Understanding CAC, CACG and other grading companies and their value.
SimonW
Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭✭✭
I'm not a big fan of CACG. I LOVE CAC. I have two reasons for this, which I will explain below. If you have more experience and can help me understand more, I appreciate the input.
Reason 1: CAC puts your coin in front of more experts, all people are fallible, if more people agree on your coin being in a holder that it's solidly and correctly graded, it's more likely that it meets with current standards within the industry. The issue I have with CACG is that it eliminates the number of unbiased opinions, and is therefore more likely to be fallible. From a statistical standpoint, this makes sense, even if you think CACG is the "bees knees," accuracy increases with more informed opinions on the subject.
Reason 2: This is where it gets a little convoluted, if you'll forgive the long winded explanation. CAC was founded, according to JA, to identify coins that are strong for the grade. Coins that meet or exceed grading standards of "A" coins. His explanation (which may have changed since last I read it) was that, within a grade, there are three levels. If we are talking about a coin graded MS63, There are A coins, that merit a CAC green sticker, there are B coins, that do not, and C coins, that also do not merit a sticker. Coins that merit a Gold sticker are above the standards JA has set for an A coin within the assigned grade. He also states that B and C coins ARE acceptable coins for the grade, but they don't meet the standards of A coins (being high quality within the grade.)
This idea works very well before CACG came out, if you had a coin with a CAC sticker, you knew what you were looking at, something that was premium quality within the grade. It made sense. All grading companies have variation, not all coins within the same grade are equal, this helped regulate that "problem."
Today there's this new grading service CACG, which is the grading arm of CAC (as you likely know.) The assertion is that they're doing the same thing as was going on before, grading coins that are premium quality for the grade. In fact, you can't send in a CACG graded coin in order to get a CAC sticker because it's already graded as being premium quality for the grade, and it would be superfluous. What about the coins that are deemed B or C? Coins that DO (as JA states) deserve the grade the have, they're just not the highest quality within the assigned grade. Where do those coins end up? Certainly not in the CACG holder that's premium for the grade right? It would, by necessity, because of the limits of their grading system, be a lower grade. That might make some sense for the C coins, an MS63 C coin is a really nice MS62-A coin, maybe even a gold (which CACG doesn't do for obvious reasons.) What about the middling, perfectly AVERAGE B coins? Coins that very solidly belong in the grade range? Logic would dictate that they get moved down to a lower grade, meaning that they should greatly EXCEED the quality necessary to reside in that lower grade. This makes the grading inaccurate for a portion of the coins CACG grades, within their own system, there's a fatal problem.
It seems like to me CACG has broken its own grading system.
Tell me I'm wrong.
I think this poses a threat to the grading systems. I feel like CAC was fixing a problem that did exist, but CACG is creating a bigger problem, making grading even less accurate than it was before, just on the other end of the spectrum (undergrading coins that actually merit a higher grade.). I'm sure it was calculated, because in order to enter the market and capture market share, you'd need to do something different, better or cheaper, and they probably did all three. It sounds like good business, but not good for the hobby.
Thoughts?
I'm BACK!!! Used to be Billet7 on the old forum.
Comments
This is a long running conversation which inevitably leads to misunderstandings and arguments.
I would recommend you read through this thread for all sides of the ABC conversation ad nauseam and then ad nauseam again. -> link here
From my opinion, you are wrong. Also, in my opinion, you are right.
CAC and CACG are not the same and they serve different purposes. It is up to you whether you think they are good for the hobby.
CAC - Identify coins which are solid or better for the assigned TPG grade (based on CAC's internal grading standard) and which do not have undisclosed surface issues.
CACG - Grade coins based on CAC's internal grading standard with a focus on not silently net grading problematic but market acceptable coins.
These are NOT the same missions. I don't have the will in me to rehash it again though...either you agree and/or get it or you don't.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
"B" coins are treated the same as "A" coins by CAC and CACG. It's up to you to decide whether the coin is an A or a B. I have fun doing that.
Since you wrote “Tell me I'm wrong.”, you’re wrong.😉
Regarding your “Reason1” - CAC aside, CACG doesn’t eliminate the number of unbiased opinions any more so than other grading companies do.
Your “Reason 2” contains incorrect points.
CAC stickers coins that they consider to be of A or B quality for the assigned grade - not just A coins.
And their gold stickers are for coins that they consider to be solid at the next higher grade or better for the assigned grade.
Regrading your next paragraph pertaining to CACG - you make it sound as if CACG only grades coins of premium quality for the grade. That isn’t so.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I provided a comment on the World Coin forum... read it there and if not ... well ...that is your choice
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Even if they only graded "premium quality" coins, some of those coins will be better than others of the same grade. So- PQPQ, then.
The obvious solution here is a new service that only stickers the "A" coins from CACG. Give them a taste of their own medicine!
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Or read it here 😉
August 25, 2026 3:48PM
I will move beyond the question of whether the US Forum might be the place that might spark the discussion that you are seeking. I am not going to write that you are wrong... mainly because you are entitled to express your thoughts in connection with a subject that involves subjectivity.
First and foremost,.. Let's take a look at the role of a second set of eyes looking at the TPG assigned to a coin. In view of the escalation in the value of grades at the high end of the grading spectrum, it clearly makes sense. However, it makes no sense for common coins at a common grade to go through the CAC sticker process. And frankly, how many 1881-s Morgans can one expect to review? The story is different for those that seek certain Commems such as the 1923-s Monroe in 65 and higher... Get the CAC review. As for rarity. CAC is a good thing if it is warranted. And the problem is that most collectors seem to want further confirmation above and beyond what is needed for common coins. Most collectors need to understand and appreciate that all coins within a series are not created equal. One cannot use the same yard stick in looking at an 1881-s Morgan and a 1904 Morgan. The quality is different and collectors need to understand the difference. So an 1881-s Morgan in 65 will look better than a 1904. That is simply how it is.
CAC has a place with their sticker and doing what they have done. It has a place even though it has been over-utilized likely beyond what was anticipated, Please... take a moment and look at the CAC population of the coins that they have accepted (through no fault of their own) and stickered or acknowledged that the coin in question was simply not worthy of a sticker and that might answer several questions/concerns. I am not interested in doing the math as to the number of coins that were simply not worthy of submission to begin with. But this is where we are at and so this must be addressed. Collectors need to do the work to understand what is at stake. It is about the coin and not how that coin can be framed and presented through a TPG holder. I really do NOT want a TPG company dictating to me what is the essence of the coin, I do NOT want or seek the second guessing of an opinion of a World Coin whereby the so-called grader has seen fewer coins from the series than I have.
I have provided my thoughts ... and I suspect my thoughts are not quite within what was anticipated.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
And so... many years down the road, everything will be graded PO-1 because you can't get any more conservative than that.
@MFeld
Thank you for taking the initiative to do what I thought was a lost cause
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
You bet!
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Of course, the A coins could then be separated into A', B', and C' and we could start the stickering all over again.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I pray that this thread gets merged with the other or shutdown. All of this has been discussed ad nauseum.
There’s no market problem a new sticker can’t solve.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
I was thinking with the whole ABC coin breakdown, does this mean that an MS63 CACG can still be an MS63 if its a C coin?
Im not being a wise guy, this is just a thought I had.
As @ProofCollection has said this topic has been hashed out.
I just didnt know if my comment was discussed.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7 JWP BruceS bigjpst
JWP PROMETHIUS88
There will always be C coins no matter what you do. If you drop the Cs all down a grade, some of the current Bs will become the new Cs.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
I like CAC better than CACG for the reasons you stated.
I like CACG better than the other 3rd party graders as they are more in line with the standards of CAC.
Therefore, I choose to buy coins that either have a CAC sticker OR are CACG and I like them.
I don't think it’s that simple. I think they’re both strict when it comes to technical grading, and I also think they have strict criteria for eye appeal that they filter with as well (just like CAC). I do think that they discriminate for both.
I think our hosts are more willing to let an accurately graded but unattractive coin through.
This is of course my own uneducated opinion based on my limited experience.
It will be interesting to see how things change as time goes on.
Newbie collector of type and circulated Peace dollars, photographer of places and animals, player of instruments and builder of amplifiers, espresso industry professional, and a person distracted by shiny objects.
CACG Registry
MyCollect Registry
I’m exactly the same way, and it’s rare that I see a CACG coin that I don't like.
Newbie collector of type and circulated Peace dollars, photographer of places and animals, player of instruments and builder of amplifiers, espresso industry professional, and a person distracted by shiny objects.
CACG Registry
MyCollect Registry
I think it is. Take all the coins of a type/date/mint graded as MS65 and sort them, best to worst. Divide the group in thirds and you have your A, B and C coins. Take all the C coins and drop them down a grade. Now, take the remaining coins and sort them into thirds again and some of the coins that were Bs are now Cs.
CAC is not based on "attractive". It's an overall grade and all the services include "eye appeal" as part of the grades when appropriate.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I get it, and I kind of agree in terms of technical grading, but they definitely have different eye appeal standards. I can only really speak to uncirculated peace dollars, as that’s what I collect and see lots of. The range of coins in AU58 that I’ve seen, and that I own, is vastly different than the range I see for PCGS coins in terms of tone quality and color, haze, chatter, etc.. It’s almost as if CACG coins have a specific style.
The following is an extreme example, but I’ve never seen what I consider a “C” coin like the following PCGS coin in a CACG holder, and I’ve never seen a PCGS holder with one as nice as the following CACG coin. I think their ranges overlap, but they’re not the same. I think PCGS is looser, but I also don’t think that’s a bad thing since taste is individual.
Newbie collector of type and circulated Peace dollars, photographer of places and animals, player of instruments and builder of amplifiers, espresso industry professional, and a person distracted by shiny objects.
CACG Registry
MyCollect Registry