CAC vs. Secure +
STEWARTBLAYNUMIS
Posts: 2,697 ✭✭✭✭
Where would you go first ?
Which product will be worth more money ?
Stewart
0
STEWARTBLAYNUMIS
Posts: 2,697 ✭✭✭✭
Where would you go first ?
Which product will be worth more money ?
Stewart
Comments
I would first go to CAC
I believe eventually PCGS secure + will be worth more money.
Stewart
ps - PCGS needs to stop giving a + grade to a coin that has been dipped.
CAC is a grading service, Secure Plus™ is a security and grading service.
I would first go to CAC.
Do you have any CAC'd copper??
I have zero doubt that Secure+ coins will be worth more.
As a collector, I will hold off submitting coins for Plus but will look for the coins in the marketplace.
Most peeps here do not understand what the green bean indicates.
<< <i>I would first go to CAC
I believe eventually PCGS secure + will be worth more money.
Stewart
ps - PCGS needs to stop giving a + grade to a coin that has been dipped. >>
I agree 100% with everything in your post. It would be nice if pcgs would see dipped coins as doctored but apparently they dont
PCGS now requires we send in a coin for crossover without the Plus Service. If the coin crosses, we then need to resubmit the coin, and pay the fees again, if we want to see if our coin earns the Plus. Big moneymaker for PCGS, bad news for most all collectors.
Most peeps here do not understand what the green bean indicates.
The potential overlap for a gold football is probabably so minute as to be negligible. No one has anything that competes with it.
A MS65+ coin can be a 65.7, 65.8 or 65.9 per PCGS. A CAC 64 Gold certified coin can (in their opinion only) be a 65.4, 65.5, 65.6, 65.7, 65.8 or 65.9. In the vast majority of the cases, that coin will be a .4 to a .6. How many people are going to assume that a 64+ Gold is equal to a 65+ PCGS.....and pay equivalent money? Even if the 2 coins look basically similar which one are you going to shell out all the money for?
With all the new changes there might be a need for CPA's to wade newbies through the plethora of choices (Certified Plus Accountant).
roadrunner
until PCGS makes Secure + mandatory for all submissions, the bad guys the Big One is trying to thwart are able to just side step the technology. and until PCGS prices it in the range of it's traditional services it is just too expensive for most collectors to even consider at this time.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>The market playout between PCGS and CAC will be interesting to watch. Cheers, RickO >>
There are millions more coins that it makes sense to CAC than there are for the SecurityPlus service. CAC doesn't charge for the ones that don't sticker nor do they require a reholder. CAC's big minus is that they will sticker fugly coins.
<< <i>I would really like to see the "plus" separated from the "secure" and the "plus" made available at the regular submission level. Even if there was a $5 charge for the "plus" evaluation, I would most likely use it. I have a lot of coins in the $300 to $1000 dollar range that would be great canidates for this, but it does not make economic sense to spend $65 plus shipping to have them graded at the express level. >>
I feel the same way. And I am certain this will happen.
PCGS is wisely taking it slow. There's a lot to be learned about market acceptance, price points, demand, efficiency of the process, etc.
Lance.
<< <i>How about a PCGS+ with a CAC sticker? >>
Hi Joe. I think the CAC sticker will add nothing to a plus coin. After all, most CAC submissions earn a sticker. The A and B grades, just not C.
PCGS+ is for the upper 10-15%. Those are A grades. If PCGS does its job right only a gold sticker might help it along.
Lance.
In time, it could well become the standard of excellence ,If PCGS holds to
its initial stringent standards on the PLUS.
Camelot
<< <i>As someone in another thread pointed-out, with CAC you are getting a second opinion. With PCGS it's just the same guys who didn't get it right the first time. I believe the Secure holder will become the equivalent of the Regency holder. >>
<< <i>I would first go to CAC
I believe eventually PCGS secure + will be worth more money.
Stewart
ps - PCGS needs to stop giving a + grade to a coin that has been dipped. >>
Right you are on CAC first, and your ps. Secure plus remains to be seen, but right now I disagree it will be worth more money, for a lot of reasons, most of which I can't mention here without being bammed.
john
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>Interesting. John Albanese has said publically he does not have a problem with dipped coins..............MJ >>
As do most major players in the industry. I should have mentioned in my reply to Stewart when he said, "ps - PCGS needs to stop giving a + grade to a coin that has been dipped", that it's time for John A. to consider doing the same at CAC. The powers that be all think it's acceptable, but how can you be on a crusade against doctoring and still find dipping acceptable when it physically alters the surface of the coin? This includes BTW all the "high end" dealers who rail against doctoring and at the same time sell dipped coins. For example, spot removal is considered doctoring when it actually improves the appearance of the coin, and only a small surface area is affected, but in dipping, the coin is altered and metal removed from the entire surface of the coin. You can't have it both ways folks. Up to now, no one has been able to explain how dipping is not doctoring, when the original surface has been altered to obtain a more aesthetically appealing coin.
john
<< <i>
<< <i>Interesting. John Albanese has said publically he does not have a problem with dipped coins..............MJ >>
As do most major players in the industry. I should have mentioned in my reply to Stewart when he said, "ps - PCGS needs to stop giving a + grade to a coin that has been dipped", that it's time for John A. to consider doing the same at CAC. The powers that be all think it's acceptable, but how can you be on a crusade against doctoring and still find dipping acceptable when it physically alters the surface of the coin? This includes BTW all the "high end" dealers who rail against doctoring and at the same time sell dipped coins. For example, spot removal is considered doctoring when it actually improves the appearance of the coin, and only a small surface area is affected, but in dipping, the coin is altered and metal removed from the entire surface of the coin. You can't have it both ways folks. Up to now, no one has been able to explain how dipping is not doctoring, when the original surface has been altered to obtain a more aesthetically appealing coin.
john >>
John, I would never knowingly buy a dipped coin or would want one in my collection because imho the surfaces have been changed/altered forever. The thought of delibrate intervention and plotting in the process of cleaning a coin makes the coin unsexy and uninteresting to me. I addition, I just don't like the look. There maybe rare rare exceptions (double entendre warning) where dipping would make sense to me. However, there are others that do so there is a market in dipped coins and I respect every collectors right to seek out what they want. I will stop just short of calling dipped coins doctored as that seems to get folks crazy around these parts. Dipped plus coins?.....no thanks. MJ
edited for clarity
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>
<< <i>Interesting. John Albanese has said publically he does not have a problem with dipped coins..............MJ >>
As do most major players in the industry. I should have mentioned in my reply to Stewart when he said, "ps - PCGS needs to stop giving a + grade to a coin that has been dipped", that it's time for John A. to consider doing the same at CAC. The powers that be all think it's acceptable, but how can you be on a crusade against doctoring and still find dipping acceptable when it physically alters the surface of the coin? This includes BTW all the "high end" dealers who rail against doctoring and at the same time sell dipped coins. For example, spot removal is considered doctoring when it actually improves the appearance of the coin, and only a small surface area is affected, but in dipping, the coin is altered and metal removed from the entire surface of the coin. You can't have it both ways folks. Up to now, no one has been able to explain how dipping is not doctoring, when the original surface has been altered to obtain a more aesthetically appealing coin.
john >>
I'm not a fan of dipping, and, far more often than not, avoid buying coins I think or know have been dipped.
However, I believe it would be inconsistent for PCGS to refuse to award the plus designation to dipped coins, and here's why: Let's say they are looking at a color-free, presumably dipped PCGS MS65 Motto Seated Quarter. And they have already graded color-free/dipped MS66 and MS67 examples for the type. If the current MS65 is better, quality-wise, than 80% of the other MS65's and is oh-so close to the quality of the white MS66's that have been graded, it should receive the plus designation. If they refuse to do so, that would be inconsistent, AND would speak to problems with having previously graded dipped MS66 and higher grade examples.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Interesting. John Albanese has said publically he does not have a problem with dipped coins..............MJ >>
As do most major players in the industry. I should have mentioned in my reply to Stewart when he said, "ps - PCGS needs to stop giving a + grade to a coin that has been dipped", that it's time for John A. to consider doing the same at CAC. The powers that be all think it's acceptable, but how can you be on a crusade against doctoring and still find dipping acceptable when it physically alters the surface of the coin? This includes BTW all the "high end" dealers who rail against doctoring and at the same time sell dipped coins. For example, spot removal is considered doctoring when it actually improves the appearance of the coin, and only a small surface area is affected, but in dipping, the coin is altered and metal removed from the entire surface of the coin. You can't have it both ways folks. Up to now, no one has been able to explain how dipping is not doctoring, when the original surface has been altered to obtain a more aesthetically appealing coin.
john >>
John, I would never knowingly buy a dipped coin or would want one in my collection because imho the surfaces have been changed/altered forever. The thought of delibrate intervention and plotting in the process of cleaning a coin makes the coin unsexy and uninteresting to me. I addition, I just don't like the look. There maybe rare exceptions, pun intended. However, there are others that do so there is a market in dipped coins and I respect every collectors right to seek out what they want. I will stop just short of calling dipped coins doctored as that seems to get folks crazy around these parts. Dipped plus coins?.....no thanks. MJ
edited for clarity >>
I appreciate your comments and point of view. However, I will state emphatically that dipped coins are doctored. The logic that seems to prevail that they are not flies in the face of logic, ie. they are the very definition of what a doctored coin is, a coin with altered surfaces. Metal is REMOVED in the dipping process, and I see no reason not to include dipping as doctoring. It may be acceptable in the industry,and the TPG's will slab a dipped coin as such, but I think it is time to hold the line and acknowledge what it really is, and as such not to + any coins that have been dipped, and maybe it's time for CAC to start doing the same. Just MHO from a guy who is a long time collector, albeit a small one in the scheme of things, who realizes he is challenging some powerful industry leaders who have seen and know a whole lot more than I do about coins.
J.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Interesting. John Albanese has said publically he does not have a problem with dipped coins..............MJ >>
As do most major players in the industry. I should have mentioned in my reply to Stewart when he said, "ps - PCGS needs to stop giving a + grade to a coin that has been dipped", that it's time for John A. to consider doing the same at CAC. The powers that be all think it's acceptable, but how can you be on a crusade against doctoring and still find dipping acceptable when it physically alters the surface of the coin? This includes BTW all the "high end" dealers who rail against doctoring and at the same time sell dipped coins. For example, spot removal is considered doctoring when it actually improves the appearance of the coin, and only a small surface area is affected, but in dipping, the coin is altered and metal removed from the entire surface of the coin. You can't have it both ways folks. Up to now, no one has been able to explain how dipping is not doctoring, when the original surface has been altered to obtain a more aesthetically appealing coin.
john >>
I'm not a fan of dipping, and, far more often than not, avoid buying coins I think or know have been dipped.
However, I believe it would be inconsistent for PCGS to refuse to award the plus designation to dipped coins, and here's why: Let's say they are looking at a color-free, presumably dipped PCGS MS65 Motto Seated Quarter. And they have already graded color-free/dipped MS66 and MS67 examples for the type. If the current MS65 is better, quality-wise, than 80% of the other MS65's and is oh-so close to the quality of the white MS66's that have been graded, it should receive the plus designation. If they refuse to do so, that would be inconsistent, AND would speak to problems with having previously graded dipped MS66 and higher grade examples. >>
So continuing to do the wrong thing makes it right? If you (the industry leaders) are going to rail about doctored coins, this isn't marginally hypocritical, it is blatantly so.
<< <i>How about a PCGS+ with a CAC sticker? >>
I've been asking the same question.It is my deduction that any coin with the + designation can only get a GOLD bean. Am I confused,or is this addition to grading just getting too nit-picky?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Interesting. John Albanese has said publically he does not have a problem with dipped coins..............MJ >>
As do most major players in the industry. I should have mentioned in my reply to Stewart when he said, "ps - PCGS needs to stop giving a + grade to a coin that has been dipped", that it's time for John A. to consider doing the same at CAC. The powers that be all think it's acceptable, but how can you be on a crusade against doctoring and still find dipping acceptable when it physically alters the surface of the coin? This includes BTW all the "high end" dealers who rail against doctoring and at the same time sell dipped coins. For example, spot removal is considered doctoring when it actually improves the appearance of the coin, and only a small surface area is affected, but in dipping, the coin is altered and metal removed from the entire surface of the coin. You can't have it both ways folks. Up to now, no one has been able to explain how dipping is not doctoring, when the original surface has been altered to obtain a more aesthetically appealing coin.
john >>
I'm not a fan of dipping, and, far more often than not, avoid buying coins I think or know have been dipped.
However, I believe it would be inconsistent for PCGS to refuse to award the plus designation to dipped coins, and here's why: Let's say they are looking at a color-free, presumably dipped PCGS MS65 Motto Seated Quarter. And they have already graded color-free/dipped MS66 and MS67 examples for the type. If the current MS65 is better, quality-wise, than 80% of the other MS65's and is oh-so close to the quality of the white MS66's that have been graded, it should receive the plus designation. If they refuse to do so, that would be inconsistent, AND would speak to problems with having previously graded dipped MS66 and higher grade examples. >>
So continuing to do the wrong thing makes it right? If you (the industry leaders) are going to rail about doctored coins, this isn't marginally hypocritical, it is blatantly so. >>
I have no argument with you and others who say that dipping is a form of doctoring. To me, however, it is very different from other forms of doctoring, such as those which add substances to a coin's surfaces in order to hide flaws and/or add color to a coin. Edited to add: Regardless of what you call it, surely you see a distinction between that which is done to a coin and is visible, vs. that which has been done to a coin and is not apparent.
I'm not convinced that it is wrong to award high grades to certain dipped coins. But even if I were convinced of it, I don't know what the best/fair solution would be, from here on out.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Interesting. John Albanese has said publically he does not have a problem with dipped coins..............MJ >>
As do most major players in the industry. I should have mentioned in my reply to Stewart when he said, "ps - PCGS needs to stop giving a + grade to a coin that has been dipped", that it's time for John A. to consider doing the same at CAC. The powers that be all think it's acceptable, but how can you be on a crusade against doctoring and still find dipping acceptable when it physically alters the surface of the coin? This includes BTW all the "high end" dealers who rail against doctoring and at the same time sell dipped coins. For example, spot removal is considered doctoring when it actually improves the appearance of the coin, and only a small surface area is affected, but in dipping, the coin is altered and metal removed from the entire surface of the coin. You can't have it both ways folks. Up to now, no one has been able to explain how dipping is not doctoring, when the original surface has been altered to obtain a more aesthetically appealing coin.
john >>
John, I would never knowingly buy a dipped coin or would want one in my collection because imho the surfaces have been changed/altered forever. The thought of delibrate intervention and plotting in the process of cleaning a coin makes the coin unsexy and uninteresting to me. I addition, I just don't like the look. There maybe rare exceptions, pun intended. However, there are others that do so there is a market in dipped coins and I respect every collectors right to seek out what they want. I will stop just short of calling dipped coins doctored as that seems to get folks crazy around these parts. Dipped plus coins?.....no thanks. MJ
>>
I appreciate your comments and point of view. However, I will state emphatically that dipped coins are doctored. The logic that seems to prevail that they are not flies in the face of logic, ie. they are the very definition of what a doctored coin is, a coin with altered surfaces. Metal is REMOVED in the dipping process, and I see no reason not to include dipping as doctoring. It may be acceptable in the industry,and the TPG's will slab a dipped coin as such, but I think it is time to hold the line and acknowledge what it really is, and as such not to + any coins that have been dipped, and maybe it's time for CAC to start doing the same. Just MHO from a guy who is a long time collector, albeit a small one in the scheme of things, who realizes he is challenging some powerful industry leaders who have seen and know a whole lot more than I do about coins.
J. >>
In my opinion we are in 96% agreement. I would just substitute the word "monkeying" with " doctoring". I know I'm approaching Mt. Semantic . However, the phrase "doctoring"has become so dirty and flies in the face of an industry generally accepts dipping as an acceptable practice. It doesn't make it right, just todays reality. MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>
<< <i>How about a PCGS+ with a CAC sticker? >>
I've been asking the same question.It is my deduction that any coin with the + designation can only get a GOLD bean. Am I confused,or is this addition to grading just getting too nit-picky?
I believe you are mistaken. A gold sticker is awarded to lock upgrades. A + is guaranteed not upgraded (because if it were an upgrade, it would be in the holder at the next grade up). This assumed that the grading standards are identical, and this assumption cannot be validated.
It use to be an NGC ms 68.
Stewart
That said, a re-holder with the plus service is around $30 where I think CAC is only $10.
Personally I think your collection speaks for itself and neither is necessary.
Amen!
<< <i>Interesting. John Albanese has said publically he does not have a problem with dipped coins..............MJ >>
So did David Hall at the recent big one announcement.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>Well, logic would say plus holder first and then get the CAC. If you get CAC and then for some reason decide to go for the plus you would have to re-submit to get the CAC again.
That said, a re-holder with the plus service is around $30 where I think CAC is only $10.
Personally I think your collection speaks for itself and neither is necessary.
Hi Ben,
I don't get that logic. Maybe financially. But a plus puts the coin in the top 15%. A CAC green puts it in the top 50% let's say (JA says 75% of submissions get stickered but let's knock that down a bit 'cause no one submits dreck).
So why would you send a plus to CAC? Unless you thought it would gold-bean.
Lance.
and the luster is unaffected, then I see no problem with a judicious dipping. I
believe that each coin must be evaluated on its own merits , without prejudgments
as to dipping vrs no dipping.
I doubt that there are a lot of classic type coins .that have not been dipped even once.
Of course on Passover, you have to dip three times.
Camelot
<< <i>If a coin has been dipped properly and the surfaces are neutralized and rinsed
and the luster is unaffected, then I see no problem with a judicious dipping. I
believe that each coin must be evaluated on its own merits , without prejudgments
as to dipping vrs no dipping.
I doubt that there are a lot of classic type coins .that have not been dipped even once.
Of course on Passover, you have to dip three times.
I agree.
I don't get that logic. Maybe financially. But a plus puts the coin in the top 15%. A CAC green puts it in the top 50% let's say (JA says 75% of submissions get stickered but let's knock that down a bit 'cause no one submits dreck). So why would you send a plus to CAC? Unless you thought it would gold-bean.
How do you come to the conclusion that a + sign puts a coin in the top 15% of the grade? If one merely uses the number of mathematical grades it is 30%. Personally, I think the actual number is far less than 15% considering that the grades of XX.7 to XX.9 represent potentially upgradeable coins....many now residing in higher graded TPG holders. A number more like 5-10% would be my estimate. PCGS will probably be very judicious in handing the + out, esp on non-generic coins where the values would soar. But on generics like Commems, Morgans, Walkers, and other 20th century common dates I think they will be somewhat easier on giving out the + since it will have a more limited effect on value. How many MS65+ bust halves could there ever be?
roadrunner
I believe JA has stated that approx 45% of all submitted coins get CAC stickers...............MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>
<< <i>Well, logic would say plus holder first and then get the CAC. If you get CAC and then for some reason decide to go for the plus you would have to re-submit to get the CAC again.
That said, a re-holder with the plus service is around $30 where I think CAC is only $10.
Personally I think your collection speaks for itself and neither is necessary.
Hi Ben,
I don't get that logic. Maybe financially. But a plus puts the coin in the top 15%. A CAC green puts it in the top 50% let's say (JA says 75% of submissions get stickered but let's knock that down a bit 'cause no one submits dreck).
So why would you send a plus to CAC? Unless you thought it would gold-bean.
Lance. >>
the way i see all this is if the secure plus certification is not good enough and you also need a jelly bean of either flavor then you are just buying the plastic. bye
Same old PCGS apparently.
My coins and all the coins I buy will have to be CAC still.
are these the same guy or different personalities talking to each other?
why would you go to CAC first, as they need to crack out to attempt Secure
or are you saying if a CAC then quit and be happy
or are you saying CAC and if CACd then try Secure+ and if Secure+ then CAC again (as they would now have no record of it with new slab#)
or CAC and if not CACd then Secure+ then quit and be happy
and as a top registry set owner, are you going to chase those extra half points
or just be happy having the finest known coins in many issues and not worry if someone gets some half points so they have more points than you
<< <i>
<< <i>Well, logic would say plus holder first and then get the CAC. If you get CAC and then for some reason decide to go for the plus you would have to re-submit to get the CAC again.
That said, a re-holder with the plus service is around $30 where I think CAC is only $10.
Personally I think your collection speaks for itself and neither is necessary.
Hi Ben,
I don't get that logic. Maybe financially. But a plus puts the coin in the top 15%. A CAC green puts it in the top 50% let's say (JA says 75% of submissions get stickered but let's knock that down a bit 'cause no one submits dreck).
So why would you send a plus to CAC? Unless you thought it would gold-bean.
Lance. >>
Because that is PCGS's opinion that they are in the top 15% and some folks may not believe them looking for a second opinion. What if the coin is over graded by 1 point but has serious eye appeal. I believe the plus is more of a designator for eye appeal for the grade and some unsuspecting person might not realize that.
I totally agree with this statement: << As someone in another thread pointed-out, with CAC you are getting a second opinion. With PCGS it's just the same guys who didn't get it right the first time. I believe the Secure holder will become the equivalent of the Regency holder. >>
OTOH, if I don't know how to grade the coin or want a second opinion about it, I'd ask someone I trust -- who can grade it -- what he thinks.
People grade coins, and people put CAC stickers on coins. Usually, but not always, they get it right. You need to protect yourself for the times they don't get it right.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Looks to me like the best is to have the PCGS Plus along with the CAC bean. I will be most interested to see how the PCGS Plus coincides with the CAC Gold bean, and vice-versa. I bet there will be many cases where the two grading companies disagree on these two.