there's only A,B, and C coins, so by default, straight graded problem coins have to be in the "C" category. It is complicated and mysterious in the sense that CAC/CACG don't publicly have a 4th category. If the above info (i.e JA explaining it) is their policy, they should publish it on their website.
No, by default straight graded problem coins do not have to be in the "C" category. Problem coins span the whole ABC spectrum. For example, there are plenty of coins on all parts of the grading (A, B, and C) spectrum with PVC. An MS65+ with PVC is not a "C" coin. CAC will slab the coin in an MS Details slab. Successfully remove the PVC and it theoretically will cross into a CAC 65 or 65+ slab.
That doesn't make sense if CAC stickers A and B coins. I doubt they're stickering A coins with PVC.
@DisneyFan is right. Coins with issues do not get srickers or straight grades at CACG but that doesnt mean the coin falls on C portion of the spectrum.
I would think that coins with issues would be disqualified from the A or B categories. If not, can you cite something from CAC that explains it?
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
A “problem” coin wouldn’t be an A, B or C coin - it would be a detail-grade coin. If the problem happened to be PVC and the PVC could be removed with no damage having been done to the coin, it could then be eligible for a straight grade classification.
I agree. But, somehow, people are starting to talk about details coins being A, B and C coins rather than a separate category.
I believe the reference is to PCGS A, B, and C coins that would grade Details at CACG.
But it doesn't really make sense unless you conduct PCGS incompetent. Even if PCGS let's a problem slide, they still v know it's there. So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
I'm also not sure it makes sense to talk about a PCGS A coin. They don't make such a distinction. CAC does when evaluating PCGS coins. But you can't really apply such a standard to your own coin. There is always a C coin in your own grading because it sinply represents the bottom of the distribution.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details. Clearly, at least to me because it is too prevalent, this is a difference in standards rather than isolated mistakes.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it. Other examples, and I've seen a few, are scratches that PCGS deemed minor but CACG deemed not minor and Details. Why can't that coin be an "A" MS63 or MS64? 63's and 64's have plenty of marks on them.
A specific example might be this coin. PCGS calls it an AU50 and IMO it is a nice "A" or "B" AU50, but I speculate that CACG would Details it for the scratches.
What did I say that isn't consistent with that?
You said:
So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
So I provided examples of PCGS A coins that CACG would have assigned Details to.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
No, I'd had the coin for 10+ years. I'm getting better at seeing and recognizing it.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
I don’t even see the relevance of the MS64+ Peace dollar results. They don’t appear to show any inconsistency or particularly tight grading, just different results with and without the presence of PVC.
Because @jmlanzaf said that he could see no reason for a PCGS A coin to be graded Details, so I provided one.
You didn’t provide one, as at the time the coin had PVC, it wasn’t an “A” coin in the eyes of CAC.
It was in the eyes of PCGS.
When are we going to stop pretending that coins with problems can't be graded? It was an MS64+ coin with PVC. You can have an MS64+ coin that has been cleaned. You can have an MS64+ coin with a planchet flaw. Just because TPGs are not willing to put grades on some of these coins doesn't mean the coins can't fall into the A and B portions of the 1 to 70 spectrum or the corollary, that they all somehow fall only into the C portion of the spectrum.
Please stop exaggerating. No one's pretending that coins with problems can't be graded. They can be and are being graded, including by CACG. However, It's a matter of what the type and degree of the problem is. And that's as it should be.
As for one of your examples above, I sure wouldn't want an MS64+ coin that had been cleaned. Apparently, we have very different levels of tolerance for problems.
I agree but I'm not exaggerating. What part of spectrum don't you get? Take an MS65 A coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS65 B coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS65 C coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS64+ A coin. Whether the coin has PVC or not through that entire process, the coin traversed ABC spectrum. Any coin with issues can fall on any part of the spectrum. Having PVC or any other issue doesn't exclude it from being an A or B coin.
Yes. It does. If it had PVC, it is off the spectrum completely as it is more a problem/details coin.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
And PCGS would also refuse to slab it. They would not KNOWINGLY call it an "A" coin. I have no idea what he's trying to say.
For me my choice is PCGS. They do both coins and currency, their inventory app is superior, grading guide, CoinFacts a great analytical tool, and various other business factors.
@Cougar1978 said:
For me my choice is PCGS. They do both coins and currency, their inventory app is superior, grading guide, CoinFacts a great analytical tool, and various other business factors.
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
If it is sent to CACG, it will be body bagged.
Actually, that’s better than slabbing the coin. I’d like to change my above post to read:
“No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should be returned to the submitter, unholdered.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@ProofCollection said:
A specific example might be this coin. PCGS calls it an AU50 and IMO it is a nice "A" or "B" AU50, but I speculate that CACG would Details it for the scratches.
I am thinking that it is really hard to say what a TPG 'would' grade a coin until it actually does it..........................
@MFeld said:
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
And PCGS would also refuse to slab it. They would not KNOWINGLY call it an "A" coin. I have no idea what he's trying to say.
Not always true. We all know PCGS has and will slab coins with PVC and further, per my example, they will assign + grades on these coins. I don't agree that this is a good thing, they should take the opportunity to upsell restoration service and correct the condition.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
This is a distinction without meaning.
OK, but it shows that details coins can span the ABC spectrum of a particular grade which you have very much disagreed with.
@MFeld said:
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
And PCGS would also refuse to slab it. They would not KNOWINGLY call it an "A" coin. I have no idea what he's trying to say.
Not always true. We all know PCGS has and will slab coins with PVC and further, per my example, they will assign + grades on these coins. I don't agree that this is a good thing, they should take the opportunity to upsell restoration service and correct the condition.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
This is a distinction without meaning.
OK, but it shows that details coins can span the ABC spectrum of a particular grade which you have very much disagreed with.
PCGS absolutely does NOT knowingly slab PVC. if they do, it's an oversight.
@MFeld said:
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
And PCGS would also refuse to slab it. They would not KNOWINGLY call it an "A" coin. I have no idea what he's trying to say.
Not always true. We all know PCGS has and will slab coins with PVC and further, per my example, they will assign + grades on these coins. I don't agree that this is a good thing, they should take the opportunity to upsell restoration service and correct the condition.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
This is a distinction without meaning.
OK, but it shows that details coins can span the ABC spectrum of a particular grade which you have very much disagreed with.
PCGS absolutely does NOT knowingly slab PVC. if they do, it's an oversight.
I disagree based on the following experiences:
1. Of several dozen PCGS slabs submitted to CAC where JA provided feedback on rejections, about 10-20% totaling 10-15 or so were rejected for PVC. This tells me that it's not just an oversight.
2. Referring to my thread: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1101693/pvc-experts-what-should-i-do-with-these-peace-dollars#latest where I submitted 2 PCGS Peace dollars with PVC for restoration and they refused restoration and gladly re-holdered them as problem-free coins. I know you're familiar with the thread, but you'll recall that I have now successfully self-restored the coins and PCGS has re-slabbed them. So not only could they have removed the PVC which I was paying them to do, or they could have refused to reholder them as non-Details coins, but instead they happily re-slabbed them as problem-free.
@MFeld said:
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
And PCGS would also refuse to slab it. They would not KNOWINGLY call it an "A" coin. I have no idea what he's trying to say.
Not always true. We all know PCGS has and will slab coins with PVC and further, per my example, they will assign + grades on these coins. I don't agree that this is a good thing, they should take the opportunity to upsell restoration service and correct the condition.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
This is a distinction without meaning.
OK, but it shows that details coins can span the ABC spectrum of a particular grade which you have very much disagreed with.
PCGS absolutely does NOT knowingly slab PVC. if they do, it's an oversight.
I disagree based on the following experiences:
1. Of several dozen PCGS slabs submitted to CAC where JA provided feedback on rejections, about 10-20% totaling 10-15 or so were rejected for PVC. This tells me that it's not just an oversight.
2. Referring to my thread: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1101693/pvc-experts-what-should-i-do-with-these-peace-dollars#latest where I submitted 2 PCGS Peace dollars with PVC for restoration and they refused restoration and gladly re-holdered them as problem-free coins. I know you're familiar with the thread, but you'll recall that I have now successfully self-restored the coins and PCGS has re-slabbed them. So not only could they have removed the PVC which I was paying them to do, or they could have refused to reholder them as non-Details coins, but instead they happily re-slabbed them as problem-free.
PCGS would never knowingly encapsulate a coin with active PVC as it would all but guarantee that they would have to pay their guarantee.
Are we talking PVC damage rather than actual PVC?
You also don't need to guess on your own or take my word for it. It's Code 99.
@MFeld said:
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
And PCGS would also refuse to slab it. They would not KNOWINGLY call it an "A" coin. I have no idea what he's trying to say.
Not always true. We all know PCGS has and will slab coins with PVC and further, per my example, they will assign + grades on these coins. I don't agree that this is a good thing, they should take the opportunity to upsell restoration service and correct the condition.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
This is a distinction without meaning.
OK, but it shows that details coins can span the ABC spectrum of a particular grade which you have very much disagreed with.
PCGS absolutely does NOT knowingly slab PVC. if they do, it's an oversight.
I disagree based on the following experiences:
1. Of several dozen PCGS slabs submitted to CAC where JA provided feedback on rejections, about 10-20% totaling 10-15 or so were rejected for PVC. This tells me that it's not just an oversight.
2. Referring to my thread: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1101693/pvc-experts-what-should-i-do-with-these-peace-dollars#latest where I submitted 2 PCGS Peace dollars with PVC for restoration and they refused restoration and gladly re-holdered them as problem-free coins. I know you're familiar with the thread, but you'll recall that I have now successfully self-restored the coins and PCGS has re-slabbed them. So not only could they have removed the PVC which I was paying them to do, or they could have refused to reholder them as non-Details coins, but instead they happily re-slabbed them as problem-free.
@MFeld said:
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
And PCGS would also refuse to slab it. They would not KNOWINGLY call it an "A" coin. I have no idea what he's trying to say.
Not always true. We all know PCGS has and will slab coins with PVC and further, per my example, they will assign + grades on these coins. I don't agree that this is a good thing, they should take the opportunity to upsell restoration service and correct the condition.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
This is a distinction without meaning.
OK, but it shows that details coins can span the ABC spectrum of a particular grade which you have very much disagreed with.
PCGS absolutely does NOT knowingly slab PVC. if they do, it's an oversight.
I disagree based on the following experiences:
1. Of several dozen PCGS slabs submitted to CAC where JA provided feedback on rejections, about 10-20% totaling 10-15 or so were rejected for PVC. This tells me that it's not just an oversight.
2. Referring to my thread: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1101693/pvc-experts-what-should-i-do-with-these-peace-dollars#latest where I submitted 2 PCGS Peace dollars with PVC for restoration and they refused restoration and gladly re-holdered them as problem-free coins. I know you're familiar with the thread, but you'll recall that I have now successfully self-restored the coins and PCGS has re-slabbed them. So not only could they have removed the PVC which I was paying them to do, or they could have refused to reholder them as non-Details coins, but instead they happily re-slabbed them as problem-free.
PCGS would never knowingly encapsulate a coin with active PVC as it would all but guarantee that they would have to pay their guarantee.
Are we talking PVC damage rather than actual PVC?
You also don't need to guess on your own or take my word for it. It's Code 99.
You might consider where you are postingwhen you are making such accusations.
You can say what you want. I know they have a code for it but my experience is my experience and I am not making anything up. I have had JA refuse to CAC many coins due to PVC (not just a handful that somehow slipped through the cracks) and PCGS refused to remove the PVC on those two Peace dollars (even though their service clearly states that they will) and I had to do it myself. Refer to other thread. Without this experience I would have said what you are saying, that's why I was so frustrated in my Peace Dollar thread.
Comments
I agree with Mark ( which probably doesn’t surprise you). I think you are taking one statement off the CAC website and interpreting it in a way that makes little sense to most of us who have dealt with CAC for years.
I do think it is fair that all TPGs struggle to articulate their standards in written form. John Albanese has said that CAC has not always marketed itself as well as it could.
I believe that JA would explain that C coins are not problem coins that should get detailed. Rather they are coins with an assigned grade that he was not comfortable stickering because stickering implied that he would make a market for the coin at that grade.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
I'm very happy buying this stringent graded CACG Layfayette dollar !
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
How could a problem coin possibly be at the high end of the grade?
Again, @DisneyFan nailed it. Why would only coins falling in the C portion of a grade's spectrum have PVC on them, or some other problem? Theoretically problems would be evenly distributed across spectrum.
An overgraded coin would be a C coin.> @Manifest_Destiny said:
For example, a PCGS MS65+ with PVC. Plus coins are by definition, "A" coins.
A “problem” coin wouldn’t be an A, B or C coin - it would be a detail-grade coin. If the problem happened to be PVC and the PVC could be removed with no damage having been done to the coin, it could then be eligible for a straight grade classification.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'm not the one saying it is.
I agree. But, somehow, people are starting to talk about details coins being A, B and C coins rather than a separate category.
I know. I'm just not sure why anyone is saying it.
I believe the reference is to PCGS A, B, and C coins that would grade Details at CACG.
But it doesn't really make sense unless you consider PCGS incompetent. Even if PCGS let's a problem slide, they still v know it's there. So while a PCGS C could end up in details, I really see no reason why a PCGS A coin would.
I'm also not sure it makes sense to talk about a PCGS A coin. They don't make such a distinction. CAC does when evaluating PCGS coins. But you can't really apply such a standard to your own coin. There is always a C coin in your own grading because it sinply represents the bottom of the distribution.
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details. Clearly, at least to me because it is too prevalent, this is a difference in standards rather than isolated mistakes.
As an example, I just sent an MS64+ peace dollar to CAC stickering and it was rejected for PVC. I had it restored and then resubmitted it to CAC and they stickered it. Other examples, and I've seen a few, are scratches that PCGS deemed minor but CACG deemed not minor and Details. Why can't that coin be an "A" MS63 or MS64? 63's and 64's have plenty of marks on them.
A specific example might be this coin. PCGS calls it an AU50 and IMO it is a nice "A" or "B" AU50, but I speculate that CACG would Details it for the scratches.
What did I say that isn't consistent with that?
I must be missing something because you are no doubt aware of all of the reports of people crossing their PCGS (and NGC) coins to CACG and having a decent percentage come back as details.
>
That would not be unusual if we are referring to coins that have not been stickered by CAC.
Seems like you were lucky the PVC could be removed. Did you see/know the coin had PVC when you bought it?
I don’t even see the relevance of the MS64+ Peace dollar results. They don’t appear to show any inconsistency or particularly tight grading, just different results with and without the presence of PVC.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You said:
So I provided examples of PCGS A coins that CACG would have assigned Details to.
No, I'd had the coin for 10+ years. I'm getting better at seeing and recognizing it.
Because @jmlanzaf said that he could see no reason for a PCGS A coin to be graded Details, so I provided one.
You didn’t provide one, as at the time the coin had PVC, it wasn’t an “A” coin in the eyes of CAC.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It was in the eyes of PCGS.
When are we going to stop pretending that coins with problems can't be graded? It was an MS64+ coin with PVC. You can have an MS64+ coin that has been cleaned. You can have an MS64+ coin with a planchet flaw. Just because TPGs are not willing to put grades on some of these coins doesn't mean the coins can't fall into the A and B portions of the 1 to 70 spectrum or the corollary, that they all somehow fall only into the C portion of the spectrum.
Please stop exaggerating. No one's pretending that coins with problems can't be graded. They can be and are being graded, including by CACG. However, It's a matter of what the type and degree of the problem is. And that's as it should be.
As for one of your examples above, I sure wouldn't want an MS64+ coin that had been cleaned. Apparently, we have very different levels of tolerance for problems.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
A details coin is not anyone's A coin. That is the fallacy in your entire argument. Take an MS69 coin, dip it in PVC residur and put it in an MS67 holder, it is NOT an MS67 A Coin. It's a details coin. Period
And they all have slightly different standards. One in the past has been more forgiving of deep toning. Another doesn't seem to like weakly struck coins.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
I don’t like weakly struck or deep toned coins. Avoid them.
This conversation is part of the reason I shifted from US to world coinage. Splitting hairs over minute differences.
Losing or gaining huge sums of money based on the opinion of one person and a very very very small difference in the “grade” is crazy to me.
I'm BACK!!! Used to be Billet7 on the old forum.
PCGS and CACG do have different standards. A PCGS + CAC coin is considered an A coin. However, a PCGS + CAC coin is not automatically a CACG + (A) coin.
Getting a PLUS grade from CACG is tough! In reviewing the latest Classic Commemoratives population statistics from CACG the percentage of the population receiving a plus grade remains at 11% These statistics don't include coins "body bagged" for PVC,
Total Graded 1724
Less: Details (330)
Straight Graded 1394 = 81% of the Population
Less: Coin in Grades Not Eligible for + (144)
Coins Eligible for + Grade 1250
Coins Awarded + Grade 137 = 11% of the Population
It’s amazing how the holder / sticker game has become a hobby in itself. Then the other aspects - pricing, etc.
Never could envision people paying somebody if their slabbed coin nice.
No surprise many going to world and paper money,
I agree but I'm not exaggerating. What part of spectrum don't you get? Take an MS65 A coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS65 B coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS65 C coin. Add some bag marks. Now it's an MS64+ A coin. Whether the coin has PVC or not through that entire process, the coin traversed ABC spectrum. Any coin with issues can fall on any part of the spectrum. Having PVC or any other issue doesn't exclude it from being an A or B coin.
That's the whole point of CAC, it excludes coins from the ABC spectrum that have been cleaned or have PVC.
Are coins identified as have been cleaned or have PVC splitting hairs over minute differences?
Based on what? > @ProofCollection said:
Yes. It does. If it had PVC, it is off the spectrum completely as it is more a problem/details coin.
I don’t doubt there are graded coins out there that would be given details or whatever. The important thing is to know how to grade and look at coins. Another factor is players need to practice quick turnover.
Some coins can go bad in the holder quickly, some not. Remember if it’s stickered - so what- that’s just a point in time.
The OP question was:
Where is it advisable to send a collection for grading today?
It turned into this ABC discussion again which goes on and on every few months.
My advice is to send your coins to any grading service you want. I prefer PCGS, but there are obviously plenty of other viable services to consider.
Tokens and medals seem to require some prior grading or historical experience with what they looked like when struck. I have found big variances between NGC, ANACS, and PCGS, especially if the service selected has not graded many of a specific example before.
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
Sometimes. “Cleaned” “Inappropriately Cleaned” “Harshly Cleaned.” These get used frequently, especially on early coinage. Coins are frequently “conserved” in order to make them more marketable. Coins are cleaned frequently so they can attain a fractionally higher grade. This is true in CAC PCGS or any other holder.
Many coins are cleaned that are considered market “acceptable.” And yes, frequently it’s done to increase the desirability of a coin. Sometimes it’s a home run when they upgrade, even if it’s a minute difference.
I'm BACK!!! Used to be Billet7 on the old forum.
Surface preservation, eye appeal, strike, and luster - all of which comprise of an MS grade (at PCGS) are all different attributes than a surface condition such as PVC or cleaning. As such, if PCGS did break it down to A, B, and C, PCGS could and would assign A, B, and C grades to coins that CACG would likely slab as Details.
Interesting observation!
CAC wins. JA is not stupid or blind.
No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should receive a details grade.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This is a distinction without meaning.
And PCGS would also refuse to slab it. They would not KNOWINGLY call it an "A" coin. I have no idea what he's trying to say.
For me my choice is PCGS. They do both coins and currency, their inventory app is superior, grading guide, CoinFacts a great analytical tool, and various other business factors.
Best thread title ever.
If it is sent to CACG, it will be body bagged.
Actually, that’s better than slabbing the coin. I’d like to change my above post to read:
“No matter how wonderful a coin might otherwise be, and regardless of what grade it might have once attained, if it has PVC, it should be returned to the submitter, unholdered.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I am thinking that it is really hard to say what a TPG 'would' grade a coin until it actually does it..........................
Agreed.
Not always true. We all know PCGS has and will slab coins with PVC and further, per my example, they will assign + grades on these coins. I don't agree that this is a good thing, they should take the opportunity to upsell restoration service and correct the condition.
OK, but it shows that details coins can span the ABC spectrum of a particular grade which you have very much disagreed with.
PCGS absolutely does NOT knowingly slab PVC. if they do, it's an oversight.
I disagree based on the following experiences:
1. Of several dozen PCGS slabs submitted to CAC where JA provided feedback on rejections, about 10-20% totaling 10-15 or so were rejected for PVC. This tells me that it's not just an oversight.
2. Referring to my thread: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1101693/pvc-experts-what-should-i-do-with-these-peace-dollars#latest where I submitted 2 PCGS Peace dollars with PVC for restoration and they refused restoration and gladly re-holdered them as problem-free coins. I know you're familiar with the thread, but you'll recall that I have now successfully self-restored the coins and PCGS has re-slabbed them. So not only could they have removed the PVC which I was paying them to do, or they could have refused to reholder them as non-Details coins, but instead they happily re-slabbed them as problem-free.
PCGS would never knowingly encapsulate a coin with active PVC as it would all but guarantee that they would have to pay their guarantee.
Are we talking PVC damage rather than actual PVC?
You also don't need to guess on your own or take my word for it. It's Code 99.
https://www.pcgs.com/news/no-grade-coins-pt3
You might consider where you are postingwhen you are making such accusations.
You can say what you want. I know they have a code for it but my experience is my experience and I am not making anything up. I have had JA refuse to CAC many coins due to PVC (not just a handful that somehow slipped through the cracks) and PCGS refused to remove the PVC on those two Peace dollars (even though their service clearly states that they will) and I had to do it myself. Refer to other thread. Without this experience I would have said what you are saying, that's why I was so frustrated in my Peace Dollar thread.