Disappointed with CAC results

[JVC]

I have been collecting Morgan Dollars since 2009. I decided to submit ten dollars that I believed would meet CAC standards. Here are the results:

 

1. 1879 O PCGS MS 65-failed

2. 1883 CC PCGS MS 65 DMPL-passed

3. 1884 P PCGS MS 66-passed

4. 1884 CC PCGS MS 65-passed

5. 1888 O PCGS MS 66-failed

6. 1894 P NGC AU 58-failed

7. 1898 S PCGS MS 65-passed

8. 1900 S NGC MS 65-failed

9. 1901 P NGC MS 61-failed

10. 1901 S NGC MS 65-failed

 

I now realize that I still have a lot to learn about grading. I fully expected 8 out of 10 to pass. Does anyone know if CAC gives reasons that a particular coin did not pass? Also, I have heard that you can call CAC and discuss with the grader why a coin did not pass. Does anyone know if this is true?

 

[James_OldeTowne]

I have been collecting Morgan Dollars since 2009. I decided to submit ten dollars that I believed would meet CAC standards. Here are the results:

 

1. 1879 O PCGS MS 65-failed

2. 1883 CC PCGS MS 65 DMPL-passed

3. 1884 P PCGS MS 66-passed

4. 1884 CC PCGS MS 65-passed

5. 1888 O PCGS MS 66-failed

6. 1894 P NGC AU 58-failed

7. 1898 S PCGS MS 65-passed

8. 1900 S NGC MS 65-failed

9. 1901 P NGC MS 61-failed

10. 1901 S NGC MS 65-failed

 

I now realize that I still have a lot to learn about grading. I fully expected 8 out of 10 to pass. Does anyone know if CAC gives reasons that a particular coin did not pass? Also, I have heard that you can call CAC and discuss with the grader why a coin did not pass. Does anyone know if this is true?

Why would you be disappointed with CAC?? The only thing your experience demonstrates is that you have a different opinion of what is "nice" than they do.

 

You may enjoy collecting much more if you stick to what YOU like, and leave others to make their market in what THEY like.

[AnkurJ]

In case of Morgans, it will most likely be due them not agreeing with the grade unless they had toning. I've seen many MS65 Morgan's in all holders that look way too chatty to be a 65.

 

In the case of NGC AU58's. I avoid them as they are often AU50 or AU53.

[Kurtdog]

Like taking candy from a baby.

[DirtyGoldMan]

How about breaking it down by grading company?

[Keigwin]

In the case of NGC AU58's. I avoid them as they are often AU50 or AU53.

It's probably not fair to pick out losers but I was struck by this one.

 

I shot a few dozen scarce AU CBH's for Sheridan Downey today and most were spectacular. They'll be part of an upcoming Aug auction.

 

Here, however, is an AU58 1836 50/00 that has no business being where it is.

Lance.

 

[MarkFeld]

In the case of NGC AU58's. I avoid them as they are often AU50 or AU53.

It's probably not fair to pick out losers but I was struck by this one.

 

I shot a few dozen scarce AU CBH's for Sheridan Downey today and most were spectacular. They'll be part of an upcoming Aug auction.

 

Here, however, is an AU58 1836 50/00 that has no business being where it is.

Lance.

 

 

Lance, that seems a bit harsh, as was Ankur's overly broad generalization, to which you replied.

 

I would have guessed a grade of AU55 for the coin you posted and wouldn't call it a "loser".

[Mozin]

Remember, CAC does not only sticker when they agree with the grade being solid, there also needs to be no other problem with the coin, like spots being "improved", or toning that is not NT, or whatever CAC does not believe to be proper.

 

I think the OP did normal for a submission to CAC.

[bochiman]

Did you submit yourself or through someone else?

Did you ask that they be screened by the submitter for you (many will do that)?

Do you have many other CAC coins, in hand, to look at and get an understanding better? Morgans would be best since that is what you sent in.

 

I sent in 25 coins to CAC, through TomB, a couple of months ago, and 7 did NOT sticker...mostly copper...mostly toned proof IHCs. I talked with JA and only 1 of the coins had any "problem", in his view, but the others just weren't there for what CAC wanted for that level....RB might be BN, PL wasn't PL enough, RD may be RB....that kind of thing. Of the 18 that did sticker, 3 went gold. I had older holders and new holders. Also, I only sent in 2 NGC coins at the time, and they both went green, so to Sagered

 

[Coinbuf]

I can see where you would be disapointed by the results but its all a learing experience at times. I have never sent in any coins to CAC but a good point was brought up about having the coins you want to submit screened; might save you some $'s by having a second set of eyes look them over next time.

[coinman_23885]

How about breaking it down by grading company?

 

Both had "losers." PCGS certified two coins that failed to pass at level and NGC four. Given the small sample size and potential sampling bias (all selected by the same collector, etc.), no meaningful conclusions can be drawn. Moreover the fact that the coins didn't sticker does not mean they are overgraded per se, but they could be low end (but acceptable for the grade). Without seeing photographs, I think labeling any of the six "failed" coins as overgraded would be speculative at best.

[Keigwin]

Sorry, Mark. I'm usually better behaved. I just was particularly unhappy about that one.

Lance.

[mkman123]

Before cac would you have been happy with those coins? I've heard from others that have sent the same coins again and it got the green bean.......

 

I'd really love for someone to do a large thread on the amt of ngc and pcgs coins that pass and fail cac. The kool aid drinkers will find that pcgs has tons of coins that would fail cac

[wheat'swheats]

If you keep submitting you will find that JA is really tough on Morgans and copper. My feelings have been hurt more than once

Wheat

[JStull]

I have been collecting Morgan Dollars since 2009. I decided to submit ten dollars that I believed would meet CAC standards. Here are the results:

 

1. 1879 O PCGS MS 65-failed

2. 1883 CC PCGS MS 65 DMPL-passed

3. 1884 P PCGS MS 66-passed

4. 1884 CC PCGS MS 65-passed

5. 1888 O PCGS MS 66-failed

6. 1894 P NGC AU 58-failed

7. 1898 S PCGS MS 65-passed

8. 1900 S NGC MS 65-failed

9. 1901 P NGC MS 61-failed

10. 1901 S NGC MS 65-failed

 

I now realize that I still have a lot to learn about grading. I fully expected 8 out of 10 to pass. Does anyone know if CAC gives reasons that a particular coin did not pass? Also, I have heard that you can call CAC and discuss with the grader why a coin did not pass. Does anyone know if this is true?

 

It's very clearly stated on CAC's website that coins that are strong for the grade given by the TPG will receive a CAC sticker, or bean. Apparently, CAC disagrees with the grades on the labels of the ones they failed.

[James_OldeTowne]

It's very clearly stated on CAC's website that coins that are strong for the grade given by the TPG will receive a CAC sticker, or bean. Apparently, CAC disagrees with the grades on the labels of the ones they failed.

From my understanding, CAC probably actually agrees with the grade(s), but doesn't consider the coins PQ for the grade.

[MarkFeld]

It's very clearly stated on CAC's website that coins that are strong for the grade given by the TPG will receive a CAC sticker, or bean. Apparently, CAC disagrees with the grades on the labels of the ones they failed.

From my understanding, CAC probably actually agrees with the grade(s), but doesn't consider the coins PQ for the grade.

 

 

James, without having seen the coins or heard direct feedback from CAC, why would that be your understanding? Unless I am missing something, you are guessing (blindly), rather than "understanding".

[JStull]

It's very clearly stated on CAC's website that coins that are strong for the grade given by the TPG will receive a CAC sticker, or bean. Apparently, CAC disagrees with the grades on the labels of the ones they failed.

From my understanding, CAC probably actually agrees with the grade(s), but doesn't consider the coins PQ for the grade.

 

That's not correct.

 

CAC assesses the coins members submit to them, already graded by a top tier TPG. What they do is determine whether the coin meets the criteria and falls within the grading standards of the grade assigned to the coin, PQ not withstanding.

 

It's all on the grade of the coin and whether CAC basically agrees with the TPG's grade.

[RWB]

Seems like you asked for a second opinion, and received exactly that. It's unreasonable to fault CAC, but you might consider taking the ANA grading course before you throw more money at "grading services" and smiley stickers.

[bluel-migration]

From http://www.caccoin.com/faqs/

 

3. If a coin doesn’t receive a CAC sticker, does this mean CAC believes the coin is over-graded?

 

Absolutely not. There are many coins that are certified accurately for their grade. Unfortunately, it is an inescapable reality that many are at the lower end of the quality range for the assigned grade. CAC’s rejection of a coin does not necessarily mean that CAC believes the coin has been over-graded. It simply means that there are other coins with CAC stickers that are of higher quality for the grade. CAC will eventually reject tens of thousands of accurately graded coins. Many of these rejected coins will be acceptable to numerous dealers and collectors and will continue to be available in the marketplace. For quality-conscious collectors and dealers, a coin with a CAC sticker will have significant meaning.

 

5. I noticed that CAC uses the term “premium quality” to describe coins that receive a CAC sticker. How does CAC define premium quality?

 

For many years, coin dealers and advanced collectors have used the letters A, B, and C among themselves to further describe coins. C indicates low-end for the grade, B indicates solid for the grade, and A indicates high-end. CAC will only award stickers to coins in the A or B category. C coins, although accurately graded, will be returned without a CAC sticker

[Prethen]

I have to commiserate with the OP. It's always a bummer to have another party play down (such as not "approve") of a coin that you like. It can make you scratch your head and take another look at the coin and question it. Maybe you look at it and love it the same. Maybe you look at it and think differently.

[bluel-migration]

CAC creates some confusion by not having a full set of 4 results:

 

1. Coin is considered worse than the grade level [NO-STICKER]

2. Coin is in lower 1/3rd of grade [NO-STICKER]

3. Coin is in middle or upper 2/3rds of grade [GREEN]

4. Coin is considered better than the grade level [GOLD]

 

The first two opinions have the same result, which blurs them and those two opinions should not be blurred because the distinction is quite important.

[JVC]

Thanks for all the imput. I wish I had pictures to share with the forum members. I am still scratching my head on why some of the coins did not pass. All were untoned except for the 1894 which had light toning. All the coins submitted had few bag marks and none had distracting grazes across the devices. All the coins that passed were prooflike or semi-prooflike. The ones that failed had more of a satin luster.

 

I submitted these coins without the aid of a dealer. CAC does not charge a fee on the coins that do not pass on the initial collector submission.

 

The results from CAC show that I still have much to learn on grading. I hope to attend the regional coin show held at Grapevine, Texas in July and show the coins I submitted to dealers, David Pike and Grant Campbell, who have experience in Morgans.

 

Jim Culbertson

[L1ncolnF4n]

In the case of NGC AU58's. I avoid them as they are often AU50 or AU53.

It's probably not fair to pick out losers but I was struck by this one.

 

I shot a few dozen scarce AU CBH's for Sheridan Downey today and most were spectacular. They'll be part of an upcoming Aug auction.

 

Here, however, is an AU58 1836 50/00 that has no business being where it is.

Lance.

 

 

Lance, that seems a bit harsh, as was Ankur's overly broad generalization, to which you replied.

 

I would have guessed a grade of AU55 for the coin you posted and wouldn't call it a "loser".

 

Agreed. I like it at AU-55, and think it would CAC there. 58 is overgraded because there is clear and visible wear, although minimal.

[bochiman]

CAC creates some confusion by not having a full set of 4 results:

 

1. Coin is considered worse than the grade level [NO-STICKER]

2. Coin is in lower 1/3rd of grade [NO-STICKER]

3. Coin is in middle or upper 2/3rds of grade [GREEN]

4. Coin is considered better than the grade level [GOLD]

 

The first two opinions have the same result, which blurs them and those two opinions should not be blurred because the distinction is quite important.

 

In addition to the grade, for some series, the designation also comes into play...such as for copper, the RD/RB/BN designation is evaluated as well.

For morgans, the PL/DMPL is also considered.

 

 

[coinman1794]

In the case of NGC AU58's. I avoid them as they are often AU50 or AU53.

It's probably not fair to pick out losers but I was struck by this one.

 

I shot a few dozen scarce AU CBH's for Sheridan Downey today and most were spectacular. They'll be part of an upcoming Aug auction.

 

Here, however, is an AU58 1836 50/00 that has no business being where it is.

Lance.

 

 

Lance, that seems a bit harsh, as was Ankur's overly broad generalization, to which you replied.

 

I would have guessed a grade of AU55 for the coin you posted and wouldn't call it a "loser".

 

Agreed. I like it at AU-55, and think it would CAC there. 58 is overgraded because there is clear and visible wear, although minimal.

 

While I would tend to call this coin AU55 or lower (based only on the images), it is the presense and degree of luster in the fields, and the number of marks, that typically distinguishes AU55 from AU58. Neither of these factors can be determined from the pictures. I can see that the obverse high points are softly struck, and it may be that they have just a tiny dusting of rub, and not "clear and visible wear," over flat high points. One would have to see it in-hand to tell.

[AnkurJ]

I have a hard time grading late date bust halves due to weak strikes. I agree that one above doesn't look like a 58.

[TomB]

I wouldn't buy that CBH as an AU58, but it doesn't mean that the greater market might not value it as an AU58.

[James_OldeTowne]

It's very clearly stated on CAC's website that coins that are strong for the grade given by the TPG will receive a CAC sticker, or bean. Apparently, CAC disagrees with the grades on the labels of the ones they failed.

From my understanding, CAC probably actually agrees with the grade(s), but doesn't consider the coins PQ for the grade.

James, without having seen the coins or heard direct feedback from CAC, why would that be your understanding? Unless I am missing something, you are guessing (blindly), rather than "understanding".

Mark, for me the arithmetic is pretty simple. I feel 85% of all certified coins are properly graded, and if the OP was selective, we can guess that maybe 9/10 were.

 

My understanding is that a coin can be properly graded at an A, B, or C level. An "A" level warrants a sticker for being properly graded AND of premium quality (according to whatever CAC uses as a metric). B and C coins don't get a sticker, but that is not a "fail" for meeting the grade, but rather a "fail" for not meeting a premium ("A" level) for the grade.

 

Have I misunderstood that dynamic all this time?

 

So if we can safely guess that 9 of the coins were properly graded, but only 4 got a sticker, that leaves 5 that are no-sticker/properly graded, and to my understanding, John Albanese is generally in agreement with TPG grading standards.

 

(Note that my original statement invoked "probably", meaning I suspect the ODDS are that CAC agreed with the B/C level grades on the 6 coins in question. In fact, I think the odds are 5/6 per coin.)

 

I wouldn't buy that CBH as an AU58, but it doesn't mean that the greater market might not value it as an AU58.

Unfortunately, in my experience, there are virtually no CBHs graded AU-58 that should be so graded. Rather, a considerable portion of the MS-61s and 62s should be in AU-58 holders, and what are currently AU-58s should be moved to the lower AU levels.

 

... all wishful thinking on my part!

[stman]

My understanding is that a coin can be properly graded at an A, B, or C level. An "A" level warrants a sticker for being properly graded AND of premium quality (according to whatever CAC uses as a metric). B and C coins don't get a sticker, but that is not a "fail" for meeting the grade, but rather a "fail" for not meeting a premium ("A" level) for the grade.

 

Have I misunderstood that dynamic all this time?

 

 

Looks like it. Quote from CAC Website. I still find it amazing a lot of people still don't understand all this.

 

CAC will only award stickers to coins in the A or B category. C coins, although accurately graded, will be returned without a CAC sticker