PCGS give it a + ,CAC decline to sticker

[James_OldeTowne]

I didn't read any responses yet so as to be unbiased.

 

The PCGS "plus" has been really erratic. (I haven't seen enough NGC pluses to assess them yet.) No joke -- and Kool Aid drinkers can scream at me all they want -- but I'll guess that fully a THIRD of the plused PCGS coins I've seen are either some sort of mechanical error, or I just don't know what in blazes the plus is supposed to mean, because the coins were low-end for the numeric grade.

 

This has been especially true in my experience with PCGS gold. I really don't understand what seems like random application of the plus sign. Having seen hundreds (no exaggeration) of coins that I know for a fact were certified in the past six months, many were nicer than average with no plus, and many were worse than average with a plus. It makes no sense... again unless I don't understand the purpose of the plus.

 

On the other hand, I believe the PCGS application of the plus has been accurate with Morgan dollars (of which I've also seen hundreds of recently slabbed example).

 

Regarding CAC, My impression is that about 85% of stickered coins really are nicer than average, and 15% are average or worse. So with CAC getting 85% right, and PCGS getting 66% right, I'd give a slight nod to CAC.

 

Now, I'll go back and read other responses to see how wrong I am !

[lehigh96]

I didn't read any responses yet so as to be unbiased.

 

The PCGS "plus" has been really erratic. (I haven't seen enough NGC pluses to assess them yet.) No joke -- and Kool Aid drinkers can scream at me all they want -- but I'll guess that fully a THIRD of the plused PCGS coins I've seen are either some sort of mechanical error, or I just don't know what in blazes the plus is supposed to mean, because the coins were low-end for the numeric grade.

 

This has been especially true in my experience with PCGS gold. I really don't understand what seems like random application of the plus sign. Having seen hundreds (no exaggeration) of coins that I know for a fact were certified in the past six months, many were nicer than average with no plus, and many were worse than average with a plus. It makes no sense... again unless I don't understand the purpose of the plus.

 

On the other hand, I believe the PCGS application of the plus has been accurate with Morgan dollars (of which I've also seen hundreds of recently slabbed example).

 

Regarding CAC, My impression is that about 85% of stickered coins really are nicer than average, and 15% are average or worse. So with CAC getting 85% right, and PCGS getting 66% right, I'd give a slight nod to CAC.

 

Now, I'll go back and read other responses to see how wrong I am !

 

James,

 

It is my understanding that CAC will sticker any coin that is A or B for the assigned grade. Assuming that the A,B,C groups are all in thirds, wouldn't that mean that some of the B coins getting stickered would be less than average for the assigned grade? If so, wouldn't that make their succes rate higher than 85%?

[James_OldeTowne]

It is my understanding that CAC will sticker any coin that is A or B for the assigned grade. Assuming that the A,B,C groups are all in thirds, wouldn't that mean that some of the B coins getting stickered would be less than average for the assigned grade? If so, wouldn't that make their succes rate higher than 85%?

I have never, ever ever ever gotten any clear understanding of CAC's use of A, B, C, alphabet soup, green bean this and gold bean that. That's after three years of discussions, back and forth, innuendo and flat out misinformation.

 

SO.... throwing all the bogus "technicalities" out the window, here's what I've concluded: CAC is a market maker, NOT a grading service, and therefore the sticker simply indicates coins they would like to own. Period, end of story. It really isn't directly defined by "quality" so much as "CAC just likes the coin and considers it ownership-worthy".

 

Obviously then, "grade" is really secondary. They don't want a coin that's clearly a point worse than the assigned grade; so long as the coin is ownership-worthy to CAC, it stickers.

 

Regarding my 85% accuracy estimate, what it really means is that CAC happens to like 85% of the same coins that I happen to like, all merely due to personal tastes and coincidence.

 

On the other hand, I believe I'm now 3/3 for coins that were stickered which subsequently had the sticker removed (i.e. rejected after the fact as NOT being sticker-worthy), the most recent being a Seated dollar which I returned just within the last couple of weeks. That could mean that the 15% inaccuracy will be diminished over time, as stickering mistakes are corrected, and this bodes even better for CAC accuracy versus the PCGS "plus".

 

At this point, I would have to call the PCGS "plus" designation very suspect, given that 67% accuracy is an unacceptable level. BUT that hinges entirely on my personal opinion, skewed mostly by excessive plus signs on undeserving gold.

 

None of this is intended as a "slam" on anyone. I merely think PCGS really needs to tighten up on gold, particularly in MS-62, 63, and 64 with pluses. They are doing a great job on Morgans, as stated earlier.

[jom]

SO.... throwing all the bogus "technicalities" out the window, here's what I've concluded: CAC is a market maker, NOT a grading service, and therefore the sticker simply indicates coins they would like to own. Period, end of story. It really isn't directly defined by "quality" so much as "CAC just likes the coin and considers it ownership-worthy".

 

Obviously then, "grade" is really secondary. They don't want a coin that's clearly a point worse than the assigned grade; so long as the coin is ownership-worthy to CAC, it stickers.

 

I agree as I've been confused myself on this, especially in regards to "+" coins. Of course, this only reflects what I've thought for years: Grade does NOT necessarily equal Quality and the CAC sticker is just another opinion that isn't any "better" than anyone else's.

 

So maybe now we can say the following:

 

Green Label = CAC really wants to own the coin

Yellow Label = CAC really REALLY wants to own the coin

 

jom

[MarkFeld]

SO.... throwing all the bogus "technicalities" out the window, here's what I've concluded: CAC is a market maker, NOT a grading service, and therefore the sticker simply indicates coins they would like to own. Period, end of story. It really isn't directly defined by "quality" so much as "CAC just likes the coin and considers it ownership-worthy".

 

Obviously then, "grade" is really secondary. They don't want a coin that's clearly a point worse than the assigned grade; so long as the coin is ownership-worthy to CAC, it stickers.

 

,,,,,and the CAC sticker is just another opinion that isn't any "better" than anyone else's.....

 

 

 

jom

 

I think you're dead wrong on that. CAC's opinion is generally far "better" than most other opinions, as is NGC's and PCGS's - those companies offer expert opinions, based on knowledge that, far more times than not, is superior to that of most other opinions.

[x2rider]

The coin in Question that started the thread

[halfpint]

 

...we can sum all this up with one word.....................subjectivity!

[jom]

 

I think you're dead wrong on that. CAC's opinion is generally far "better" than most other opinions, as is NGC's and PCGS's - those companies offer expert opinions, based on knowledge that, far more times than not, is superior to that of most other opinions.

 

Hogwash. Collectors that specialize in any given series are far more qualified to give an opinion. There are many dealers, who choose not to be graders anymore (such as yourself), who are far more qualified to give an opinion. Given the turnover at most of the services I don't believe that I'm "dead wrong" about it. Arguable? Sure. Dead wrong...don't think so.

 

Since it has been suggested that CAC is a market maker then their opinion would come under the realm of "dealer" so they could very well be of high quality. But when it comes down to it, it is just another OPINION. Big deal.

 

jom

[MarkFeld]

 

I think you're dead wrong on that. CAC's opinion is generally far "better" than most other opinions, as is NGC's and PCGS's - those companies offer expert opinions, based on knowledge that, far more times than not, is superior to that of most other opinions.

 

Hogwash. Collectors that specialize in any given series are far more qualified to give an opinion. There are many dealers, who choose not to be graders anymore (such as yourself), who are far more qualified to give an opinion. Given the turnover at most of the services I don't believe that I'm "dead wrong" about it. Arguable? Sure. Dead wrong...don't think so.

 

Since it has been suggested that CAC is a market maker then their opinion would come under the realm of "dealer" so they could very well be of high quality. But when it comes down to it, it is just another OPINION. Big deal.

 

jom

 

I didn't say always, I said "far more times than not". Sure, there are exceptions, such as opinions of specialized collectors and expert dealers. But those are exceptions. And to say CAC's opinion is no better than anyone else's is ludicrous.

[MarkFeld]

The coin in Question that started the thread

 

That coin (graded PCGS MS66+) is mine. And x2rider was nice enough to contact me privately about it, at which time I said it was absolutely fine to post it here.

 

I bought it very recently and feel that the quality merited the plus grade from PCGS. However, I subsequently submitted it to CAC and they did not sticker it. So I updated my website description of the coin, in order to include that information.

 

I have no idea why it was rejected. But even when my opinion differs from theirs, I respect their opinion and do not get upset about such things.

[lehigh96]

The coin in Question that started the thread

 

That coin (graded PCGS MS66+) is mine. And x2rider was nice enough to contact me privately about it, at which time I said it was absolutely fine to post it here.

 

I bought it very recently and feel that the quality merited the plus grade from PCGS. However, I subsequently submitted it to CAC and they did not sticker it. So I updated my website description of the coin, in order to include that information.

 

I have no idea why it was rejected. But even when my opinion differs from theirs, I respect their opinion and do not get upset about such things.

 

It is a nice and apparently very lustrous WLH but I don't personally like the overall look that the mottled toning creates. Furthermore, the first thing I noticed upon close inspection is the disturbance across the wing feathers at 3 o'clock. I know this is not a focal area but it is very noticeable and might be the reason that the CAC did not sticker the coin. Having said that, this is not my series and I don't know what a typical MS66 1934 looks like.

[MarkFeld]

The coin in Question that started the thread

 

That coin (graded PCGS MS66+) is mine. And x2rider was nice enough to contact me privately about it, at which time I said it was absolutely fine to post it here.

 

I bought it very recently and feel that the quality merited the plus grade from PCGS. However, I subsequently submitted it to CAC and they did not sticker it. So I updated my website description of the coin, in order to include that information.

 

I have no idea why it was rejected. But even when my opinion differs from theirs, I respect their opinion and do not get upset about such things.

 

It is a nice and apparently very lustrous WLH but I don't personally like the overall look that the mottled toning creates. Furthermore, the first thing I noticed upon close inspection is the disturbance across the wing feathers at 3 o'clock. I know this is not a focal area but it is very noticeable and might be the reason that the CAC did not sticker the coin. Having said that, this is not my series and I don't know what a typical MS66 1934 looks like.

 

Paul, based on what can be seen in the images, I probably would have agreed with much of what you said. However, the coin is lighter/whiter and its toning, more even looking, in hand. And my recollection is that the wing "disturbance" at 3:00 is barely noticeable.

 

Also, while it is not clear from the image, the date is 1934-D, which is much tougher than and hardly ever as nice as a 1934 P.

[lehigh96]

 

It is a nice and apparently very lustrous WLH but I don't personally like the overall look that the mottled toning creates. Furthermore, the first thing I noticed upon close inspection is the disturbance across the wing feathers at 3 o'clock. I know this is not a focal area but it is very noticeable and might be the reason that the CAC did not sticker the coin. Having said that, this is not my series and I don't know what a typical MS66 1934 looks like.

 

Paul, based on what can be seen in the images, I probably would have agreed with much of what you said. However, the coin is lighter/whiter and its toning, more even looking, in hand. And my recollection is that the wing "disturbance" at 3:00 is barely noticeable.

 

Also, while it is not clear from the image, the date is 1934-D, which is much tougher than and hardly ever as nice as a 1934 P.

 

Ya know, I actually looked for a mintmark before I made my post and still missed it. It is completely camouflaged by the toning in the photo.

 

With regards to the OP's question, I would defer to CAC's judgement in this scenario. After seeing the photo, the coin just doesn't jump out at me as a high end MS66 walker and there appears to be a reason why CAC made their subjective assessment even if it is exaggerated in the photo.

[Kamillion]

ya i couldnt see the mintmark either, toning is too dark

[jom]

IBut those are exceptions. And to say CAC's opinion is no better than anyone else's is ludicrous.

 

C'mon...you know I'm the King of Ludicrousness-ness!

 

I guess it was a bit of an overstatement but I just find some of the stuff that goes on with the services just crazy. Or...more accurately.....ludicrous!

 

jom

[BillJones]

I'd say third and fourth party graders be damned! Grade the coin for yourself, and pay what you think its worth. If you can't do that, don't buy it.

 

How about we do what we want to do and you do what you want to do?

 

I think TPG (& 4th) adds a fun and interesting dimension to the hobby and makes buying/selling entertaining and removes some of the risks.

 

I'm a rookie relatively speaking and would not have bought and sold tens of thousands of dollars worth of coins over the last few years w/o TPG. 4th party grading allows me to make a little money while learning also.

 

For the record, here's a PCGS MS62+ that didn't sticker. Comments?

 

 

I think CAC was correct on this one. I think there is too much chatter. I think it is low end for the grade.

 

I can't agree. Based the photo I can't see how that isn't just a regular old MS62...hell...I've seen that in MS63 holders. So why not a sticker?

 

However, what the photo may not be telling is that the coin might be AU or at least CAC may have felt that way.

 

My question why would anyone bother having this sent to CAC in the first place. Do we really need to be precise with an MS62 grade?

 

jom

 

My take on this 1932 eagle is that it has too much clatter in the fields to called a true Uncirculated coin. As for the comment that we have seen MS-63 coins that were not as nice, that is quite true.

 

The 1932 eagle is a most generic of all of the Indian eagles. A lot of these coins were submitted on a bulk grade basis so that they could be marketed in investers instead of collectors. Both grading services did some lose grading on these pieces IMO. I remeber on time at FUN show when I went through an entire coin case that must have contained 200+ 1932 eagles. Every one of them was over graded IMO.

 

The purpose of CAC is to weed out the over graded coins, and sadly this date has more than its share of them.

[jom]

I'd say third and fourth party graders be damned! Grade the coin for yourself, and pay what you think its worth. If you can't do that, don't buy it.

 

How about we do what we want to do and you do what you want to do?

 

I think TPG (& 4th) adds a fun and interesting dimension to the hobby and makes buying/selling entertaining and removes some of the risks.

 

I'm a rookie relatively speaking and would not have bought and sold tens of thousands of dollars worth of coins over the last few years w/o TPG. 4th party grading allows me to make a little money while learning also.

 

For the record, here's a PCGS MS62+ that didn't sticker. Comments?

 

 

I think CAC was correct on this one. I think there is too much chatter. I think it is low end for the grade.

 

I can't agree. Based the photo I can't see how that isn't just a regular old MS62...hell...I've seen that in MS63 holders. So why not a sticker?

 

However, what the photo may not be telling is that the coin might be AU or at least CAC may have felt that way.

 

My question why would anyone bother having this sent to CAC in the first place. Do we really need to be precise with an MS62 grade?

 

jom

 

My take on this 1932 eagle is that it has too much clatter in the fields to called a true Uncirculated coin. As for the comment that we have seen MS-63 coins that were not as nice, that is quite true.

 

The 1932 eagle is a most generic of all of the Indian eagles. A lot of these coins were submitted on a bulk grade basis so that they could be marketed in investers instead of collectors. Both grading services did some lose grading on these pieces IMO. I remeber on time at FUN show when I went through an entire coin case that must have contained 200+ 1932 eagles. Every one of them was over graded IMO.

 

The purpose of CAC is to week out the over graded coins, and sadly this date has more than its share of them.

 

That's a 10-D, Bill.

 

However, you are correct. The 32-P, along with the 26-P and probably the 10-D are all rather common.

 

The situation you had with the 200 coin box is not surprising at all. Bulk submission might be a cause of this. I'm not sure...I see that not only at tables but in auction as well.

 

jom

[messydesk]

Perhaps I should feel somewhat redeemed for only scoring 3/20 on the PCGS Grading Challenge at FUN.

 

Who won it, John?

 

Chris

Craig something. Can't exactly remember. He got 8/20 and won a tie-breaker. There were three or four plus-graded coins in the batch.

[Mozin]

As has been mentioned early in this thread, I believe CAC determines coins deserving the green bean, based on the holder label grade, NOT considering the Plus. For a Plus labeled coin to not receive the CAC approval, means CAC does not feel the coins meets average grade, even without the Plus sign. Sounds pretty strong to me.

 

Personally, I would prefer a CAC coin over a Plus coin, even not knowing if the Plus coin had been submitted to CAC.

[mkman123]

I really like the fact that Mark Feld posts if a coin was declined by CAC and if you email him he will share some details on why. There are times I wonder why CAC didn't sticker the coin. Its all about buy what you like and if Mr Feld likes a certain coin, I trust his judgment.

 

 

[coinman1794]

That is correct, and CAC has an article posted on their website explaining their reasoning.

[Catbert]

That is correct, and CAC has an article posted on their website explaining their reasoning.

 

And so, to bring this full circle , here is the link from 2010 where they state they will ignore + and * s.

 

CAC Press Release

[wheat'swheats]

If you put a note with your coin and ask John Albanese to state why it was declined, he will himself tell you, I have done this on several ocasions, and John has always told me why. I still did not feel any better about the decline but I knew why. It was usually something as small as the color was slightly off or in my case with lincolns the beard was weakly struck. Anyway I have several I need to replace with a CAC and I am more than happy to sell them to collectors that don't feel that CAC is necessary and that the grade from the TPG is just fine.