• 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.

CAC Education requested
2 2

153 posts in this topic

What was quoted said "I consider an AU50 to be XF50", or something to that extent. I was simply pointing out that the letter designation would not change the grade. If I considered a F12 to be a VG12, it would not change the grade....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2022 at 11:14 AM, Treeman said:

What was quoted said "I consider an AU50 to be XF50", or something to that extent. I was simply pointing out that the letter designation would not change the grade. If I considered a F12 to be a VG12, it would not change the grade....

...true the numerical designation would stay the same...however, the focal point of the discussion is more pointed toward the alphabetical designations...an XF coin is universally accepted to be a circulated coin where an AU coin may or may not be a circulated coin, hence the 50,53,55,58 differentials....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2022 at 10:44 AM, Treeman said:

What difference does it make if you use "AU" or "XF"? It's still a 50....

Let's see... it's better than VF which is better than F. With AU, you are taken away from references to lesser states altogether. Rather than look lower, you set your sights higher: AU, almost, but not quite UNC. I am going to start describing every Mint State coin I have as AU-59. I want to have something no one else has!  :roflmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/21/2022 at 7:37 PM, zadok said:

...actually im a fuzzy teddybear with a big gun...n i play till the death...i count Odysseus, Spartacus n John Wick among my minor heros....

I tell you, with the foregoing priceless gems of wisdom, you have cemented your status as a Major Contender, and a force to be reckoned with. This is unvarnished greatness!  (worship)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2022 at 1:44 PM, World Colonial said:

None.  It's another grade I'd eliminate.

It is one of perception and perspective. When the Beaufort scale, pardon me, Sheldon scale was introduced, numbers supplanted letters. But, in actuality (or maybe it's just me) the old terms, G, VG, F, etc., are retained as qualifiers. A "37" in and of itself is meaningless. Not because it doesn't exist formally, but because it is untethered. Like it or not, this concoction is here to stay (and no, my AU-59's, by whatever name otherwise known, are not for sale).  :facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2022 at 2:17 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

It is one of perception and perspective. When the Beaufort scale, pardon me, Sheldon scale was introduced, numbers supplanted letters. But, in actuality (or maybe it's just me) the old terms, G, VG, F, etc., are retained as qualifiers. A "37" in and of itself is meaningless. Not because it doesn't exist formally, but because it is untethered. Like it or not, this concoction is here to stay (and no, my AU-59's, by whatever name otherwise known, are not for sale).  :facepalm:

Yes, I know it's not going away.

Half the posts here are theoretical (including mine) since this thread is supposed to be about CAC.

For the coins I primarily collect (illustrated in those two images in my prior post), I'd ditch the Sheldon scale entirely and either use the one for NGC Ancients (per my prior post) or EAC.  The one EAC uses is similar to how Spanish collectors grade, using "net" grading.

It's a better system for this coinage for a few reasons.  One, the TPG don't have a clue what coins are and aren't "market acceptable" to those who buy it as their primary interest.  Most US collectors default to it because that's how US collectors price coinage generally, mostly by the TPG label.  Second which is related to the first, many "details" coins are "market acceptable", to those like me who actually buy it, as opposed to those who don't at all or occasionally mostly as a "one off".

It's ridiculous when a coin which is one of the best in existence has a minor "problem" (mostly a prior light cleaning noted as "surface hairlines" or something like it on the TPG label).

Thanks, but anyone who collects this type of coinage (not just this series but many others) already knows that most of these coins have been cleaned in the past, whether it has "surface hairlines" or not noted on the label.  Most Spanish or Latin coinage generally has been cleaned in the past.  The Spanish system of "net" grading takes that into account.

When a coin is common or really common like most US coinage (even for many or most supposedly considered scarce), it makes sense to have this distinction because finding a "non-processed" example is an option and usually easy.

With this type of coinage, the alternative is mostly "dreck", literally.  All but a few I own (approximately 80) are quite decent and many very nice.  But even those I own with noticeable problems (such as corrosion) are still much better than the overwhelming majority which have been worn down to AG-3 or F-2 equivalent and often holed, scratched, or otherwise damaged.

OK, rant over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/21/2022 at 5:06 PM, EagleRJO said:

Btw, with the NGC [ + ] and [ * ] designations what's the point of the CAC stickers anymore

Actually, all kidding aside this was a serious question.  I thought the CAC sticker was also to designate better grading characteristics within a particular grade (say MS-64), approaching but not at the next higher grade, similar to the NGC+.  So, what would be the difference between say a coin with an NGC grade of MS-64*+ and a coin with an NGC grade MS-64 that had a CAC sticker on the slab (other than to verify the grade on the label)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2022 at 11:58 AM, EagleRJO said:

Actually, all kidding aside this was a serious question.  I thought the CAC sticker was also to designate better grading characteristics within a particular grade (say MS-64), approaching but not at the next higher grade, similar to the NGC+.  So, what would be the difference between say a coin with an NGC grade of MS-64*+ and a coin with an NGC grade MS-64 that had a CAC sticker on the slab (other than to verify the grade on the label)?

CAC performs their own independent evaluation.  To my knowledge, CAC only evaluates the grade, not "+" or "*.  I presume that coins with one (or both if it happens) are more likely to "bean" but still may not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the website page on grading NGC uses the Plus (+) and Star (+) designations as follows:

Quote

NGC assigns a + to coins at the high end of their assigned grade, approaching the quality requirements for the next grade. For example, a coin graded NGC MS 64+ is close to the quality of a con graded MS 65. In addition to their superior technical merit, coins that receive a + must have above-average eye appeal. Not all coins are eligible for +. Coins grading from NGC XF 45 to NGC MS 68 or NGC PF 45 to NGC PF 68 may receive a +, while lower and higher-grade coins cannot.

Quote

NGC assigns its trademarked Star * Designation to coins with exceptional eye appeal for their assigned grade. Eye appeal is the most subjective attribute of a coin, but there are many standards shared by numismatists. Exceptional eye appeal may include attributes such as vibrant, colorful toning; intense luster; or, in the case of Proof coins, especially strong cameo contrast. To receive a *, coins must be free of any obvious planchet irregularities, and display no bothersome spots or blemishes. Toned coins can be of a single color or multicolored but cannot have any areas that are dark brown, approaching black.

So, the question remains.  Other than providing yet another persons' opinion on grade, or for older NGC slab labels before the above designations were introduced, of what value is the CAC sticker?

Edited by EagleRJO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2022 at 1:55 PM, EagleRJO said:

So, the question remains.  Other than providing yet another persons' opinion on grade, or for older NGC slab labels before the above designations were introduced, of what value is the CAC sticker?

To the coin buyer from the collecting aspect, absolutely nothing.  No one needs anyone else to tell them which coin they like more.

To the coin buyer from a financial aspect, the current market treats CAC coins as more liquid and with a premium.  It's financialization, not collecting.  Not much (if any) different than the collecting value add of the Sheldon grade on the holder label.  (The coin being in the holder already covers authenticity which isn't an issue with 99%+ coins or wouldn't be except for the inflated price level from financialization.)

To CAC, it's a business.  That's why they do it, but everyone knows that already.  Stickering coins identifies which coins they may want to buy for resale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[I am presently wading through John Albanese interviews in which he provides very specific information regarding CAC's, the volume of coins submitted, the rejection rate, and the percentage awarded green and yellow stickers. Unfortunately, I cannot be flippant on this thread and expect to survive the ever-vigilant eyes of a card-carrying, dyed-in-wool superfan of CAC.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2022 at 11:58 AM, EagleRJO said:

Actually, all kidding aside this was a serious question.  I thought the CAC sticker was also to designate better grading characteristics within a particular grade (say MS-64), approaching but not at the next higher grade, similar to the NGC+.  So, what would be the difference between say a coin with an NGC grade of MS-64*+ and a coin with an NGC grade MS-64 that had a CAC sticker on the slab (other than to verify the grade on the label)?

I think that the #1 reason for CAC -- and I could be wrong -- would be the super-loose grading given to two coins:  Saints and Morgans, probably THE KEY coins for most dealers and/or coin shows especially back in the 1990's and early-2000's (right before CAC started).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2022 at 1:55 PM, EagleRJO said:

According to the website page on grading NGC uses the Plus (+) and Star (+) designations as follows:

So, the question remains.  Other than providing yet another persons' opinion on grade, or for older NGC slab labels before the above designations were introduced, of what value is the CAC sticker?

If you are WILLING to pay MORE for a coin that you know has been looked at by 2 experts (including John Albanese, who was involved at both PCGS and NGC), that is what you are getting.

You have NO IDEA who at PCGS or NGC graded your coin.  But if you have a Saint-Gaudens and it has a CAC, you know that John Albanese liked the coin (and he has a reputation for being "tough" on gold coins).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2022 at 11:03 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think that the #1 reason for CAC -- and I could be wrong -- would be the super-loose grading given to two coins:  Saints and Morgans, probably THE KEY coins for most dealers and/or coin shows especially back in the 1990's and early-2000's (right before CAC started).

 

...not sure u r going to get anyone to agree with those reasons....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2022 at 10:59 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

[I am presently wading through John Albanese interviews in which he provides very specific information regarding CAC's, the volume of coins submitted, the rejection rate, and the percentage awarded green and yellow stickers. Unfortunately, I cannot be flippant on this thread and expect to survive the ever-vigilant eyes of a card-carrying, dyed-in-wool superfan of CAC.]

Is that from a detailed interview he gave years ago with some guy named "Maurice" or from the new CAC message boards ?

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2022 at 11:05 PM, zadok said:

...not sure u r going to get anyone to agree with those reasons....

Maybe....but I don't think CAC could justify the time, effort, or cost to do CACing for Pennies and Nickels. xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2022 at 11:06 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Maybe....but I don't think CAC could justify the time, effort, or cost to do CACing for Pennies and Nickels. xD

...i dont think morgans nor saints enter into the decisions for CAC...u seem to think those series r special for some reasons?....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2022 at 11:08 PM, zadok said:

...i dont think morgans nor saints enter into the decisions for CAC...u seem to think those series r special for some reasons?....

No, I just think from what I read they were among THE most popular coins at the time and also the key players in the 1988-90 Bubble.  Those were the coins hawked by the telemarketers....Blanchard..... dealers....etc.  They skyrocketed via numismatic premiums....and then collapsed 75-85%.

It stands to reason they saw the loosest or among the loosest grading standards over the post-Bubble years.

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2022 at 11:03 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think that the #1 reason for CAC -- and I could be wrong -- would be the super-loose grading given to two coins:  Saints and Morgans, probably THE KEY coins for most dealers and/or coin shows especially back in the 1990's and early-2000's (right before CAC started).

On 8/24/2022 at 11:04 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

But if you have a Saint-Gaudens and it has a CAC, you know that John Albanese liked the coin

I not sure I get the link between 2 specific types of coins and an industry wide shift from technical-based grading (imo more repeatable and consistent) to market-based grading (imo the original intent of the Sheldon scale), which some say resulted in many over-graded coins in general. And is it really just one guy cranking out all those untold number of little green beans all these years, on top of all the supposed CAC rejects, that has some collectors going ga-ga?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2022 at 11:58 PM, EagleRJO said:

I not sure I get the link between 2 specific types of coins and an industry wide shift from technical-based grading (imo more repeatable and consistent) to market-based grading (imo the original intent of the Sheldon scale), which some say resulted in many over-graded coins in general. 

I think the overgrading was unconnected to the "2 specific types of coins" I referenced.  I am just saying that was where many coin collectors and many INVESTORS/bullion buyers who waded into graded coins got burned.

I know, I had many clients buy Saint-Gaudens coins for $2,000 and $2,500 and $3,000 and up.  Gold was maybe $400 an ounce back then....HUGE premiums.  I told them to stop and many took losses but thanked me later for cutting their losses and not buying more as we went even higher on the upside.

As for technical grading into market-based grading....beyond my pay grade, discussed ad nauseum here and elsewhere:)....so I'll just say "It is what it is" and for better or worse you had a subtle switch over the years.  And as market grading took hold, you got the looser standards accelerate within that format.

On 8/24/2022 at 11:58 PM, EagleRJO said:

 And is it really just one guy cranking out all those untold number of little green beans all these years, on top of all the supposed CAC rejects, that has some collectors going ga-ga?

My understanding is that John Albanese personally looks at every CAC'd coin -- but I stand ready to be corrected by those who actually submit and/or have spoken to JA.  If his review percentage is less than 100%, it's still probably close to that on Saints and gold coins, as those seem to be of particular interest to him and CAC.  

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean I could see the advantage of having a CAC sticker for some of the rarer expensive coins, like some gold double eagles that are like $20k on up to over $100k, of knowing that at least another set of eyes looked at the coin for authenticity and more importantly grade where even a minor grade change or + designation could be a huge impact, at a comparatively minor additional cost.  But for most coins collected I don't get the obsession of some or the likely false belief that a green beaned slab will probably up-grade demanding a premium on those slab coffins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2022 at 1:05 AM, EagleRJO said:

I mean I could see the advantage of having a CAC sticker for some of the rarer expensive coins

My guess is a "rare/expensive" saint gets graded about once every 50 years.

50 years from now the "market" won't even care who JA was.

I think I'm ahead of the market now :insane: in that I believe there will be a return to more technical grading for saints.

About half the saints I've seen with beans are just really-really bad. No other way of putting it. It's almost like he's flipping them....Heads up, CAC....Tails up, no-CAC

Edited by Cat Bath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2022 at 11:57 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

No, I just think from what I read they were among THE most popular coins at the time and also the key players in the 1988-90 Bubble.  Those were the coins hawked by the telemarketers....Blanchard..... dealers....etc.  They skyrocketed via numismatic premiums....and then collapsed 75-85%.

It stands to reason they saw the loosest or among the loosest grading standards over the post-Bubble years.

TPG and CAC are businesses. TPG has minimal relevance to actual collecting while CAC has absolutely none.  It's entirely financially driven, as there is no practical difference between the coin quality covered by this subject, except to those who are motivated to exaggerate.  Nothing wrong with this but many coin buyers don't like thinking of it this way.

He saw a business opportunity, that's how I describe it.  Nothing less and nothing more.  Whether Saints and Morgans represent the majority or a high proportion of stickered coins, haven't looked at the data.  I doubt it given the one prior thread where we discussed it for Saints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2022 at 5:05 AM, Cat Bath said:

My guess is a "rare/expensive" saint gets graded about once every 50 years.

50 years from now the "market" won't even care who JA was.

I think I'm ahead of the market now :insane: in that I believe there will be a return to more technical grading for saints.

About half the saints I've seen with beans are just really-really bad. No other way of putting it. It's almost like he's flipping them....Heads up, CAC....Tails up, no-CAC

CAC is an extension of the financialization of the "hobby" which became widespread in the 70's.  The US coin price level was higher than elsewhere previously, but the combination of rising metal prices and maybe rising consumer price inflation is what motivated large scale coin buying as "investments".  Even common UNC Bust halves soared in the 70's and it's hardly an "investment" coin.

Then TPG became prevalent starting in the late 80's which is what made CAC possible.

As long as US "collecting" remains financialized, neither TPG nor CAC are going anywhere.  Neither are going away because of any inaccuracy in grading, as the differences inferred in your post have nothing to do with actual collecting.  No one or virtually no one cared about these differences, until the price level and price spreads became financially "meaningful".

How can I know this?  Because that's how US collectors collected before and how most of the world collects now.  Their collecting was not financialized.  Without this financialization, there is no market for it and (virtually) no one will pay for it, especially when the coins are predominantly common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2022 at 1:05 AM, EagleRJO said:

But for most coins collected I don't get the obsession of some or the likely false belief that a green beaned slab will probably up-grade demanding a premium on those slab coffins.

Agreed.....(thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2022 at 11:03 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think that the #1 reason for CAC -- and I could be wrong -- would be the super-loose grading given to two coins:  Saints and Morgans, probably THE KEY coins for most dealers and/or coin shows especially back in the 1990's and early-2000's (right before CAC started).

 

[My gut feeling is the Great z may know. He is CAC's greatest fan.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2022 at 11:08 AM, Quintus Arrius said:

[My gut feeling is the Great z may know. He is CAC's greatest fan.]

...if u choose to qualify my opinions on various subjects at least attempt to present them accurately n in minimal verbage...my opinion on CAC is simple, i believe that this addendum to certification provides a beneficial service to the collector the dealer n the hobby in general...i know it has benefited my endeavors both financially n in quality assessment of the current numismatic market...could the market survive without it, yes...but it is here to stay n just as a heads up it will in the near future expand even further, just hang around n see....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2022 at 11:23 AM, zadok said:

...if u choose to qualify my opinions on various subjects at least attempt to present them accurately n in minimal verbage...my opinion on CAC is simple, i believe that this addendum to certification provides a beneficial service to the collector the dealer n the hobby in general...i know it has benefited my endeavors both financially n in quality assessment of the current numismatic market...could the market survive without it, yes...but it is here to stay n just as a heads up it will in the near future expand even further, just hang around n see....

(worship)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CAC Forums has some excellent threads including one on The Simpson Collection (Bob, not Bart xD) where our own EC is active.  I didn't know that "Half Dome" was a current/recent collection that is still active and there are some other heavy-hitters (some anonymous, some not) active in Saint Land. (thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2