Options
CACG AU55 crackout graded MS63 by PCGS!
dval2929
Posts: 12 ✭
So perhaps this is well known to all of you, but still being new to the hobby this video absolutely shocked me.
Crackout results summary from CACG to PCGS:
- CACG UNC Details environmental damage --> PCGS MS66
- CACG MS64 --> PCGS MS66
- CACG UNC Details damage --> PCGS MS64
- CACG UNC Details questionable toning --> PCGS MS63
- CACG UNC Details questionable toning --> PCGS MS63
- CACG UNC Details questionable toning --> PCGS MS63
- CACG UNC Details scratched obverse --> PCGS MS64
- CACG UNC Details cleaned obverse --> PCGS Cleaned UNC Detail
- CACG AU55 --> PCGS MS63
I totally understand that grading has subjective elements, but as a new collector this feels very chaotic in terms of consistency and knowing what you are buying.
Curious to hear your thoughts on this. Thanks!
7
Comments
Images would help (still shots). Sadly I predict this thread will be nuked.
Wow
Did the image not post? I am not good at this markdown forum posting.
Grading remains a subjective opinion. Some opinions may be better than others but any graded opinion is captured at a moment in time. And opinions as to a coin’s grade can change over time.
While some might be alarmed, I am not loosing sleep over this.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I mean, you are right. But these are very wide variances. A 55 to a 63 in many coins can be hundreds of thousands of dollars. You point makes perfect sense for a 61 vs 62, or sticker vs. no sticker.
But two grading services having differing opinions by 5 grades seems....problematic. Ditto with details vs no details in terms of the pure monetary implications for both buyer and seller.
.
Grades are a single point in time piece of data and they can and do change upon events at the same grading service. I haven't seen the video but will take a look. I wonder which grading service got it "more right" than the other in this group.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
CACG grading came on the scene and was trying to clean up market acceptable things hence the details grades from them that crossed to non details holders. This has been discussed a few times on these boards.
It is also why you see certain people on these boards with voracious appetites for CACG details holders...
There has been significant discussion of these topics throughout the forums both CAC forums, here, reddit etc...
I fully agree and understand that but a five interval swing is a different game entirely.
one photo that doesn't show the coin well. that means there are 9 coins in question needing 18 pictures
Oh, I'm not gonna do 9 photos but someone else can!
Questionable toning often is subjective in terms of color, pattern of color and whether that toning is market acceptable. There is a threshold but there can and often is disagreement as to color/toning and what should give rise to noteworthy environmental concerns that preclude a straight grade. A coin that has a scratch May get a straight grade depending on severity and whether the scratch location is within a focal point.
It really should be the coin that fuels the discussion more than opinions that are subject to change.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I sent an NGC AU details coin to PCGS, who graded the coin MS63.
FWIW...
I sent a PCGS XF Details coin to PCGS, who graded the coin AU50.
...and many other significant upgrades and downgrades between different services. It happens. A lot.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
It would be fun to see which of these PCGSs get CAC stickers.
CACG UNC Details environmental damage --> PCGS MS66
CACG MS64 --> PCGS MS66
CACG UNC Details damage --> PCGS MS64
CACG UNC Details questionable toning --> PCGS MS63
CACG UNC Details questionable toning --> PCGS MS63
CACG UNC Details questionable toning --> PCGS MS63
CACG UNC Details scratched obverse --> PCGS MS64
CACG AU55 --> PCGS MS63
The value delta is pretty huge.
Time and resources expended deserves better. Hobby needs to do better here.
Yep. At the end of the day, they're all opinions.
This thread and several podcasts I’ve viewed are disturbing. More examples than might be considered anecdotal, but would like to hear from those who handle very large volumes of crosses.
CACG AU55 crackout graded MS63 by PCGS!
maybe CACG got it wrong!
I just looked at the video. The 1926-D Peace dollar that apparently has triggered so many folks was shown with a loupe only on the obverse yet I could detect lost luster on the reverse. Regardless, the obverse looked AU58 to me, but perhaps CACG dinged it for the potentially ugly looking swipe across the obverse field. It didn't look MS and I would not have paid MS money for that coin.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I see reverse wear on the eagle's feathers/breast and a bit of a loss of luster on the cheek. The light 'scratch' next to the portrait such as TomB pointed out is enough to knock this one down a bit. AU55 isn't out of line yet MS63 seems to be.
There’s always a market, despite who’s at the helm, in any particular field. Or in other words : “let the games continue !”
Crack ‘n’ CACgee, what could go wrong ?
https://acoinshop.com/ —-> https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
I’m not surprised. CACG is on general very tight and I expect to see a lot more of this moving forward. This is a small sample size but this is a bad look. I would be somewhat apprehensive buying expensive coins in freshly graded PCGS holders without stickers thinking they might have either originated either from CACG details holders or were graded a few points lower.
I have questions, and doubts.
This seems clearly tailored for a shock-factor reaction from the viewers. I’m going to move forward with the assumption that this wasn’t a bait and switch situation, which seems quite possible.
It seems obvious that these coins were specifically targeted BECAUSE they expected them to do better on regrade. The grades were stringent, perhaps even unfair initially, to the coins in question. It’s very possible that resubmitting again to CACG could have yielded more favorable results on all the coins in question as well. Maybe not. But it would be a strong possibility that coins were graded poorly by CACG, THEN by PCGS, just on different ends of the spectrum. Accurate grading is what the hobby needs, predictable and consistent. A company undergrading creates a similar problem that one does that overgrades. We need consistency, not change to a “better” or “worse” standard (our grading standards are COMPLETELY fabricated, btw. They’re meaningless if they can’t be consistent.) This demonstrates that, across the board, CACG and PCGS are missing the consistency goal.
I would also like to know, how many “problem” CACG coins were considered before this lot was submitted? On that note, just how many were submitted? It seems like to me we’re getting a very tailored look at a very tailored grouping of a very judiciously chosen group of coins, that were chosen for just this reaction. If it’s real at all…
What am I saying?! Everything on the internet is real…
I'm BACK!!! Used to be Billet7 on the old forum.
It’s August 23rd one day, then it’s August 24th the next, and so on.
Same stuff… different day
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
In other words people are just throwing their money away with many cacg submissions. What do they get? Crazy strict or arbitrarily paranoid grading where any coin that might be seen as a problem by someone who buys a cacg coin, gets body bagged. Buyers don't pay up that much more extra anymore for common cac graded coins. If they were buying them at 30% or 50% more it might warrant taking the chance on a submission.
Not a fan of CACG grading or their holder.
I'll stick to buying the right coin in the right holder the first time.
TPGs use the same 70 point scale, but do not grade to the same standard.
CACG takes a hard line towards slide marks and cabinet friction, and will knock coins into technical AU grades even if they’ve clearly never circulated. PCGS and other TPGs tend to be more forgiving of these technicalities.
Im guessing the ‘23-D Peace was bumped into the 58 grade because of one of those circumstances, and then possibly net graded to 55 because of another issue that CACG didn’t like.
You need to understand that both grades may be accurate, despite being different. I would be much more concerned it it were a 55 to 63 grade swing within the same TPG.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
That’s quite a turnaround on those would really like see some pics evaluate that situation. CACG material does trade at a premium (CDN) but of course AU details to 63 can be a huge jump in value.
About 14-15 minutes into the video. PCGS "market" graded the coin imo.
Coingeek said 'stay tuned for that'...............
Watch the video
Yea, IMHO CACG is fine but certainly NOT perfect. Only a single example but I had one Mercury Dime that had a CACG 58 FB go to PCGS 63 FB go to NGC 64 FB. It was an outstanding coin and have thought about sending it back to hosts - 1920 S which is not a bad date.
Well, just Love coins, period.
As far as the coins going to CAC for that project I wonder if some of them went bad in the holder over time (tarnish, biological attack, etc.). Who knows how many decades….
The coin with the ugly black tarnish above certainly one that could have tarnished over decades. Calling it a C coin wb a complement.
So my approach would be freshly graded coins from some other TPG (NGC,PCGS, etc) then to CACG for the comparison.
I have a couple of boxes of CACG coins acquired in last 12 months and will keep tabs on them periodically see if any spots, tarnish develop. Slabbed coins accordingly I believe can have a shelf life then over that time period spots, tarnish, biological attack can develop. The question what is the average slab shelf life period. Of course wild card factors like heat, salt air humidity can have an impact.
How are you going to know?
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
After viewing the video, which I really enjoyed, I’m less concerned. The coins shown were picked as illustrations, rather than randomly picked. Still, it shows that we should be a little stubborn if we disagree with the holder, provided the numbers work and we have educated eyes.
Regardless of who was closer, a 5 point swing is alarming. If grading is that subjective/fickle then the purpose of third party grading (as opposed to authentication alone) is undermined. These are both suppose to be top tier services.
Closer to what, exactly? By what single standard is grading accuracy adjudicated?
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Exactly. There are too many threads here about TPG "A" and "B" grading a coin differently, with the conclusion that TPG "B" got it wrong because the grade is different from the one assigned by "A".
And forget that whole "Conservative grading is better" nonsense. Any competent grader can grade as conservatively as he chooses. What matters is how consistent the grading is.
The 83, 84, and 85 - O Morgans all seem to have the same obverse toning and white reverses. I'd view as questionable toning also, esp if received at CACG for grading at the same time.
The prevailing market and common understanding of those terms. Yes you can make arguments that minor shifts from proprietary differences in grading standards are not suprirsing, but a five interval swing? That's not a different scale - it's an entirely different universe. It does no good for the market when multiple "top tier" services use the same term to mean different things, particularly with such a marked difference in corresponding quality, as it will only confuse the markets.
In watching the video -
If the coin submitted to CACG has gone bad in the holder over time accumulating tarnish, biological attack, spots, I can see how CACG would give it a considerably lower grade. As the coin has gone bad in the holder.
Just like an asteroid picking up hits while traveling thru the galaxy - thousands of parsecs or millions of light years light years over time.
Interstellar space is not empty.
A couple of points:
First, the progression is CACG to PCGS. Not PCGS to CACG.
Second, Interstellar space is considerably empty.
lol y wrong both counts.
No - interstellar space is not empty over a long distance nor has any human built space craft traversed a distance like out to Proxima B.
"Space is about 99.9999999% empty. The vast regions between stars and galaxies contain an average of only about one proton or hydrogen atom per cubic meter. Even though it is a near-perfect vacuum, space is not completely empty."
Are you stating the video shows coins graded by PCGS first and then graded by CACG?
Did you (be honest) really watch the video?
I think this is a conversation Cheech and Chong likely had in up in smoke. Prove me wrong!
I've seen lots of SLQ in cacg 58 holders I think would grade MS at PCGS but i'm not going to gamble on photos and also the asking prices are typically already priced as MS coins.
My best crack and regrades are from yellow insert anacs holders. This year i bought an 1918 5c in anacs 58 and it graded PCGS 65. it had no rub to speak of.
that peace would have looked silly in a 55 holder.
That's a lot of slide marks on that 26 D Peace obverse in the video. Without a loupe might miss, but if I bought as an MS63, which is a $300+ coin, and saw that, I'd be greatly disappointed.