CACG has arrived. Loudly knocking. Will NGC and PCGS answer the door? Do you think NGC and PCGS will counter CACG and their "premium certification" services with their own new services or certifications? 2 2

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/18/2023 at 5:12 PM, Coinbuf said:

Something that many who poo-poo the CAC sticker don't realize is just how valuable that sticker can be in helping many collectors to not buy over graded and doctored coins; not everyone has the time or ability to become an expert grader.    Perhaps you know how to identify every single doctored coin in a straight graded TPG holder, but you would be a very rare individual as many, myself included, cannot every time.   The fact that there are coins with surface issues out in the marketplace is exactly why a second opinion has value.   If your doctor told you tomorrow that you were going to die in two weeks from some rare disease, would you just accept that as gospel or would you want a second confirming opinion.    I think that most would choose to have a second opinion before they start picking out a casket, CAC is that second opinion.

I agree....but it now appears (I could be wrong here but don't think I am) that the CAC sticker on PCGS and NGC coins means that the coin was appropriate for the grade (A or B coin stickered) but is NOT guaranteed to cross at the same grade into CACG.

Huge debate over ATS and somewhat at CAC Forums about coins going from MS to AU with the whole "rub" and "wear" debates.  You have 1 of the 3 big TPGs doing a 180 from market to techincal grading and it's causing some angst. 

Edited January 11 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

That's weird....why do the registry thing and NOT make them publicly viewable ?  Isn't the whole reason for doing the registry bit competition....show others your collection...etc. ? 

[Coinbuf]

On 1/10/2024 at 6:35 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Is this legit, CB ?  Unless someone is going to get hundreds or thousands of coins graded and seek CAC beans how much are we talking about -- especially relative to the value of the collection itself ?

I thought -- and maybe I'm wrong -- that people SELECTIVELY sought CAC stickers for a few coins here or there.  And if someone had a pricey collection, wouldn't grading costs and/or CAC stickering be a rounding error compared to the collection itself (or are grading/stickering costs also tied to the values of the coins) ?

 

Yes it is true that JA has expressed that opinion on the CAC forum, and it is not just the cost of the sticker review, postage both ways can be quite expensive even for a group of low or modest value coins.   In the beginning most were selective in what was sent to CAC, however, as the market for beaned coins has picked up and prices for even rather pedestrian coins with a bean have risen, many have begun to send in everything but the kitchen sink to see what sticks.   While I cannot say this for sure, I have a feeling that this may have played a small role in JA's decision to open a TPG.   My unsubstantiated conclusion was further validated recently when CACG announced a very low priced economy grading tier for Morgan and Peace dollars of $15 per coin for coins with a valuation under $500.

Yes it is true that for any wealthy collector the cost of a bean (including the shipping) is of little concern or consequence, however, JA's rational shows just how much he cares and is concerned with the average joe type of collectors, imo.

On 1/10/2024 at 8:23 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I agree....but it now appears (I could be wrong here but don't think I am) that the CAC sticker on PCGS and NGC coins means that the coin was appropriate for the grade (A or B coin stickered) but is NOT guaranteed to cross at the same grade into CACG.

Huge debate over ATS and somewhat at CAC Forums about coins going from MS to AU with the whole "rub" and "wear" debates.  You have 1 of the 3 big TPGs doing a 180 from market to techincal grading and it's causing some angst. 

No that is incorrect, a coin with a bean will cross at the same grade (or potentially higher) unless the coin has degraded in the holder.   This is most likely to be the case with copper which may have changed color, example, the holder says the coin is red but the coin has clearly mellowed and is now a red brown color.   While less likely but also possible a silver or gold coin that could also have turned in the holder since it was stickered.   That is the only reason a P or N graded coin with a bean would be rejected for direct cross, and this is not a change that has been the case since CACG started operations.

Yes that thread ats and the comments from a former P grader in the thread was very reviling and pulled the curtain back on TPG market grading.   I have no doubt that JA knew CACG's stance on rub would "rub" some dealers and collectors the wrong way.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 1/11/2024 at 10:40 AM, Coinbuf said:

No that is incorrect, a coin with a bean will cross at the same grade (or potentially higher) unless the coin has degraded in the holder. 

But you've seen the threads and comments....many CAC-stickered coins are being sent to CACG and are being graded as AU because of the wear/rub issue.

On 1/11/2024 at 10:40 AM, Coinbuf said:

Yes that thread ats and the comments from a former P grader in the thread was very reviling and pulled the curtain back on TPG market grading.   I have no doubt that JA knew CACG's stance on rub would "rub" some dealers and collectors the wrong way.

Revealing...not reviling.  Although some of the folks whose coins went from MS to AU might be reviled. 

Good one on "rub"....

[Coinbuf]

On 1/11/2024 at 9:12 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

But you've seen the threads and comments....many CAC-stickered coins are being sent to CACG and are being graded as AU because of the wear/rub issue.

 

That thread was started a couple of weeks ago and I do not recall every comment, but from my memory your statement is incorrect.   I do not recall a single comment where anyone claimed to have sent a beaned P or N coin for crossover that was downgraded.   If you want to sift back through that thread and find one I welcome your correction, every coin that Rexford (the guy who claims to have been a grader at PCGS) posted had not previously been beaned.   And the one PCGS coin with a bean that I recall him posting was posted as a reference example not as an example of a beaned coin crossed at a lower grade.   My opinion is that every coin that Rexford posted which was downgraded by CACG had to have been submitted raw or as cross at any grade and none of those he posted were previously beaned.    When you submit coins for crossover (at any TPG) you have the option to choose cross at grade only (or higher) or at any grade.   Some people like to roll the dice and will chose cross at any grade, but that is a gamble and one that doesn't always pay off as we know.

Notice that the guy in the video never identifies how those coins were submitted, nor does he ever mention that any of those coins in the video were previously beaned.   What I do know is that none of the CACG holders he shows in the video has the "L" on the label to signify that these were previously beaned coins (called legacy coins at CACG) submitted for crossover.   So those coins in that video were not previously beaned and either cracked and sent raw or submitted as cross at any grade, as that information was not supplied in the video we don't know.

I do not remember seeing a single example posted anywhere of a previously beaned coin submitted for crossover that was downgraded or refused to cross at grade.   I just know that it can happen if the coin has changed or turned in the holder since it was seen and given a bean.   

[GoldFinger1969]

On 1/11/2024 at 12:03 PM, Coinbuf said:

That thread was started a couple of weeks ago and I do not recall every comment, but from my memory your statement is incorrect.  

Once again you are right on CACG and I am wrong.      Apparently, with all the posts about submitting TPG-solo and TPG+CAC coins, it is the FORMER which are getting downgraded 1-2 grades and/or going from MS to AU.  TPG+CAC Sticker are crossing with no problems or so I am told and what you are saying.  Thanks, CB !! 

There's a 40-page CACG Grading Thread ATS and I may have been reading at the wee hours of the morning or maybe someone typed confusingly and I jsut got confused.  In any event, you are right, CB.

But...am I correct on this conclusion:  this makes the 80-85% of coins submitted to CAC (at least in the early days) as getting the sticker (A or B coins) even stranger.  Apparently, the CAC people were NOT finding evidence of wear/rub on the high points of most of the submitted coins since most of the coins got a bean.  But what doesn't have a sticker TODAY seems to have a preponderance of high-point wear/rub and these are the coins getting downgraded and/or going from MS to AU.  Is this correct ?

Boy, this gets confusing !!   

[GoldFinger1969]

This whole "confusion" on my part and those who hold TPG coins with no CAC sticker is that apparently CACG is employing technical grading....but even the CAC-sticker people were employing technical grading.... but self-filtering of "C" coins took a while and those are the ones with the same grade as CAC-stickered coins that are being submitted to CACG....and going down in grade and/or going from MS to AU on the wear/rub issue.

I think. 

[Coinbuf]

On 1/11/2024 at 2:32 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Once again you are right on CACG and I am wrong.      Apparently, with all the posts about submitting TPG-solo and TPG+CAC coins, it is the FORMER which are getting downgraded 1-2 grades and/or going from MS to AU.  TPG+CAC Sticker are crossing with no problems or so I am told and what you are saying.  Thanks, CB !! 

There's a 40-page CACG Grading Thread ATS and I may have been reading at the wee hours of the morning or maybe someone typed confusingly and I jsut got confused.  In any event, you are right, CB.

 

There was a lot of back and forth and photos being posted to that thread with lots of commentary so yes threads that long can get confusing as side discussions or sideways comments can make it difficult to follow the main thrust.   And yes there is (imo) going to be some variation in quality and grade between the crossover legacy coins and coins that are simply graded on the coin's merits, lets dig a bit deeper to find out why.

Let's go back and revisit the initial purpose of the CAC bean, as I said before the point of the bean was a way for JA to have an in hand pre review and identify (sticker) coins that he would like to buy and resell.   Thus, he was not grading those P or N coins, simply picking out coins that he felt were the best so that when or if they showed up for sale he would attempt to purchase those coins.   So because the goal was different for beaning, there must be a few market graded coins from both P and N which have received a bean, and the reality is that there could end up being Legacy coins (those coins that can be identified with the L on the label) that might grade lower if cracked out and sent in raw.

Now I think the number of coins that will fall into this middle area is going to be small, as I think JA has been very consistent in not awarding beans to slider coins that do not hold up to his standards of uncirculated condition.   But during the past 16 years that the bean factory has been operating basic statistics suggest that there have to be a few market graded coins which have slipped thru and received a bean but would be graded lower if submitted raw to CACG.   Those are the coins that will be confusing and will be the coins that the CACG haters will look for and use to demonstrate inconsistencies in CACG grading. 

On 1/11/2024 at 2:32 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

But...am I correct on this conclusion:  this makes the 80-85% of coins submitted to CAC (at least in the early days) as getting the sticker (A or B coins) even stranger.  Apparently, the CAC people were NOT finding evidence of wear/rub on the high points of most of the submitted coins since most of the coins got a bean.  But what doesn't have a sticker TODAY seems to have a preponderance of high-point wear/rub and these are the coins getting downgraded and/or going from MS to AU.  Is this correct ?

Boy, this gets confusing !!   

I don't see this as stranger, and I think you are taking a few examples and blowing them out of proportion.   The sticker factory has only reviewed a very tiny percentage of coins that are eligible to be reviewed and of course we have no real idea of just how many have failed for surface issues like rub.   Let's not forget that both N and P have been churning out market graded coins for at least a couple of decades if not three even.   So that means there is a huge number of coins out in the marketplace where CACG might disagree with the market grades and downgrade if the submitter allows them to, many of which have never been seen by CAC for a bean.

[Henri Charriere]

On 12/19/2023 at 12:04 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Just curious...what are the grading fees on a trophy coin worth $1 MM ?  What about one worth $100,000 ? 

Even if you spend 2-3 minutes on the coin instead of 30 seconds, it's a huge windfall for the lucky TPG.

I do not believe your query was answered directly or satisfactorily.  Malhereusement, while I do not have a current submission form which would reflect the latest revised prices, a recent [PCGS] form should give you some idea as to what it costs to grade a trophy coin.  Under the headings Total Declared Value (for the purposes of calculating the applicable insurance) are nine (9) boxes. Under the one headed "$100,001 - $150,000, the fee for one coin is $104.95.  A trophy coin with a declared value of $ 1 MM, is off the charts.  Literally.  A micro-printed note placed under the charts directs members with "packages over $100,000 to call customer service."  The actual grading fee will depend on service level requested and a number of other variables.  The super-rich are not like you or me.  They are secure in the knowledge they, or their heirs, will recoup all monies expended on their investment.  

[zadok]

On 1/11/2024 at 8:08 PM, Henri Charriere said:

I do not believe your query was answered directly or satisfactorily.  Malhereusement, while I do not have a current submission form which would reflect the latest revised prices, a recent [PCGS] form should give you some idea as to what it costs to grade a trophy coin.  Under the headings Total Declared Value (for the purposes of calculating the applicable insurance) are nine (9) boxes. Under the one headed "$100,001 - $150,000, the fee for one coin is $104.95.  A trophy coin with a declared value of $ 1 MM, is off the charts.  Literally.  A micro-printed note placed under the charts directs members with "packages over $100,000 to call customer service."  The actual grading fee will depend on service level requested and a number of other variables.  The super-rich are not like you or me.  They are secure in the knowledge they, or their heirs, will recoup all monies expended on their investment.  

...many of the prestige coins (multi-mm) dont cost anything to grade...

[Henri Charriere]

On 1/11/2024 at 8:15 PM, zadok said:

...many of the prestige coins (multi-mm) dont cost anything to grade...

I deal in hard facts, not discretionary courtesies extended to select members for unstated reasons.  

[zadok]

On 1/11/2024 at 5:38 PM, Coinbuf said:

There was a lot of back and forth and photos being posted to that thread with lots of commentary so yes threads that long can get confusing as side discussions or sideways comments can make it difficult to follow the main thrust.   And yes there is (imo) going to be some variation in quality and grade between the crossover legacy coins and coins that are simply graded on the coin's merits, lets dig a bit deeper to find out why.

Let's go back and revisit the initial purpose of the CAC bean, as I said before the point of the bean was a way for JA to have an in hand pre review and identify (sticker) coins that he would like to buy and resell.   Thus, he was not grading those P or N coins, simply picking out coins that he felt were the best so that when or if they showed up for sale he would attempt to purchase those coins.   So because the goal was different for beaning, there must be a few market graded coins from both P and N which have received a bean, and the reality is that there could end up being Legacy coins (those coins that can be identified with the L on the label) that might grade lower if cracked out and sent in raw.

Now I think the number of coins that will fall into this middle area is going to be small, as I think JA has been very consistent in not awarding beans to slider coins that do not hold up to his standards of uncirculated condition.   But during the past 16 years that the bean factory has been operating basic statistics suggest that there have to be a few market graded coins which have slipped thru and received a bean but would be graded lower if submitted raw to CACG.   Those are the coins that will be confusing and will be the coins that the CACG haters will look for and use to demonstrate inconsistencies in CACG grading. 

I don't see this as stranger, and I think you are taking a few examples and blowing them out of proportion.   The sticker factory has only reviewed a very tiny percentage of coins that are eligible to be reviewed and of course we have no real idea of just how many have failed for surface issues like rub.   Let's not forget that both N and P have been churning out market graded coins for at least a couple of decades if not three even.   So that means there is a huge number of coins out in the marketplace where CACG might disagree with the market grades and downgrade if the submitter allows them to, many of which have never been seen by CAC for a bean.

...all of this clarification is well n good, but i think it should be pointed out as a matter of additional clarification, that this discussion is directed at mint state coins which r only a part of the cac beaned coins, the cac beaned coins that r in circulated grades were evaluated on metrics that were divorced from au/unc determinations...just saying....

[zadok]

On 1/11/2024 at 8:18 PM, Henri Charriere said:

I deal in hard facts, not discretionary courtesies extended to select members for unstated reasons.  

..."other variables" r now "hard facts"?...who knew?....

[Coinbuf]

On 1/11/2024 at 6:24 PM, zadok said:

...all of this clarification is well n good, but i think it should be pointed out as a matter of additional clarification, that this discussion is directed at mint state coins which r only a part of the cac beaned coins, the cac beaned coins that r in circulated grades were evaluated on metrics that were divorced from au/unc determinations...just saying....

Very true and a good point.

[Henri Charriere]

On 1/11/2024 at 5:38 PM, Coinbuf said:

....Let's go back and revisit the initial purpose of the CAC bean, as I said before the point of the bean was a way for JA to have an in-hand pre-review and identify (stickered)  coins that he would like to buy and resell. (Emphasis mine.)  Thus, he was not grading those P or N coins, simply picking out coins that he felt were the best so that when or if they showed up for sale he would attempt to purchase those coins.   So because the goal was different for beaning,....

I feel like I am being mollycoddled to death here against my will.  Would you, or any other responsible member, care to cite the source of this speculative statement?  Is this a candid admission conceded to a third-party, like Mark Feld who worked with and knew JA as anyone possibly could to comfortably share that insight with others for attribution?  I do not care if I am the only person who feels this way, but this oft-repeated line whose origin is unclear seems to have attained the status of gospel truth. I do not believe it, find it offensive, repulsive and indefensible. Let's pretend I'm from Missouri, the "Show Me" state.  Someone -- anyone, show me and I shall resign my commission and silence my voice on this Forum to time indefinite, even forever, as JHVH of Armies, the God of Israel before whom I do stand, is living...

[Henri Charriere]

On 1/10/2024 at 10:31 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

That's weird....why do the registry thing and NOT make them publicly viewable ?  Isn't the whole reason for doing the registry bit competition....show others your collection...etc. ? 

Personal inventory management is the only reason I can think of. Now of course others, like the notable Pallet King Midas here will insist, "no one is under any obligation to divulge the extent of their holdings..." and I would have to agree -- any photos posted are superfluous and too small to be of any true value -- but then why bother?  Again, I am not aware of this practice here. Only at P.  Their presence, under User Names, is personal and confidential.  One more thing before I beat a hasty exit:  they are non-communicative. You do not know who they are, they cannot contact you, nor you them.  Coin collectors are an odd lot.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 1/11/2024 at 8:24 PM, zadok said:

...all of this clarification is well n good, but i think it should be pointed out as a matter of additional clarification, that this discussion is directed at mint state coins which r only a part of the cac beaned coins, the cac beaned coins that r in circulated grades were evaluated on metrics that were divorced from au/unc determinations...just saying....

Good points...the key thing is that the downgrade from MS to AU means big loss of registry points AND $$$.....the $$$ losses from AU-50 to EF-45 might not be as bad. 

Or it could, depending on the coin.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 1/12/2024 at 2:35 AM, Henri Charriere said:

I feel like I am being mollycoddled to death here against my will.  Would you, or any other responsible member, care to cite the source of this speculative statement?  Is this a candid admission conceded to a third-party, like Mark Feld who worked with and knew JA as anyone possibly could to comfortably share that insight with others for attribution?  I do not care if I am the only person who feels this way, but this oft-repeated line whose origin is unclear seems to have attained the status of gospel truth. I do not believe it, find it offensive, repulsive and indefensible. Let's pretend I'm from Missouri, the "Show Me" state.  Someone -- anyone, show me and I shall resign my commission and silence my voice on this Forum to time indefinite, even forever, as JHVH of Armies, the God of Israel before whom I do stand, is living...

I think CB might be slightly overstating JA's intentions...but he's in the ballpark.  First reason for starting CAC is to make $$$...2nd reason is to be a check on the TPGs and "give back" to the community by doing this service...and 3rd would be knowing what coins you are comfortable buying sight-unseen.

Go back to the JA interview with Maurice Rosen that I recently resurected. 

[zadok]

On 1/12/2024 at 12:51 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Good points...the key thing is that the downgrade from MS to AU means big loss of registry points AND $$$.....the $$$ losses from AU-50 to EF-45 might not be as bad. 

Or it could, depending on the coin.

...ur last sentence more accurate than u know...in some instances, liberty seated or bust issues the particular die pairing or varieties r unknown in unc, the $$$ differential between an au55 n an xf40 is commensurate with the diff between ms n au in other series....

[JT2]

On 12/26/2023 at 2:41 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Is it tamper-resistant and as protective as the PCGS and NGC holders ?

saw -plenty of them at the FUN show in Orlando... Andy said they were tough to crack!  they don't stack well with others and don't fit well in a storage box.  i wasnt impressed with them that much.  Kinda look like the generic version of a slab  

[RWB]

On 12/17/2023 at 11:57 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Suppose someone submits a coin.  They are sure it's MS-65 and MAYBE MS-66.  They send it to CACG.  It gets an MS-64.  Great, they have a premium 64 but even with a premium price on it it's at a DISCOUNT to the same coin in an NGC or PCGS holder at MS-65.

The key phrase here is, "They are sure it's MS-65 and MAYBE MS-66."

That is an opinion supporting they have insufficient knowledge to assign and support one of those "grades." Comparing grades is only viable if both (or all) graders used identical standards, but we know from experience that they do not, never did, and never will -- especially if there is money to be made by loosening whatever passes as "standard." The takeaway is that seller and buyer have to negotiate value because the TPGs have no standard in common.

Edited January 13 by RWB

[GoldFinger1969]

On 1/12/2024 at 2:21 PM, JT2 said:

saw -plenty of them at the FUN show in Orlando... Andy said they were tough to crack!  they don't stack well with others and don't fit well in a storage box.  i wasnt impressed with them that much.  Kinda look like the generic version of a slab  

And yet now I am reading that GASSES from the plastic holders can leak over the years or decades and discolor coins ?  Am I correct on that ?

So what's the solution...re-holder the coins every 10-20 years or invent some inert plastic that is gas-proof ?

[VKurtB]

On 1/12/2024 at 8:59 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

And yet now I am reading that GASSES from the plastic holders can leak over the years or decades and discolor coins ?  Am I correct on that ?

So what's the solution...re-holder the coins every 10-20 years or invent some inert plastic that is gas-proof ?

If such a thing even exists. I have my doubts. And yes, you are correct about slabs, or their inserts, discoloring coins. The solution is to NOT OBSESS OVER HAVING COINS IN SLABS. Do you have any coins that YOU PERSONALLY SENT more than 30 years ago? I do, and they have changed A GREAT DEAL over the years, far MORE than those in Saflips.  And no, it’s not just one or two TPGS firms. It’s ALL OF THEM. 

Edited January 13 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

On 1/10/2024 at 7:35 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Is this legit, CB ?  Unless someone is going to get hundreds or thousands of coins graded and seek CAC beans how much are we talking about -- especially relative to the value of the collection itself ?

I thought -- and maybe I'm wrong -- that people SELECTIVELY sought CAC stickers for a few coins here or there.  And if someone had a pricey collection, wouldn't grading costs and/or CAC stickering be a rounding error compared to the collection itself (or are grading/stickering costs also tied to the values of the coins) ?

 

Hardly. There is a cadre out there who would never have coin without the “bean”. That cadre and I have the null set as an intersection set. 

[Sandon]

       The only way to ensure that coins won't change over time would be to store them in a vacuum, as in outer space. Perhaps someday someone will find a way to do that.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 1/13/2024 at 12:21 AM, VKurtB said:

If such a thing even exists. I have my doubts. And yes, you are correct about slabs, or their inserts, discoloring coins. The solution is to NOT OBSESS OVER HAVING COINS IN SLABS. Do you have any coins that YOU PERSONALLY SENT more than 30 years ago? I do, and they have changed A GREAT DEAL over the years, far MORE than those in Saflips.  And no, it’s not just one or two TPGS firms. It’s ALL OF THEM. 

I guess unless we start sealing coins in the vacuum of space or something close to that, any coin is going to be exposed to some kind of molecules via air or environment.  Microscopic trace amounts, but I guess some coins (silver?) are susceptible to reacting with even minute levels of contaminants. 

You have all these trophy coins worth 7 and 8-figures in TPG holders, I guess the experts feel that's still the safest place to put 'em, huh ?

[VKurtB]

On 1/13/2024 at 1:19 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I guess unless we start sealing coins in the vacuum of space or something close to that, any coin is going to be exposed to some kind of molecules via air or environment.  Microscopic trace amounts, but I guess some coins (silver?) are susceptible to reacting with even minute levels of contaminants. 

You have all these trophy coins worth 7 and 8-figures in TPG holders, I guess the experts feel that's still the safest place to put 'em, huh ?

There are two factors: 1) gas permeability of the slabs, seals, and gaskets, and 2) outgassing FROM the gaskets themselves. It's not just keeping gasses out, it's the fact that the darned things create gasses themselves, INSIDE the slabs.

Edited January 13 by VKurtB

[Henri Charriere]

Silver cyanide gas.  Not to worry.  I just made that up.  On the other hand, if anything untoward were to happen to the '33 D.E., someone would have to answer to that. And, of course, that would have to go by extension to any of the other hundreds of trophy coins.

[VKurtB]

On 1/13/2024 at 1:21 PM, Henri Charriere said:

Silver cyanide gas.  Not to worry.  I just made that up.  On the other hand, if anything untoward were to happen to the '33 D.E., someone would have to answer to that. And, of course, that would have to go by extension to any of the other hundreds of trophy coins.

For those who desire to believe that TPGS slabs are chemically inert, count me among the dissenters. I’ve seen far too much to believe that hooey. The ABSOLUTE WORST were the small “soap bar” ANACS slabs. 

Edited January 13 by VKurtB

[GoldFinger1969]

On 1/13/2024 at 4:02 PM, VKurtB said:

The ABSOLUTE WORST were the small “soap bar” ANACS slabs. 

Anything like those white soap bar NGC holders from 20-plus years ago that totally encase the coin ?