• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Criteria for MS65 CAC Gold

57 posts in this topic

Do any dealers here have clues as to the criteria for getting CAC approval for NGC/PCGS gold coins? I bought a collection from a CT fellow who had bought the coins over 10 years ago from Camino Coins, MS65 Saints, 9 were PCGS certified, one NGC. Not one was CAC approved. On their site CAC says that they generally approve A and B coins but not C coins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally, if they feel something is distracting,it will prevent it from getting a bean. If they think that it's undergraded, then it exceeds their standards and it gets gold. I haven't yet received a gold...yet :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's a clean 65, it'll sticker. As long as nothing jumps out and is distracting. When I bring coins there I ask about the ones that don't sticker. It's usually something that immediately stands out when he looks at it. I'm sure there's a fine line between the A,B & C. Maybe a blemish in a very noticeable area would put it on the lower end. I'm sure others have feedback. I've only just started submitting coins there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is seemingly random. Solidly graded 65's don't get stickers, overgraded 65's do get stickers. Coins with ugly toning get stickers. 64's in 65 holders get gold stickers because someone thought it was a 66 for some reason. There is no apparent basis for the stickers except the mood of the sticker applicator at the time of the stickering. I've seen as many stickers I've agreed with as those I don't - based on whatever vague and unpublished standards the legendary sticker gods use.

 

I'm going to catch hell for this, but CAC seems random, meaningless, and pointless to me. Flame on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is seemingly random. Solidly graded 65's don't get stickers, overgraded 65's do get stickers. Coins with ugly toning get stickers. 64's in 65 holders get gold stickers because someone thought it was a 66 for some reason. There is no apparent basis for the stickers except the mood of the sticker applicator at the time of the stickering. I've seen as many stickers I've agreed with as those I don't - based on whatever vague and unpublished standards the legendary sticker gods use.

 

I'm going to catch hell for this, but CAC seems random, meaningless, and pointless to me. Flame on.

 

Let me be the first to :popcorn:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is seemingly random. Solidly graded 65's don't get stickers, overgraded 65's do get stickers. Coins with ugly toning get stickers. 64's in 65 holders get gold stickers because someone thought it was a 66 for some reason. There is no apparent basis for the stickers except the mood of the sticker applicator at the time of the stickering. I've seen as many stickers I've agreed with as those I don't - based on whatever vague and unpublished standards the legendary sticker gods use.

 

I'm going to catch hell for this, but CAC seems random, meaningless, and pointless to me. Flame on.

 

I agree Id just add that I do feel they are consistent..... Paying someone to set standards for my collection just isnt my bag though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I send 20-30 coins a month to CAC. For the most part, I know which coins will sticker and which will not. That said, I have seen enough head scratchers of coins that definitely should have stickered, but did not; and coins that should not have stickered, but did; to conclude that the CAC opinion is nice to have, but should not be held as definitive or absolute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is seemingly random. Solidly graded 65's don't get stickers, overgraded 65's do get stickers. Coins with ugly toning get stickers. 64's in 65 holders get gold stickers because someone thought it was a 66 for some reason. There is no apparent basis for the stickers except the mood of the sticker applicator at the time of the stickering. I've seen as many stickers I've agreed with as those I don't - based on whatever vague and unpublished standards the legendary sticker gods use.

 

I'm going to catch hell for this, but CAC seems random, meaningless, and pointless to me. Flame on.

As with TPG grading, CAC stickering does seem sometimes inconsistent as far as what does get stickerooed. However, I've never sent a single coin in and so can't comment on what fails to get stickerooed.

 

All else being equal, I'd say that generally, most of the coins I've seen stickerooed do indeed seem "nice", but for sure there do seem to be some below-average coins with stickers.

 

I probably agree with 80% of the stickeroo action (and I tend to agree with about 85% of TPG grades to begin with).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to catch hell for this, but CAC seems random, meaningless, and pointless to me. Flame on.

 

Why would anyone flame you? It's just your opinion. The world would be boring if we all agreed and liked the same stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know a lot about MS65 gold coins, but I can tell you that CAC is extremely hard on NGC PL graded gold coins. It seems CAC believes NGC is to easy on giving the PL designation. This pertains to some Classic Commemorative issues in PL as well. Try to find a Roanoke NGC PL with a CAC sticker. Rhode Island NGC PLs with a CAC sticker are also tough.

 

Edited to correct the spelling of Roanoke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see the statistics; CAC stickered coin populations are available freely but not the level of rejections; so in some series you have much higher percentages of success than areas where a sticker equates to large upsides in price.

 

I suspect on anything very high grade by their standards would have to not only have to be problem free, but have all the luster, the complete strike as well.

 

They are tough on Bust coins; good luck finding quality Bust coinage near CDN bid. And if the coin is PQ enough to get a CAC sticker the upside in the lower grades is barely significant enough to pay for the fees, shipping, etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know a lot about MS65 gold coins, but I can tell you that CAC is extremely hard on NGC PL graded gold coins. It seems CAC believes NGC is to easy on giving the PL designation. This pertains to some Classic Commemorative issues in PL as well. Try to find a Rhoanoke NGC PL with a CAC sticker. Rhode Island NGC PLs with a CAC sticker are also

 

I don't believe that CAC considers the PL designation, when deciding whether to sticker a coin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is seemingly random. Solidly graded 65's don't get stickers, overgraded 65's do get stickers. Coins with ugly toning get stickers. 64's in 65 holders get gold stickers because someone thought it was a 66 for some reason. There is no apparent basis for the stickers except the mood of the sticker applicator at the time of the stickering. I've seen as many stickers I've agreed with as those I don't - based on whatever vague and unpublished standards the legendary sticker gods use.

 

I'm going to catch hell for this, but CAC seems random, meaningless, and pointless to me. Flame on.

 

No flames, just disagreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know a lot about MS65 gold coins, but I can tell you that CAC is extremely hard on NGC PL graded gold coins. It seems CAC believes NGC is to easy on giving the PL designation. This pertains to some Classic Commemorative issues in PL as well. Try to find a Rhoanoke NGC PL with a CAC sticker. Rhode Island NGC PLs with a CAC sticker are also tough.

 

I am thinking a 'Rhoanoke' commem would be tough to find with or without a CAC stickeroo? (shrug)

 

Best, HT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do any dealers here have clues as to the criteria for getting CAC approval for NGC/PCGS gold coins? I bought a collection from a CT fellow who had bought the coins over 10 years ago from Camino Coins, MS65 Saints, 9 were PCGS certified, one NGC. Not one was CAC approved. On their site CAC says that they generally approve A and B coins but not C coins.

 

I believe that the major grading companies tend to grade generic gold coins liberally. So, it is not surprising that CAC awards stickers to a low percentage of the MS65 Saints that they examine. Or that MS65 and higher grade CAC stickered Saints sell for strong premiums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is seemingly random. Solidly graded 65's don't get stickers, overgraded 65's do get stickers. Coins with ugly toning get stickers. 64's in 65 holders get gold stickers because someone thought it was a 66 for some reason. There is no apparent basis for the stickers except the mood of the sticker applicator at the time of the stickering. I've seen as many stickers I've agreed with as those I don't - based on whatever vague and unpublished standards the legendary sticker gods use.

 

I'm going to catch hell for this, but CAC seems random, meaningless, and pointless to me. Flame on.

 

No flames, just disagreement.

 

CAC is VERY inconsistent and I would never rely upon them soley. Sometimes, they do seem random and pointless to me but are meaningful at other times. They are also meaningful only b/c others who cannot grade buy into them, so they are a market-maker. I have seen BEAUTIFUL coins with CAC stickers that I really agree with and I have also seen hideous ones (in one or many ways) that should never have stickered. Just very INCONSISTENT----that is MY word for them. CAC is a good starting point but I, MYSELF, must always be the final judge----I would never buy a CAC stickered coin sight unseen----NEVER. JMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to a CAC online discussion a month or so ago I was in on, JA admitted that Saints had a high rate of rejection at the MS65 level. It WAS something he fully acknowledged as a trend. Someone who was listening in can correct me but I think he mentioned the higher number of gem graded (MS65) Saints having too many marks for them to sticker the coins at that level.

 

One should just use CAC (and the TPGs as well) as a guide and a learning tool. IMO, it is an exceedingly CHEAP way to get an expert opinion. At the same time it's nice they have some sort of guarantee along with it. These are all GOOD things as far as I'm concerned.

 

If you find a coin that has a CAC sticker and you don't like it at the asking price. No one is forcing you to buy it.

 

jom

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The nature of TPGs and their business model results in an overhang of over-graded coins. High end coins tend to be re-submitted in the hopes of a higher grade or put away for the long-term. Meanwhile coins that are either overgraded or barely make the grade never get out of their holder ("coffins") and also tend to circulate around the marketplace in a game of hot potato. This overhang may be a small percentage of graded coins, but the availability of such coins magnifies their effect on the market. CAC has flourished in large part because of the effect overgraded coins have on the market.

 

2. CAC is another opinion and everyone is entitled to pay attention to it or ignore it. I do find that most people that are critical of CAC have not submitted or bothered to discuss their submission results with CAC.

 

3. CAC is not an excuse to stop advancing in your grading. Learning to grade and improving is important for all collectors and dealers. However, most people who say they can grade for themselves can't. And even the ones that can almost certainly can't grade as well as John Albanese or Bill Shamhart.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is seemingly random. Solidly graded 65's don't get stickers, overgraded 65's do get stickers. Coins with ugly toning get stickers. 64's in 65 holders get gold stickers because someone thought it was a 66 for some reason. There is no apparent basis for the stickers except the mood of the sticker applicator at the time of the stickering. I've seen as many stickers I've agreed with as those I don't - based on whatever vague and unpublished standards the legendary sticker gods use.

 

I'm going to catch hell for this, but CAC seems random, meaningless, and pointless to me. Flame on.

 

What a lot of people fail or openly refuse to understand is that CAC is a marketing and coin trading tool. If CAC believes that a coin can be marketed in the holder that it is in, it does not matter if the coin has been net graded or "dead on" for the grade, it still might get a sticker. CAC does not mean that every coin with the sticker is "Premium Quality" (PQ) for the grade or superior in any way. It means that it is acceptable from their point of view.

 

I am not making this up. This is the message that I have gotten on conversations with dealers who work with CAC at the shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then they should change their FAQ to reflect a different reality than they state on their site. There they state that they approve "A" and "B" coins for grade but not "C" coins. What are the odds that gem certified coins graded over 10 years ago are all "C" coins? If the "rejected" coins then trade at Bluesheet level in some cases this is a problem of judgment.

 

It has been a while since I took a course in statistics at the college level, you gotta know your factorials....Are the odds 10%? 20%? Skewed by date or grading service? I'm looking forward to clarity on the topic because grading may be somewhat subjective but not arbitrarily so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a lot of people fail or openly refuse to understand is that CAC is a marketing and coin trading tool. If CAC believes that a coin can be marketed in the holder that it is in, it does not matter if the coin has been net graded or "dead on" for the grade, it still might get a sticker. CAC does not mean that every coin with the sticker is "Premium Quality" (PQ) for the grade or superior in any way. It means that it is acceptable from their point of view.

 

I am not making this up. This is the message that I have gotten on conversations with dealers who work with CAC at the shows.

I absolutely agree with BillJones on this (thumbs u .

 

Then they should change their FAQ to reflect a different reality than they state on their site. There they state that they approve "A" and "B" coins for grade but not "C" coins.

Personally, I think the concept of "A", "B", "C" or whatever coins is mostly hogwash. That would imply a continuum of some thirty grades just at the mint-state level! There simply is no way anyone can grade coins to such a level of absurd precision, especially given the fact that grading is subjective to begin with.

 

Rather, as BillJones implies above, I just ignore all the tedious discussions about whether a coin is "A", "B", "C", blah blah blah, and figure that if CAC stickered it, then it was because they see marketing potential for that particular coin. Once you understand that the stickers are a marketing vehicle, then a lot of noise and distraction simply falls by the wayside.

 

Of course, there's nothing wrong with new marketing concepts. It would just be nice if they were simply explained as such, and did not become festooned with distracting technical jargon that defies definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know a lot about MS65 gold coins, but I can tell you that CAC is extremely hard on NGC PL graded gold coins. It seems CAC believes NGC is to easy on giving the PL designation. This pertains to some Classic Commemorative issues in PL as well. Try to find a Roanoke NGC PL with a CAC sticker. Rhode Island NGC PLs with a CAC sticker are also

 

I don't believe that CAC considers the PL designation, when deciding whether to sticker a coin.

 

CAC does indeed consider NGC PL designations when deciding if a coin deserves the sticker.

 

From the man himself:

 

"CAC must agree with all physical characteristics of a coin in order for it to sticker. This includes: PL, DMPL, RD, RB, BN, CAMEO, DCAM, FB, FBL, FH..... We do not recognize PQ designations such as + and *."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know a lot about MS65 gold coins, but I can tell you that CAC is extremely hard on NGC PL graded gold coins. It seems CAC believes NGC is to easy on giving the PL designation. This pertains to some Classic Commemorative issues in PL as well. Try to find a Roanoke NGC PL with a CAC sticker. Rhode Island NGC PLs with a CAC sticker are also

 

I don't believe that CAC considers the PL designation, when deciding whether to sticker a coin.

 

CAC does indeed consider NGC PL designations when deciding if a coin deserves the sticker.

 

From the man himself:

 

"CAC must agree with all physical characteristics of a coin in order for it to sticker. This includes: PL, DMPL, RD, RB, BN, CAMEO, DCAM, FB, FBL, FH..... We do not recognize PQ designations such as + and *."

 

I don't believe that applies to PL type coins, but rather to to PL Morgan dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know a lot about MS65 gold coins, but I can tell you that CAC is extremely hard on NGC PL graded gold coins. It seems CAC believes NGC is to easy on giving the PL designation. This pertains to some Classic Commemorative issues in PL as well. Try to find a Roanoke NGC PL with a CAC sticker. Rhode Island NGC PLs with a CAC sticker are also

 

I don't believe that CAC considers the PL designation, when deciding whether to sticker a coin.

 

CAC does indeed consider NGC PL designations when deciding if a coin deserves the sticker.

 

From the man himself:

 

"CAC must agree with all physical characteristics of a coin in order for it to sticker. This includes: PL, DMPL, RD, RB, BN, CAMEO, DCAM, FB, FBL, FH..... We do not recognize PQ designations such as + and *."

 

I don't believe that applies to PL type coins, but rather to to PL Morgan dollars.

 

Why would it apply to one and not the other? A designation is a designation, and the standards apply no matter what the coin. That's like saying they don't certify BN or RD on Two Centers, but only on Wheat Cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Bill and James are correct, it is a coin they see as being marketable for the grade given. Case in point, CAC is stickering alot of coins with 'original' surfaces that are pretty much darn unattractive. But CAC sees a market in this I believe - how many of us harrumph about dipped coins these days and bestow the positives about 'less' dipped coins with perceived original surfaces being better? Well many of these are unspectacular and I have viewed many that with CAC stickers that I would never buy, but the market for these must be strong to get the sticker. What if collectors swing back in a few years towards blast white being the fashion again? Does CAC go with the flow?

 

Best, HT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know a lot about MS65 gold coins, but I can tell you that CAC is extremely hard on NGC PL graded gold coins. It seems CAC believes NGC is to easy on giving the PL designation. This pertains to some Classic Commemorative issues in PL as well. Try to find a Roanoke NGC PL with a CAC sticker. Rhode Island NGC PLs with a CAC sticker are also

 

I don't believe that CAC considers the PL designation, when deciding whether to sticker a coin.

J

CAC does indeed consider NGC PL designations when deciding if a coin deserves the sticker.

 

From the man himself:

 

"CAC must agree with all physical characteristics of a coin in order for it to sticker. This includes: PL, DMPL, RD, RB, BN, CAMEO, DCAM, FB, FBL, FH..... We do not recognize PQ designations such as + and *."

 

I don't believe that applies to PL type coins, but rather to to PL Morgan dollars.

 

Why would it apply to one and not the other? A designation is a designation, and the standards apply no matter what the coin. That's like saying they don't certify BN or RD on Two Centers, but only on Wheat Cents.

 

I have been informed that I was incorrect. But in answer to your question - there is a long standing and well established market for PL Morgan Dollars. The same cannot be said for other types of PL coins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I have been informed that I was incorrect. But in answer to your question - there is a long standing and well established market for PL Morgan Dollars. The same cannot be said for other types of PL coins.

 

What difference does that make to the standard? A designation is based on the condition of the coin, not the condition of the market.

 

From various posts there is a lot of "JA told me this" and then "JA told me that." Nowhere does JA actually say anything - its all secondhand, contradictory, and seemingly made up on the spot in answer to a question. Why does CAC have such a hard time actually explaining and publishing their standards? Why can't they satisfactorily answer these questions (questions that have been asked since the beginning of the company)? Maybe if they did, I'd take them a little more seriously. As it is now, they are a random sticker on slabs - and I don't care. I realize I'm small fry, but I can't be the only one who feels this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites