CACG Market Status Observations
Proofmorgan
Posts: 818 ✭✭✭✭✭
I will preface by saying my observations and experience are limited, but I figured I'd share my insight and maybe prompt a productive discussion.
I have submitted several raw coins to CACG and have recently sold a top pop/pop 1 CACG coin at ANA (several stickered in the same grade). The unsatisfactory PCGS Trueviews and lengthy turnaround times finally pushed me over the edge.
Overall, the raw grading seems tougher. Issues that PCGS would have seemingly let slide were picked up at CACG and details graded. This it noted by a gold coin (no green spots) being bagged as PVC by CACG and then PCGS straight grading it. The grading also seemed slightly more conservative for straight graded coins.
For the CACG graded coin that I sold, some of the interested buyers were only interested if it crossed to PCGS and stickered. There seemed to be some underlying concern that it was possible that the coin was an inferior NGC/CAC coin and it was not guaranteed to cross to PCGS. The potential purchasers felt they had a limited market in the current holder and they would not pay the same premium.
Ultimately, it seems PCGS/CAC is still king. I'm unsure if this has to do with registry, collectors wanting a consistent holder, or brand identity. In my experience, the grading process and results were better with CACG (quick turnaround, excellent photos, accurate/conservative grading). The accurate/conservative grading opinion may vary based on who you are and what your goals are.
One of my regular tier submissions was turned around in a single day (5-7 day estimate) and another was 14 days. The 14 day submission coincided with significant Mint releases of modern issues and the "free" crossover special. Still, very fast compared to PCGS.
Overall the user experience from a collector point of view was great. So what is still missing? Would the elimination of stickering elevate them to top tier? If you eliminate the PCGS/CAC combo, how does PCGS stack up against CACG?
Side note: The PCGS forum also has exponentially more volume than the CACG forum. This may also be a limited gauge of market penetration.
Comments
Not an unreasonable concern.
As long as the coin appealed to me and appeared to be accurately graded, I wouldn’t be the least bit concerned about what holder the coin had been in when CAC stickered it, prior to it crossing at CACG.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I also think cac grading is pretty conservative, and most of the coins I see in their holders I like, but I just don't care for their holders. Its intresting to hear the dealers you talked with would only be really intrested if pcgs able and stickerable. thats kind of an alarming comment to be honest. Dropping the stickering might be the only way to rectify this problem going forward, ?? I buy coins all the time in pcgs, ngc and anacs for that matter and an occasional CACG,for resale but all my personal coins are all PCGS graded. (and not becuase of registry, as I dont list on there)
I agree with many of your observations, CACG is a much better option from customer service perspective. Not only is the speed of service excellent so are the photos which are leaps and bounds better than what PCGS puts out today. I may be in the minority here but I personally am very appreciative of how CACG grades. They offer real nonmarket (i.e. let issues that should result in a details/body bag result slide unless really egregious) grading similar to how both NGC and PCGS graded when they started.
There are many newer collectors that simply cannot grade that way, they have been trained to the market grading that is now the norm in the industry. So to them and to many dealers that want and have lobbied for market grading as the years have passed, CACG is looked down upon as too strict which is part of why it has not "caught on" so far.
Then there is the registry aspect, while much of the PCGS registry has been gutted and treated as the red headed stepchild by current management, there are still a ton of hard core kool-aid drinkers. For them it's PCGS or nothing, and there are still quite a few collectors and dealers in this group. CACG has an excellent registry, better than the PCGS one in some ways, but it has been rolled out very slowly and without a ton of fanfare, not sure how much any of that is a factor.
I don't know if CAC stopped the stickering side now if that would help or hurt the grading arm. One thing for sure it would really upset a bunch of the PCGS registry collectors that are trying to complete PCGS/CAC sets. And it would likely boost the values for CAC stickered coins.
Overall, imo, CACG is the real deal and the best value/option for a TPG. But I'm not sure if the strict grading is too much of a turn-off for those that have been trained and are comfortable with the status quo of market grading.
Here is the funny thing to me, those collectors and dealers that are stuck in PCGS only mode are quite ridiculous to me, after all PCGS crosses coins that were in NGC holders. Yet they have no problem paying a premium for that very same coin just because of the plastic change. It should be about the coin, but so many that cannot grade themselves, or are highly motivated by financial considerations, seem to be mostly concerned about the plastic vs the coin.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I perso> @MFeld said:
Agreed. I think rejecting a coin because of what holder it might have been in falls into the category of ridiculous.
For all we know, those who would have concerns about buying a CACG coin that had crossed from an NGC holder could unknowingly be buying a coin that had been upgraded by a point or more at PCGS and/or failed to sticker at CAC.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I have had no issues selling CACG holdered coins. I usually walk into a show with 25-30 and sell up to a 1/3 of them (like I did at FUN), or, at the same rate that PCGS coins sell (w/ or w/o sticker) whatever that rate is. So that tells me there is overall no difference in how they are viewed on a grand community scale. The folks that buy them never mention any concern about crossing. I suspect they are follks that want the best coin possible and don’t worry about which holder it is in. Sure the registry plays a role in the PCGS/CAC preference, for those in that registry. I suspect with time that will change as more of the best coins get into CACG holders and more folks want an inclusive registry such as the one at CAC rather than a restricted one. I prefer the CACG holder simply bc the optics are the best for viewing and imaging coins, and I love the holder aesthetics, design for stacking, etc. But each can choose what they like best.
I suspect that the PCGS forum is more active than CAC's bc it has been around for 2 decades whereas CAC’s only a few years. There is a perk at the CAC forum tho’. You can interact with Laura Sperber and Roger Burdette who were banned here and both numismatists with tremendous knowledge to give back. Other banees are there as well.
Best, DM
And like the others have said, there has been so much crossing between PCGS and NGC and downgrades, same grades, and upgrades, why would anyone be deterred with a CACG coin with a Legacy designation on it? Buy the coin bc you like it, and don’t be concerned about which holder it was in, in the past.
CACG isn’t even two yet and IMO often intentionally undergrades as they continue to bolster their tough reputation.
I am not sure I follow what you are saying - CACG/CAC has its own set of standards for grading that John Albanese says is strictly adhered to. So if this is the case, how can they be intentionally undergrading?
Are these grading standards published somewhere?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Yes, on the CACG site.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
And for anyone who thinks they’re doing that, consider that it wouldn’t be worth it to continue to bolster their tough reputation at the risk of not getting enough submissions to remain in business.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
They finally published them but it's pretty open to interpretation.
https://www.cacgrading.com/grading-standards
http://ProofCollection.Net
Thanks. That's the point I was trying to make. Pretty much open to interpretation and very subjective.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I’ve yet to see any published grading standards by anyone for uncirculated and Proof coins which aren’t “open to interpretation”. And I don’t ever expect to.
Simply put, when dealing with single point differences (or less) in grade, there’s no way to put such differences into words, other than perhaps, differentiating MS/PR 69 from MS/PR 70.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I agree with most of the OP.
Personally, I will or would buy CACG slabs but only if the price allows for a crossover attempt which I would never really be concerned about whether it would cross as I figure a CACG grade is going to straight cross 90%+ of the time. Would be interesting to see stats on that. The few I have CACGs sold on ebay seemed to be a harder sell than equivalent PCGS w/CAC but you can never really know. I could care less what holder the coin might have been in before.
CACG is certainly less tolerant of conditions and quick to assign 'details.' I assert that they are too picky for the market and that they reject (details) coins that most of the market would accept. It's a double edged sword though, and at least you know if you buy a CAC holdered coin it has no issues.
I'll say it again even though most disagree, to say CACG grades more conservatively is inaccurate. They are not conservative to their own standard which is silly if you think about it. CAC has their own standards just like every other TPG grades to their own standards. If anything you can say that CACG's standards result in lower overall number grades than other TPGs but that's not being conservative, it's just using a different measuring stick. A CAC MS65 != PCGS MS65 != NGC MS65, nor are they meant to be. (!= means 'not equal' for those not familiar with coding parlance).
CAC customer experience can't be beat, that's for sure. PCGS has really improved its turnaround times lately though. Getting PCGS CS on the phone still seems to be a challenge.
http://ProofCollection.Net
The issue to me isnt CACG grading. I think they are overly conservative and I have arbitraged CACG to PCGS and gotten higher grades. The issue is CACG isnt bringing "CAC" pricing. Even hough CACG says a slab is equivalent to a green bean, the market isnt saying that. Since you cant CAC sticker a CACG slab.....if youre a dealer this is important, if youre a collector not so much. Buy the coin you like.
www.MyCoinWorX.com
Collectors Software from Collector to Coin Shop
I disagree and I'll provide two examples:
1. The PCGS photograde is a pretty good attempt at visually showing what the standard is.
2. They did a pretty good job in the book "Official Guide to Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection" (Travers/Danreuther) of describing each grade. I can reference the descriptions in that book and compare coins in my collection and match them up pretty well and understand the grade on the holder.
http://ProofCollection.Net
I try to get my coins into PCGS CAC sticker. I submitted my first coin to CACG. I did see more tables with CACG coins at ANA than I saw at previous shows. None of the dealers I buy from had CACG coins. I suppose that will change over time.
One dealer told me that his clients like that two grading services have graded the coins.
Another comment is that JA is doing the stickering. The coins are graded in Virginia Beach by different graders.
Please post someone’s published grading standards for mint state and Proof coins which aren't “open to interpretation and very subjective”. I’ve maintained for about 20 years that published grading standards for such coins don’t adequately allow for distinguishing between two continuous grades (other than perhaps, 69 and 70).
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It's questionable whether this NGC XF40 with CAC would cross to PCGS XF40. It looks like both a PCGS VF35 and an NGC XF40 to me. They have different standards.
I cracked an XF45 CACG Barber half earlier this year and made it PCGS AU53.
Interesting discussion.
Maybe especially so since I sent some texts to a friend about something along this line Sunday morning.
.
First, consider I brought one CACG graded CBH to sell at OKC.
I had it priced right, and it was a reasonably attractive coin with good luster and a nice grey-dirt skin, no spots. Not Legacy either. Graded as a 58, it may have been a shot 61/2 coin.
Crickets. Hardly even a look.
All of the other coins I had got good looks (with the exception of a VF30 Yellow ANACS coin). Some got careful scrutiny. Many sold, even without beans.
That CACG one ... next to nothing.
A dealer I made a comment about this to gave me a knowing look.
Weird.
Do we hate or dismiss the holder that much?
.
Okay ... so that said, here's the bulk of the thoughts, copied from those texts I made;
I think it's just a matter of time for CACG, but so far I'm not sure that time has come quite yet. Maybe it has for later date coins or different series, but still seemed like a lot of eye roll from the early Federal silver crowd.
But, whether we like it or not, an awful lot of coins get recycled for grading.
Eventually there is a point where they may not go back to PCGS because there won't be a sticker to put on them. At that point it probably really starts to change. I don't expect it'll take that long but I also don't expect that there isn't some kind of an eye roll effect for the next couple years still.
There's probably some value in that if you can figure out a way to get them at the right price. But that's true with every coin.
The problem I see is that if JA doesn't get the kind of traction on CACG that he needs, they're going to be fighting someone else as the new "Sticker God".
Somebody's going to come up with something, and that is what will be the new beaten path.
What John seems to have forgotten in his quest to create a legacy system is simple;
CAC, as he designed it, became a fourth party grading system.
Third party grading is seller, buyer and company that has certified the coin at a specific grade/value.
Fourth party grading is different. It takes all of the elements of third party grading and inserts an arbitrator that stands atop the grade, and also helps determine a value that is separate from the grading company.
CACG is not a fourth party grading service. It's a third party grading service, and that's all it will ever be because it doesn't really have the fourth party element.
.
my 2c, of course ... YMMV
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
I can't because they are all subjective and subject to interpretation. I've never said otherwise.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Interesting conversation @pursuitofliberty
Especially for a Sunday 
Successful BST with drddm, BustDMs, Pnies20, lkeigwin, pursuitofliberty, Bullsitter, felinfoel, SPalladino
$5 Type Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/type-sets/half-eagle-type-set-circulation-strikes-1795-1929/album/344192
CBH Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/everyman-collections/everyman-half-dollars/everyman-capped-bust-half-dollars-1807-1839/album/345572
Please show me just two examples of published grading standards for coins anywhere within the MS 60-69 or Proof 60-69 range where the descriptions for any two contiguous grades of your choice allow for distinguishing between those grades on a consistent basis.
That aside, in each of your two examples above you said “pretty good”. That’s about as vague as the standards, themselves and doesn’t cut it for distinguishing between two contiguous grades.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I sell CACG coins, I sell PCGS/CAC coins. I price them the same, and they sell for the same pricing. So I don’t know where your info comes from. So please explain where you info comes from.
It's very nearly almost clear.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
It appears that I had misinterpreted your viewpoint. Thank you for setting me straight.😬
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
CACG market doing well. Low pop CACG. inexpensive stuff getting heavy bid competition - Bidders want excitement of low pop affordable stuff.
Beyond that / CACG graded Dollars also popular too have picked up a few. Appear to be nice investment buy. I lost an auction (bid up) on nice CACG Classic commem. Had bid it up considerably above bid. Will try bid full CPG next time.
Personally I like the PCGS/CAC coins because of the registry. It is how I keep track on collections and coins that don't fit can be forgotten easily. I would buy a CACG coin and pay the same but I am crossing it, the cost is fairly nominal for most coins I collect.
I think CACG has a chance to continue to gather momentum and carve out a bigger niche. But it is dealing with at least 3 headwinds:
1. Inertia. Most top coins are in PCGS or PCGS/CAC holders and for most coins there is not a compelling enough reason to ship to Virginia to cross.
2. The PCGS registry is still the 800 pound gorilla and far more people care about the registry than would care to admit.
3. CACG does not grade at shows. This presents a major disadvantage compared to PCGS and NGC because dealers need to keep things moving and like to minimize shipping costs and risks.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
Agreed. I don't know how most collectors are but I want my collection to be homogenous which means pick one TPG and stay with it. For this kind of collectors it's hard to go CACG because there just isn't enough inventory out there - you'd have to cross almost everything you want to put into your collection. So it's a big inertia/momentum play. In 10 years it'll be a different story.
OK, here's 65 (top) vs 64 (bottom) from the book I mentioned regarding marks. They also provide descriptions for eye appeal, strike, and luster.
Yes, "minor and few," "smaller," "minor," "numerous," etc are all subjective, but if you're not a noob it's pretty easy to look at a coin and make these judgements. Of course the PCGS grader may disagree with me about whether a mark/hairlines is "major" or not because there will always be "liners" but most of them will be pretty easy to distinguish.
http://ProofCollection.Net
Your last paragraph in bold is perhaps one of the most contradictory statements I've read from you. I desperately wish you would abandon the propensity to die on this hill, but again here we are.
"If you're not a noob, than its easy..."
For someone to be "not a noob", wouldn't they already have to be fairly proficient at proficient at grading to begin with? If the answer is yes, then your point falls flat.
If the answer is no, then we should be able to take 20 novices, give them all a written copy of the standards to reference, and have them each opine on the grade of 20 different coins. If we executed that experiment, do you believe they would be even a remotely narrow range of grades for coins of all different series and time periods?
Graders don't learn to grade on an island. "Standards" don't function as instructions etched in stone tablets; they are static and they evolve over time...for better or worse.
I bet they did, based on the time period it was written. But answer me this, if the written standards are of the utmost significance for the foundation of grading, why is it that when that book was written in the 90s, a saint in 63 often looked like this-
Yet, when I visit the page for 1925 $20 and click "more photos", the first 63 that loaded looks like this? -
What changed exactly? The market values? The standards themselves? The application thereof? The graders and their opinions? The market values? Or was it the coins? How exactly did we get from point A to point B? Ill give you a hint....it wasn't the coins....
For the record, I agree with many of the other points you've made in this thread, but this line of thought desperately needs a course correction imo. And by the way, CACG has assembled, for reference, physical grading sets of coins where it was feasible to do so, never to be swapped or re-assembled. Despite that, they can and they will make the "wrong" decision sometimes, in the opinion of many, just like any other service. The important metric to track is the frequency of the "right" decisions, in accordance with your interpretation of the standards, and whether or not it allows for an accurate, or appropriate valuation by the market itself.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Did you mean "advantage" rather than "disadvantage"?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@PeakRarities, thank you for saving me a lengthy response to the post from @ProofCollection.
I’ll just add that the published standards for an MS64 coin (copied below) look as if they could easily apply to many MS63 and (even) MS62 coins I’ve seen.
“ There may be numerous minor marks/hairlines,
several significant marks/hairlines, or other defects. There may be a few minor or one or two significant m/h in the main focal areas. On minor coinage there may be several m/h in the fields or main focal areas, but none should be too severe. On larger coins, these m/h may be more severe in the fields or main focal areas. However, a severe m/h would have to be of a size that would preclude grading the coin MS65 though not so severe as to reduce to MS63. If there are several fairly heavy m/h in obvious areas, the coin would be MS63.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Actually a missing word. “A major disadvantage compared to PCGS and NGC.” Thanks.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
The answer is no, the person doesn't have to be proficient but has to have a frame of reference to borrow from. I could have elaborated and written another paragraph but didn't want to bore anyone. If you took a coin with a "severe" mark on a device and asked a random person if the mark was severe you would have inconsistent results. But I contend that if you found a coin novice who has looked at hundreds (but perhaps not thousands) of coins with a critical eye he would have a sufficient frame of reference to distinguish a "severe" or "major" mark from a "minor" mark and apply the written standards.
What are you suggesting with this example, that is was accurately graded and now no longer is? Again I could have put in caveats and disclaimers and made my post even longer, but we all acknowledge that all of the TPGs make mistakes and it's impossible to know if this was a mistake or evaluated against a different standard. Certainly you can't take all $20 Saints in MS63 OGHs and they don't all deserve gold beans (assuming no other reasons that CAC wouldn't approve of), so we can rule out that if a standard has changed, it hasn't changed enough that every OGH 63 should be considered a 64 today. So we are left with that a mistake was made in grading or it is a "liner" that didn't get the benefit of the doubt back in the day, or the grader thought the luster was below average but JA thinks it's only slightly below average so it qualifies for 64.
No argument there.
I don't know what to tell you, perhaps they were not accurately graded. Maybe I didn't explain it well enough but the excerpt I posted was only part of the grid pertaining to marks. There are other factors like strike, eye appeal, and luster that also must be applied. A below average strike will pull an MS64 to a MS63.
http://ProofCollection.Net
"For this kind of collectors it's hard to go CACG because there just isn't enough inventory out there - you'd have to cross almost everything you want to put into your collection.”
Why? You have a coin in the best grading company's holder. You don’t have to cross it to anywhere. Oh. Registry. CAC has an inclusive registry for the 3 big TPG’s, best in town. So why spend money on crossing when there is no need?
@ProofCollection said:
‘etc., etc’
Yup I used to drink kool aid too. But I’ve upgraded to fresh squeezed lemonade. More healthy.
This is a very interesting and informative thread. As a casual collector you can learn a lot. I just wish some of the people who could benefit from this type of information would take it to heart. Sadly, the "buy the holder" rather than the "coin" crowd marches on from what I can tell. I mentioned it in another recent thread, but from my perspective company's like PCGS and CACG can put any grade on anything and a contingent of buyers will show up. Thanks for this discussion though. Truly quite informative. James
The PCGS Registry gives extra credit for plus coins which is an important consideration for competitive Registry members.
Is the fact CACG recognizes so few PCGS + and NGC+ coins as being CACG+ coins preventing heritage PCGS+ & NGC+ coins from being crossed over? This in turn could affect the popularity of all CACG coins.
Yup I used to drink kool aid too. But I’ve upgraded to fresh squeezed lemonade. More healthy.
Interesting comment. Hopefully you realize that it's a lot like the pot calling the kettle black. Just as there are those collectors/dealers who are strong supporters of PCGS there are those who are strong supporters of CAC/CACG. It doesn't have to be at the expense of the other side.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
I own slightly over 2 dozen CACG slabs. They are a fun, good investment.
You seem to use the I (investment) word a lot. Are you a dealer or an investor?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
My observations are straight forward:
-Grading is subjective and that will not change;
-A grade opinion is captured at the moment of submission and based primarily on the first impressions of the coin;
-It is about the coin more so that the TPG opinion as that opinion is subject to change;
-TPG opinions tend to shape and mold the opinions of others; and
-Not all coins at the same grade level are created equal and there seems to be a misconception that it should be the TPG slab that establishes the value.
The one thing that really should be consistent is the look of the coin. And it is that "look" that is far more important than the opinion that can change.
The discussion of grading standards, TPG and stickers can be argued... but grading standards are often subjective and any effort to apply standards across any coin series is merely a continuation of a subjective analysis.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Interesting comment. Hopefully you realize that too often folks start threads here with the point of being critical of 2 TPGs and patting the other one on the back even though all have flaws and all are good for what they do. As you know, this is why the ‘drinking the kool aid' slogan started many years back.
So I am asking myself, why are these folks not going over to the other TPG message boards and being critical of them there instead of preaching to the choir here? This is where I raise my concerns.
I didn't know the other TPG's had message boards.
I wish I could see more posts relating to the original topic. Those of us who collect without giving much consideration to the TPG are curious about the liquidity of and demand for CACG coins. Or, more accurately, the evolution of same. What progress has CACG made in the market? I love CACG but always have an eye on future value, not that I give a great deal of weight to it,