A new CAC grading/slabbing service 1 1

[Henri Charriere]

IOW, a socially-acceptable way of saying, be advised, the goal posts are in a state of perpetual motion. Acquire accordingly.

[Henri Charriere]

On 11/4/2022 at 8:55 AM, zadok said:

...could be wrong, have been before....

Fallible? When? Where? What evidence can you provide to support such an hereto unsupported and wild assertion?  

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/3/2022 at 10:56 PM, Coinbuf said:

There are some layers to the stickers, more than just confirming market grading.   Keep in mind that JA was primarily making a market and in effect prescreening coins with the sticker business.    It grew to be something larger than that but when started CAC was simply a mechanism to find the best coins with the hope to buy and sell those A and B coins. If your goal is to be a market buyer then you have to work with what that current market is, the new CACG is slightly different in that it exists not to be a market buyer but rather to act as a TPG.   I think that many people are trying to equate CAC to CACG, but these are not the same organizations with the same goals.  So, it's important to remember, different goals result in different methods and standards.

Good analysis....while you can never tell what grade a coin that was submitted to CAC and did NOT get a sticker will grade with CACG.....it stands to reason that no CAC-stickered coin could possibly be graded LOWER by CACG.  JA/CAC have already said they are strong for the grade ("A" coins).

On 11/3/2022 at 10:56 PM, Coinbuf said:

Depends on your view, I disagree with your assertion that some coins that are known to have striking issues should not have that held against those coins in the grading room, it is that exact type of thinking that has led down the rabbit hole of market grading.   In fact, it should be held against it, when there is a certain year or mint where the production was so poor that the best coin is no better than MS64 because of striking issues then so be it, MS64 is the top.   Giving a lofty grade of MS66 or MS67 to a garbage looking coin that is the result of poor craftsmanship and quality is (in my mind) the same as giving out participation trophies, I don't believe in the theory that everyone is a winner because they showed up.

Your POV is also fair, I can't say it's wrong.  I think there are merits to both POVs. 

The main problem is when you grade "on a curve" for a particular year or mint...and then it "bleeds" into other coins.  THAT'S gradeflation.

On 11/3/2022 at 10:56 PM, Coinbuf said:

It can work, but only if the collectors and dealers accept it, that is going to be a very big wall to climb over, time will tell.

Agreed.....but if coins have been considered MS-66 for a while (maybe it was a "B" or "C" coin) and didn't sticker...I can't see CACG suddenly calling it an MS-64.  MAYBE an MS-65 but a surge of coins that most consider 66's or were in fact 66's suddenly even showing up as 65's would be problematic for CACG and the market.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/4/2022 at 9:01 AM, MarkFeld said:

I think that in general, grading (including CAC assessments) is based on a combination of how a given coin stacks up against others of the same date, as well as those of the same type. 

Mark, in your experience as a grader was there ever talk amongst the graders or TPG personnel that things had "changed" in a few years time with regard to overall grading standards, coins, etc. ?  There had to have been articles or dealer-talk about stuff like that in the 1990's and early-2000's I would think.

[MarkFeld]

On 11/4/2022 at 11:05 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Mark, in your experience as a grader was there ever talk amongst the graders or TPG personnel that things had "changed" in a few years time with regard to overall grading standards, coins, etc. ?  There had to have been articles or dealer-talk about stuff like that in the 1990's and early-2000's I would think.

Not among us graders, as I recall. But that doesn’t mean other people outside of grading companies weren’t talking about it, even back then.

Edited November 4, 2022 by MarkFeld

[Tyrock]

I've been listening to John Albanese on YouTube and here's what I understand. The idea is that the CAC grading service will eliminate the need to have a coin graded by NGC or PCGS and then sent to CAC for a sticker review which ends up with the collector paying postage 4 times. They are going to grade modern coins and may use different labels as NGC and PCGS do now. A gold sticker would equate to a "plus" grade, a green sticker would equate to a straight grade and a "C" level coin would get a details grade or a net grade.  And they are going to have Registry Sets which will accept NGC or PCGS coins. The sticker service will continue for a while but will eventually be phased out. And current CAC members will get a chance next year to send in 20 coins for sticker review under the old terms such as not paying for a coin that doesn't sticker. I was lucky to get a membership last year as he said there are only a few thousand members. And they will still have a waiting list and will let in new members to the grading service on a gradual basis as they don't want to be overwhelmed with submissions. He said he grades about 500 coins a day. 

[VKurtB]

On 11/4/2022 at 9:46 AM, Quintus Arrius said:

the goal posts are in a state of perpetual motion.

Yes they are, and they shall forever be. The best hope we have is that the second derivative does not remain perpetually positive, causing the movement of the goalposts to accelerate without limit. 

[VKurtB]

On 11/4/2022 at 4:18 PM, MarkFeld said:

Not among us graders, as I recall. But that doesn’t mean other people outside of grading companies weren’t talking about it, even back then.

So if I read you correctly, you’re saying that graders see little to nothing wrong with grading, but virtually everyone else with a gripe of any kind does. 

About par for EVERY course. 

[MarkFeld]

On 11/4/2022 at 7:47 PM, Tyrock said:

I've been listening to John Albanese on YouTube and here's what I understand. The idea is that the CAC grading service will eliminate the need to have a coin graded by NGC or PCGS and then sent to CAC for a sticker review which ends up with the collector paying postage 4 times. They are going to grade modern coins and may use different labels as NGC and PCGS do now. A gold sticker would equate to a "plus" grade, a green sticker would equate to a straight grade and a "C" level coin would get a details grade or a net grade.  And they are going to have Registry Sets which will accept NGC or PCGS coins. The sticker service will continue for a while but will eventually be phased out. And current CAC members will get a chance next year to send in 20 coins for sticker review under the old terms such as not paying for a coin that doesn't sticker. I was lucky to get a membership last year as he said there are only a few thousand members. And they will still have a waiting list and will let in new members to the grading service on a gradual basis as they don't want to be overwhelmed with submissions. He said he grades about 500 coins a day. 

 

“A gold sticker would equate to a "plus" grade, a green sticker would equate to a straight grade and a "C" level coin would get a details grade or a net grade.”

I think the above portion of your post is either incorrect or unclear, as follows:

A gold sticker indicates a coin that’s solid for the next grade up (or better) and doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with a “+” grade. As an example, a coin currently in a 65 holder with a gold sticker will probably grade either 66, 66+ or 67 at the new grading company.

It’s expected that most C coins will be graded a point lower then they did at PCGS or NGC, but with a “+”. So for example, if CAC has rejected a coin in a 65 holder because they thought it was of C quality, the new service will likely grade it 64+. On the other hand, if they rejected a coin in a 65 holder because they thought it was over-dipped, cleaned or with some other issue that merited a details (rather than straight) grade, they will assign a details grade.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

On 11/4/2022 at 8:23 PM, VKurtB said:

So if I read you correctly, you’re saying that graders see little to nothing wrong with grading, but virtually everyone else with a gripe of any kind does. 

About par for EVERY course. 

I wasn’t saying that at all. I was saying that I didn’t recall any conversations with fellow graders about things (grading) having changed. That’s not remotely the same thing as saying that graders saw/see little to nothing wrong with grading.

While I was a grader, I had plenty of complaints about grading and I do now, as well. And I’m confident that at least some current graders feel the same way.

[Henri Charriere]

🐓:  Right or wrong, you know what this new service means, don't you?

Q.A.:  Let me guess... neither you nor your brothers will pass muster.

🐓:  I wouldn't go that far! 

[Henri Charriere]

On 11/4/2022 at 9:39 PM, MarkFeld said:

....While I was a grader, I had plenty of complaints about grading and I do now, as well. And I’m confident that at least some current graders feel the same way.

I trust adequate provision has been made to accommodate those who submit slabs bearing decimalized grades as posted in a recent thread. 

[Tyrock]

Happy to clarify my post. John Albanese actually said to Ben the Coin Geek that the new CACG service should give an A coin a plus grade and a B coin should receive a straight grade in their new holder. A "C" coin, which has slight problems, shouldn't end up in a holder, but if it does it will end up in a details holder if the problems are serious enough or a holder with a lower grade as Mark explained. So, this is his current thinking, but he definitely isn't a fan of net grading. He feels that coins with stickers are fine as they are, or they can be crossed over to CACG.  He hopes to roll out the new service in January 2023.

Edited November 5, 2022 by Tyrock

[Henri Charriere]

To the OP:

It seems to me this would be a far better thread if I kept myself out of it.  Accordingly, in the interests of allowing this thread to develop and evolve, without antics, I hereby absent myself from it interminably, for the duration.  All in favor, say Aye!  Bonne nuit!  🐓 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/4/2022 at 9:39 PM, MarkFeld said:

While I was a grader, I had plenty of complaints about grading and I do now, as well. And I’m confident that at least some current graders feel the same way.

I'll bet -- I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised -- that most of the anger about grading is where there is an inflection point about the price.  When thousands of dollars (or more) are at stake, that's where people show passion. 

MS-64 and MS-65 for a gold coin with a $200 difference....who cares.  MS-66 vs. MS-67 with $7,000 at stake....ka-ching. 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/4/2022 at 11:51 PM, Tyrock said:

Happy to clarify my post. John Albanese actually said to Ben the Coin Geek that the new CACG service should give an A coin a plus grade and a B coin should receive a straight grade in their new holder. A "C" coin, which has slight problems, shouldn't end up in a holder, but if it does it will end up in a details holder if the problems are serious enough or a holder with a lower grade as Mark explained. So, this is his current thinking, but he definitely isn't a fan of net grading. He feels that coins with stickers are fine as they are, or they can be crossed over to CACG.  He hopes to roll out the new service in January 2023.

I thought "C" coins were just weak for the grades, the result of gradeflation.....nothing to do with details, alterations, dipping, etc.

 

[MarkFeld]

On 11/5/2022 at 1:35 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I thought "C" coins were just weak for the grades, the result of gradeflation.....nothing to do with details, alterations, dipping, etc.

 

Any grade coin is subject to gradeflation?

C coins are low-end for the assigned grade.

I think the confusion about C coins vs. problem coins that merit details-grades, is due to the fact that CAC has declined to sticker both categories. So submitters didn’t ordinarily know why their coins failed. With the new grading company, some of the CAC rejects will receive straight grades and others, details-grades.

[numisport]

On 11/4/2022 at 9:32 PM, MarkFeld said:

 

“A gold sticker would equate to a "plus" grade, a green sticker would equate to a straight grade and a "C" level coin would get a details grade or a net grade.”

I think the above portion of your post is either incorrect or unclear, as follows:

A gold sticker indicates a coin that’s solid for the next grade up (or better) and doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with a “+” grade. As an example, a coin currently in a 65 holder with a gold sticker will probably grade either 66, 66+ or 67 at the new grading company.

It’s expected that most C coins will be graded a point lower then they did at PCGS or NGC, but with a “+”. So for example, if CAC has rejected a coin in a 65 holder because they thought it was of C quality, the new service will likely grade it 64+. On the other hand, if they rejected a coin in a 65 holder because they thought it was over-dipped, cleaned or with some other issue that merited a details (rather than straight) grade, they will assign a details grade.

 

 

I collect mostly NGC/CAC coins. I think the NGC holder is superior so I wonder if [after CACG certification] NGC would cross that coin with a label that identifies a CACG certification. That way the holder will fit in a box with the other NGC graded coins. Oh wait....... then CAC didn't save me money.

[GoldFinger1969]

On the subject of CAC stickers and submittances.....is there a reason people/dealers would send in common coins in low-MS for a CAC sticker ?  I've seen a bunch of 62's and 63's lately with the green bean.

Edited November 5, 2022 by GoldFinger1969

[zadok]

On 11/5/2022 at 4:06 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

On the subject of CAC stickers and submittances.....is there a reason people/dealers would send in common coins in low-MS for a CAC sticker ?  I've seen a bunch of 62's and 63's lately with the green bean.

...yes in many cases depending on the series the price differential for cac versus non-cac outweighs the cost...each series has its own biases....

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/5/2022 at 10:33 PM, zadok said:

...yes in many cases depending on the series the price differential for cac versus non-cac outweighs the cost...each series has its own biases....

Would you think there's an incentive for that even if the price differential is minimal ?  I'm talkinig common Saints in MS-62 and 63.

[MarkFeld]

On 11/6/2022 at 12:39 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Would you think there's an incentive for that even if the price differential is minimal ?  I'm talkinig common Saints in MS-62 and 63.

I realize you didn’t ask me but I’ll answer, anyway.

I see a great many coins that have been submitted for grading and/or to CAC, where the cost was more than any potential added value to the coin.
In some cases, the submitters simply weren't aware that the added value would be less than the submission fee. In other cases, they didn’t care, because they wanted to test their grading skills. They wanted to see how their grading/assessment compared to that of a grading company or whether their coins were nice enough to sticker. They viewed their submissions as potentially valuable learning/grading-sharpening experiences.

[Henri Charriere]

On 11/6/2022 at 7:52 AM, MarkFeld said:

....In other cases, they didn’t care, because they wanted to test their grading skills....

Sorry, Mark, I promised to stay off this thread but this comment cannot go unchallenged. I do not for one minute believe this extreme measure is a viable option for those who wish to "test their grading skills...." Don't look to me to restore your credibility!  

[MarkFeld]

On 11/6/2022 at 7:22 AM, Quintus Arrius said:

Sorry, Mark, I promised to stay off this thread but this comment cannot go unchallenged. I do not for one minute believe this extreme measure is a viable option for those who wish to "test their grading skills...." Don't look to me to restore your credibility!  

It appears that you don’t keep your promises.

it doesn’t matter whether you, I or anyone else believes that what I described, is a viable option. What matters is what submitters of the coins believe. And I’ve seen posts from many collectors indicating that they submit coins for the reason I stated.

Now, in order to try to set a good example, I promise not to post to this thread again. And I keep my promises.

[Henri Charriere]

[Comment withdrawn]

 

Edited November 7, 2022 by Quintus Arrius

[zadok]

On 11/6/2022 at 1:39 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Would you think there's an incentive for that even if the price differential is minimal ?  I'm talkinig common Saints in MS-62 and 63.

...in that instance the only real incentive is the coin mite sell easier n faster versus uncaced coins same grade n date...i personally wouldnt buy either....

[Oldhoopster]

On 11/6/2022 at 8:38 AM, MarkFeld said:

It appears that you don’t keep your promises.

it doesn’t matter whether you, I or anyone else believes that what I described, is a viable option. What matters is what submitters of the coins believe. And I’ve seen posts from many collectors indicating that they submit coins for the reason I stated.

Now, in order to try to set a good example, I promise not to post to this thread again. And I keep my promises.

Great.  Now we lost the opinions of a very knowledgeable and experienced dealer, former grader, and numismatic insider, but we will still get feedback (some of it occasionally relevant) from a guy talking to his rooster.  Great tradeoff. Wonderful [sarcasm].  

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/6/2022 at 7:52 AM, MarkFeld said:

I realize you didn’t ask me but I’ll answer, anyway.

Always value your expertise and opinions, Mark, so ALWAYS feel free to chime in ! 

On 11/6/2022 at 7:52 AM, MarkFeld said:

I see a great many coins that have been submitted for grading and/or to CAC, where the cost was more than any potential added value to the coin.  In some cases, the submitters simply weren't aware that the added value would be less than the submission fee. In other cases, they didn’t care, because they wanted to test their grading skills. They wanted to see how their grading/assessment compared to that of a grading company or whether their coins were nice enough to sticker. They viewed their submissions as potentially valuable learning/grading-sharpening experiences.

Makes sense and I kinda agree.  Thanks Mark !! 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 11/6/2022 at 11:03 AM, Oldhoopster said:

Great.  Now we lost the opinions of a very knowledgeable and experienced dealer, former grader, and numismatic insider, but we will still get feedback (some of it occasionally relevant) from a guy talking to his rooster.  Great tradeoff. Wonderful [sarcasm].  

I think Mark is just not responding (any more) to THIS thread.  I am sure he'll continue to post elsewhere.

He better.  Or else I'll sic Teddy (see avatar) on him. 

[Henri Charriere]

[Comment deleted]   

 

Edited November 7, 2022 by Quintus Arrius