CAC questions 0

[rons]

Now that CAC is holdering coins do they still accept submissions? Also are all the coins they grade getting the green bean? And does that mean, for example, their grading lowers a C grade 64 to an A grade 63 so they can bean it?  I have not been paying attention until i saw CACG coins on great collections and they all had the green bean. Thus my guess as to how they grade. Since they now have their own slabs has their original business model of grading ngc and pcgs coins come to an end? Just trying to catch up with the latest twist. Is there any hint of whether our hosts will accept their coins in the registry?  Thanks for any information you can provide  

[Sandon]

   The company's website, https://www.cacgrading.com/, should have answers to most of your questions.

   It is my understanding that CAC still accepts submissions of PCGS and NGC graded coins to be evaluated for stickering as well as certified or uncertified coins for grading and placement in CAC holders. CAC is not presently accepting new members, so coins must be submitted through existing members. (The stickering and grading services are in different locations.)

   The "green bean" on a CAC grading holder is not a sticker. It is printed on and appears on all CAC grading holders as a company logo. CAC is supposedly grading coins based on its own conservative standards, so coins that would not have gotten stickers at a given grade that they would have received from NGC or PCGS will likely receive lower grades from CAC grading. Like NGC and PCGS, CAC grading gives coins determined to be impaired "Details" adjectival grades.

   I highly doubt that CAC grading will put NGC or PCGS out of business. Whether CAC graded coins are ever allowed on the NGC registry will be up to NGC. I understand that CAC ultimately intends to create its own registry.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Sandon
answered additional questions

[rons]

Thanks, I just saw another thread here that was about what I was asking about. Very interesting events unfolding now in the coin world. 

[Coinbuf]

On 12/29/2023 at 2:33 PM, rons said:

Now that CAC is holdering coins do they still accept submissions?

Yes CAC is still accepting submissions for stickering in NJ, the grading and slabbing happens at the VA facility.

On 12/29/2023 at 2:33 PM, rons said:

Also are all the coins they grade getting the green bean? 

No coins graded by CACG receive a bean in the form of a sticker applied to the outside of the slab.   The bean you see on the label is printed on the label, think of this as a brand symbol just as you would the scales on an NGC label.   JA was originally planning to use the same bean sticker on the label, but decided that there could be some concern about outgassing of the adhesive for the sticker and the decision was made to print the bean and treat it as a logo.

On 12/29/2023 at 2:33 PM, rons said:

And does that mean, for example, their grading lowers a C grade 64 to an A grade 63 so they can bean it?

You will be way ahead of the curve to not think of CACG graded coins in the A, B, C vernacular that you may have been accustomed to hearing with regard to CAC stickers.   JA and Grader John Buttler have been very clear that there are no C coins in CACG holders.   If you read my reply on the thread in the US coin section I think I did a good job of explaining this.

 

On 12/29/2023 at 3:52 PM, Sandon said:

CAC is not presently accepting new members

This is incorrect, CAC is in fact accepting new members.   If anyone desires to, they can go the CAC website, setup an account and will be placed on a wait list.   From what I am hearing it is taking around two or three months from the time you are placed on the wait list to the time you receive your welcome letter.   Obviously this fluctuates depending on how long the wait list is at any given time.

[Sandon]

On 12/29/2023 at 8:10 PM, Coinbuf said:

CAC is in fact accepting new members. 

  It appears that CAC's website isn't up to date on this issue.  The "General Membership Questions" page states as follows;

Q: How do I become a CAC Member? 

A: Our applications are currently closed for new members but we are taking names on a waitlist.

(Emphasis added.) https://help.cacgrading.com/support/solutions/articles/151000095179-general-membership-questions

[Coinbuf]

On 12/29/2023 at 6:40 PM, Sandon said:

  It appears that CAC's website isn't up to date on this issue.  The "General Membership Questions" page states as follows;

Q: How do I become a CAC Member? 

A: Our applications are currently closed for new members but we are taking names on a waitlist.

(Emphasis added.) https://help.cacgrading.com/support/solutions/articles/151000095179-general-membership-questions

From the link you supplied instructions on how to be placed on the wait list; once you are on the waitlist it is taking about two to three months from what I have seen to be accepted:

Edited to add:  I just saw a post the PCGS forum where a member said he is #734 on the waitlist, I was not aware that the list had grown that much as last I heard folks were around 300 on the waitlist.   So my earlier comment of a couple months wait is likely much longer now. 

Edited December 30, 2023 by Coinbuf

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/29/2023 at 4:33 PM, rons said:

Now that CAC is holdering coins do they still accept submissions? Also are all the coins they grade getting the green bean? And does that mean, for example, their grading lowers a C grade 64 to an A grade 63 so they can bean it?  I have not been paying attention until i saw CACG coins on great collections and they all had the green bean. Thus my guess as to how they grade. Since they now have their own slabs has their original business model of grading ngc and pcgs coins come to an end? Just trying to catch up with the latest twist. Is there any hint of whether our hosts will accept their coins in the registry?  Thanks for any information you can provide  

You should read the interview with Maurice Rosen with John Alabanes on a dated thread I bumped. 

Long story short:  the CAC stickers went to coins that JA thought were "A" and "B" quality or 75-85% of the coins for a particular type.  The "C" coins did NOT get the sticker but were still considered solid for the grade given.  These were the problem coins for the most part back when CAC was conceived because the "A" and "B" coins were being held by collectors and investors and the "C" coins populated dealer inventories and were overpriced compared to the A & B coins.

So no..."C" coins for an MS-65 Saint should not have been given an MS-64 grade with or without a CAC sticker...they ARE solid for MS-65 just not "A" or "B" quality.  Now, so-called "D" and "F" coins are misgraded and definitely deserved to be downgraded but that's another story.

Here's where it gets interesting:  "C" coins for an MS-65 Saint (or any other coin) should get an MS-65 grade from CACG.  So....the CACG holder can ave either an "A" or "B" or "C" coin and you can't tell.  Right now, the CACG holder is fetching a premium but unless you have an "A" coin (definitely) or a "B" coin (probably/maybe)....it really shouldn't sell at a premium.  And if it's a "C" coin -- definitely not.

Are buyers of CACG holders discerning the underlying coin quality instead of just buying willy-nilly the holder to justify paying a premium ?  Beats me...

But a few years from now...in a REVERSAL of what we saw in 2008-10 (when CAC stickers only fetched modest premiums)...the premium on CACG may well fade once it become apparent that many coins are "C" quality and/or folks can't accurately sort out the "A" and "B" coins and pay a premium for them while somehow convincing a dealer/seller to accept LESS for a "C" coin that only one of them thinks is a "C" coin !! 

Edited December 30, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/29/2023 at 8:10 PM, Coinbuf said:

JA was originally planning to use the same bean sticker on the label, but decided that there could be some concern about outgassing of the adhesive for the sticker and the decision was made to print the bean and treat it as a logo.

You mean the adhesive "gas" can leak INTO the holder ?  We talking a few atoms here or what ?  

Isn't he afraid the adhesive on existing CAC stickers can leak into PCGS and NGC holders ?  Unless the CACG holder is thinner and/or of less molecular density or something.

Edited December 30, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/29/2023 at 8:10 PM, Coinbuf said:

JA and Grader John Buttler have been very clear that there are no C coins in CACG holders.   If you read my reply on the thread in the US coin section I think I did a good job of explaining this.

If this is true and I have NO reason to doubt you, it's a HUGE REVERSAL of what he said when he formed CAC.  Of course, he also said at the time that he would have no interest in a CAC TPG. 

I don't see how you can not allow an MS-65 "C" coin into a CACG holder as MS-65.

Edited January 1 by GoldFinger1969

[VKurtB]

On 12/29/2023 at 10:48 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

If this is true and I have reason to doubt you, it's a HUGE REVERSAL of what he said when he formed CAC.  Of course, he also said at the time that he would have no interest in a CAC TPG. 

I don't see how you can not allow an MS-65 "C" coin into a CACG holder as MS-65.

OF COURSE IT’S A HUGE REVERSAL! Nobody has ever suggested otherwise. Gods (either capitalized or not) ALWAYS reserve the right to reverse themselves, otherwise known as being a bulls**t artist. 

[J P M]

It is going to end up being a lot of BS. I can see the replies from dealers all ready. You want to sell your MS65 but it is in an NGC or a PCGS holder so it is really a MS64 so you get half of that. If it was in a  CAC  holder it is a real MS65 You still get half from the dealer, but it is real. I still say it is all just an opinion and I am sure JA is not doing the grading by himself. It will be a new experience for all Numismatics everywhere. .  

[powermad5000]

On 12/30/2023 at 1:18 PM, J P M said:

It is going to end up being a lot of BS. I can see the replies from dealers all ready. You want to sell your MS65 but it is in an NGC or a PCGS holder so it is really a MS64 so you get half of that. If it was in a  CAC  holder it is a real MS65 You still get half from the dealer, but it is real. I still say it is all just an opinion and I am sure JA is not doing the grading by himself. It will be a new experience for all Numismatics everywhere. .

If you come out and tell me this and that all my slabs are one or two points lower than where they sit in my NGC holders, and then try to tell me if I want the "real" grade I have to join CAC and crack out all my NGC slabs and then submit them to CACG to get the "real" grade, that is where I draw the line. Then NOBODY will get my business. I'll keep everything raw from now on and thank CACG for ruining TPG grading. And if I feel this way, I can guarantee I am not the only one.

Someone send my statement here up the pipe to JA.

[VKurtB]

On 12/30/2023 at 3:02 PM, powermad5000 said:

If you come out and tell me this and that all my slabs are one or two points lower than where they sit in my NGC holders, and then try to tell me if I want the "real" grade I have to join CAC and crack out all my NGC slabs and then submit them to CACG to get the "real" grade, that is where I draw the line. Then NOBODY will get my business. I'll keep everything raw from now on and thank CACG for ruining TPG grading. And if I feel this way, I can guarantee I am not the only one.

Someone send my statement here up the pipe to JA.

That’s PRECISELY the way I see the future. 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/30/2023 at 1:44 PM, VKurtB said:

OF COURSE IT’S A HUGE REVERSAL! Nobody has ever suggested otherwise. Gods (either capitalized or not) ALWAYS reserve the right to reverse themselves, otherwise known as being a bulls**t artist. 

I think I can live with technical or market grading....or "C" coins being good for the grade....but I/we need CONSISTENCY. 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/30/2023 at 4:18 PM, VKurtB said:

That’s PRECISELY the way I see the future. 

If he truly only "kicks out" the "C" coins then I think some of our reactions could be a bit over the top.

But if you have lots of "C" coins selling for 1 grade lower -- and more importantly, lots of $$$ lower if there's a big dropoff -- you could have chaos.  You can't have a triopoly of TPGs....2 more-or-less market graders and the other doing technical grading.  It's a prescription for lots of conflict within the hobby; instead of all pulling together, we will be pulling apart.

[VKurtB]

On 12/30/2023 at 7:49 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

If he truly only "kicks out" the "C" coins then I think some of our reactions could be a bit over the top.

But if you have lots of "C" coins selling for 1 grade lower -- and more importantly, lots of $$$ lower if there's a big dropoff -- you could have chaos.  You can't have a triopoly of TPGs....2 more-or-less market graders and the other doing technical grading.  It's a prescription for lots of conflict within the hobby; instead of all pulling together, we will be pulling apart.

Nobody cares if they create chaos, AS LONG AS THE CHAOS ENRICHES THEMSELVES. 

[J P M]

In my opinion it will be a mess. I think JA should have just opened up his sticker services to the general public if he was trying to make a buck or two. Now he is committed. And now, what will happen to ANACS. Will they be pushed off the map with ICG.

[VKurtB]

On 12/31/2023 at 6:55 AM, J P M said:

In my opinion it will be a mess. I think JA should have just opened up his sticker services to the general public if he was trying to make a buck or two. Now he is committed. And now, what will happen to ANACS. Will they be pushed off the map with ICG.

Hopefully so, yes.

 

[Coinbuf]

On 12/29/2023 at 9:30 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

You mean the adhesive "gas" can leak INTO the holder ?  We talking a few atoms here or what ?  

Isn't he afraid the adhesive on existing CAC stickers can leak into PCGS and NGC holders ?  Unless the CACG holder is thinner and/or of less molecular density or something.

Slabs are not airtight, that is clearly spelled out on both the NGC and PCGS websites and there are well documented cases where coins have been "gassed" while inside the holder to produce toning.   It has been a while but a well respected member of the PCGS forum did this with a group of Morgan dollars in rattler holders many years ago.   He was caught and lost all credibility and good standing that he had with members of that forum.   And it is well known that certain holders are known for toning coins due to the sulfur content in the label or the plastic itself.   So yes it is wise to be concerned about the materials used in the construction of or placed inside a slab.   The adhesive on a sticker placed on the outside of a holder has a very VERY minor opportunity to affect the coin inside.

On 12/29/2023 at 9:48 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

If this is true and I have reason to doubt you, it's a HUGE REVERSAL of what he said when he formed CAC.  Of course, he also said at the time that he would have no interest in a CAC TPG. 

I don't see how you can not allow an MS-65 "C" coin into a CACG holder as MS-65.

You can doubt me all you want, the information is all out there on the web if you take the time to read it.   And no not a reversal with regards to C coins, Dan in the thread ats has already addressed your misconception on this.   Yes he has changed his stance on forming a TPG, that is not a sin.   As I said earlier everyone can, and many should, adjust course in light of new information or as changes are necessary, only a fool plods ahead not able to or accepting new information as it is discovered; change is the only constant.

And if you cannot accept that there are a number of perfectly valid reasons why a TPG MS65 graded coin (without a bean) will not cross at grade to a CACG MS65 then you have much to learn grasshopper.    I actually think you are confusing crossovers and raw grading, any raw coin that is sent to CACG that the graders feel meets their standards for the grade of MS65 will indeed get graded as MS65.   But gradeflation has let a ton of over graded and coins with rub/friction and other surface problems receive high (even gem) grades at both N and P.   CACG will either decline to cross or downgrade those coins if submitted, and when submitted as cross at any grade.

[VKurtB]

On 12/31/2023 at 12:13 PM, Coinbuf said:

Slabs are not airtight, that is clearly spelled out on both the NGC and PCGS websites and there are well documented cases where coins have been "gassed" while inside the holder to produce toning.   It has been a while but a well respected member of the PCGS forum did this with a group of Morgan dollars in rattler holders many years ago.   He was caught and lost all credibility and good standing that he had with members of that forum.   And it is well known that certain holders are known for toning coins due to the sulfur content in the label or the plastic itself.   So yes it is wise to be concerned about the materials used in the construction of or placed inside a slab.   The adhesive on a sticker placed on the outside of a holder has a very VERY minor opportunity to affect the coin inside.

You can doubt me all you want, the information is all out there on the web if you take the time to read it.   And no not a reversal with regards to C coins, Dan in the thread ats has already addressed your misconception on this.   Yes he has changed his stance on forming a TPG, that is not a sin.   As I said earlier everyone can, and many should, adjust course in light of new information or as changes are necessary, only a fool plods ahead not able to or accepting new information as it is discovered; change is the only constant.

And if you cannot accept that there are a number of perfectly valid reasons why a TPG MS65 graded coin (without a bean) will not cross at grade to a CACG MS65 then you have much to learn grasshopper.    I actually think you are confusing crossovers and raw grading, any raw coin that is sent to CACG that the graders feel meets their standards for the grade of MS65 will indeed get graded as MS65.   But gradeflation has let a ton of over graded and coins with rub/friction and other surface problems receive high (even gem) grades at both N and P.   CACG will either decline to cross or downgrade those coins if submitted, and when submitted as cross at any grade.

Yes, this is ALL true. But @GoldFinger1969 is missing a subtle but nonetheless important point. When the grade of a coin is stated fully, the NAME OF THE SERVICE IS PART OF THE GRADE. A coin can be MS65 ONLY WHEN IT IS RAW. Once entombed, that same coin MAY be NGC MS65, or PCGS MS65, or ANACS MS66, or CACG MS64, and still be absolutely the same coin, without new marks or damage. And then add the + designation and the fun really starts. Heck, that same coin PROBABLY is a RWB AU55. 
 

The central point is that NO SERVICE has any obligation to respect any OTHER service’s grade opinion. I have previously written of a Chards (of Blackpool, England) XF coin that is a NGC MS65. Done.

Edited December 31, 2023 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

On 12/30/2023 at 7:43 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think I can live with technical or market grading....or "C" coins being good for the grade....but I/we need CONSISTENCY. 

You are never ever EVER going to get consistency. If you need that, you may be in the wrong hobby.

[Sandon]

On 12/31/2023 at 1:36 PM, VKurtB said:

You are never ever EVER going to get consistency. If you need that, you may be in the wrong hobby.

   The problems that we are experiencing today really go back to the 1986 decision of the A.N.A. Board of Governors to allow eleven different numerical mint state grades!  There is no objective or consistent way to tell each one from the next, and for some coins even experienced graders can differ by at least one point either higher or lower, which for some pieces can mean substantial differences in valuation.  (For that matter, can graders consistently tell a VF 20 from a VF 25, a VF 25 from a VF 30, a VF 30 from a VF 35, or a VF 35 from an XF 40?)  The addition by NGC and PCGS of "+" grades, which were never authorized by the A.N.A., just increases the amount of subjectivity and inconsistency in grading. The issue is even worse with older series (such as pre-1838) that tend to be struck irregularly or from worn dies and of which very few truly mint state pieces exist; most such pieces graded as high as MS 63 by NGC and PCGS are AUs in my opinion. How extensive surface issues may be before graders regard a coin as impaired is also subjective.

   CAC Grading (and CAC stickers) are additional "flies in the ointment".  We now have different grading services that use the same grading terminology but admittedly interpret it differently!  I'm sure that this is all extremely confusing for new and more casual collectors. My practice and recommendation are to learn about grading yourself, develop your own judgment and taste, and when buying coins act in accordance with that judgment and taste and your budget. The opinions of third-party grading and stickering services should be of secondary importance.  

   

[VKurtB]

On 12/31/2023 at 2:30 PM, Sandon said:

   The problems that we are experiencing today really go back to the 1986 decision of the A.N.A. Board of Governors to allow eleven different numerical mint state grades!  There is no objective or consistent way to tell each one from the next, and for some coins even experienced graders can differ by at least one point either higher or lower, which for some pieces can mean substantial differences in valuation.  (For that matter, can graders consistently tell a VF 20 from a VF 25, a VF 25 from a VF 30, a VF 30 from a VF 35, or a VF 35 from an XF 40?)  The addition by NGC and PCGS of "+" grades, which were never authorized by the A.N.A., just increases the amount of subjectivity and inconsistency in grading. The issue is even worse with older series (such as pre-1838) that tend to be struck irregularly or from worn dies and of which very few truly mint state pieces exist; most such pieces graded as high as MS 63 by NGC and PCGS are AUs in my opinion. How extensive surface issues may be before graders regard a coin as impaired is also subjective.

   CAC Grading (and CAC stickers) are additional "flies in the ointment".  We now have different grading services that use the same grading terminology but admittedly interpret it differently!  I'm sure that this is all extremely confusing for new and more casual collectors. My practice and recommendation are to learn about grading yourself, develop your own judgment and taste, and when buying coins act in accordance with that judgment and taste and your budget. The opinions of third-party grading and stickering services should be of secondary importance.  

   

The A.N.A. insists they have no legitimate role in grading, and they’re completely correct. Where in the heck did THAT idea come from?

[Sandon]

On 12/31/2023 at 4:03 PM, VKurtB said:

The A.N.A. insists they have no legitimate role in grading, and they’re completely correct. Where in the heck did THAT idea come from?

   The book the Association publishes is entitled The Official American Numismatic Association Grading Standards for United States Coins. (Emphasis added.) The "Introduction and Welcome" to the seventh and most recent edition (p.8) includes the following statement: "This grading book is sponsored by the American Numismatic Association. It is recommended that it be used as the standard reference in transactions between all buyers and sellers." Emphasis added.

   The authors aren't entirely consistent as to what the book is supposed to do, repeatedly emphasizing the subjectivity of grading and stating (p.15) that "this book reports the grading used in the marketplace. It does not create it. . .. Today, we have to consider what leading grading services such as ANACS, ICG, NGC, and PCGS do, as well as what can be observed in auction sales, dealers' stocks, and coin shows." While it is difficult to understand how such a wide variety of sources can be used to create written "standards", the A.N.A. clearly plays a role regarding grading, even if it is just reporting the grading purportedly used in the marketplace.

   The use of eleven different grades for mint state coins started when PCGS commenced operations in 1986 and was controversial. The A.N.A. Board of Governors effectively legitimized it by incorporating it into the A.N.A. grading standards before each of these grades could be empirically defined. In my opinion, this was a mistake that continues to have negative repercussions.

[VKurtB]

On 12/31/2023 at 6:38 PM, Sandon said:

   The book the Association publishes is entitled The Official American Numismatic Association Grading Standards for United States Coins. (Emphasis added.) The "Introduction and Welcome" to the seventh and most recent edition (p.8) includes the following statement: "This grading book is sponsored by the American Numismatic Association. It is recommended that it be used as the standard reference in transactions between all buyers and sellers." Emphasis added.

   The authors aren't entirely consistent as to what the book is supposed to do, repeatedly emphasizing the subjectivity of grading and stating (p.15) that "this book reports the grading used in the marketplace. It does not create it. . .. Today, we have to consider what leading grading services such as ANACS, ICG, NGC, and PCGS do, as well as what can be observed in auction sales, dealers' stocks, and coin shows." While it is difficult to understand how such a wide variety of sources can be used to create written "standards", the A.N.A. clearly plays a role regarding grading, even if it is just reporting the grading purportedly used in the marketplace.

   The use of eleven different grades for mint state coins started when PCGS commenced operations in 1986 and was controversial. The A.N.A. Board of Governors effectively legitimized it by incorporating it into the A.N.A. grading standards before each of these grades could be empirically defined. In my opinion, this was a mistake that continues to have negative repercussions.

No ANA committee has in any recent year approved any edition of the grading guide, nor has any recent Board of Governors. It simply has never come up since AT THE VERY MOST RECENT, probably older, than 2009. I attend ALL BoG meetings, and serve on two committees. No ANA involvement for AT LEAST 15 years now. The authors are who the authors are, and NO ONE has written on behalf of the ANA.  The ANA does NOT publish it, Whitman Publishing does. The ANA is in Colorado Springs. Whitman is in Dothan, Alabama. Neither of the authors are on the ANA Board, nor on any committees of the ANA. They are gods too important for such lowly pursuits as that. The ANA currently lacks the skills to correctly publish a 16-page pamphlet of Summer Seminar courses. 
 

Also, just above what you quote on page 8 is this: (under #4) “…neither this book nor any other guide is a substitute for hands-on experience..” I urge EVERYONE to read page 8 in its entirety and to take it all as a unified whole, accipitur totum.

The only thing the ANA has done vis a vis this grading guide is to “endorse” the first edition, written by Abe Kosoff, in 1977. There has been NO formal involvement since. 

Edited January 1 by VKurtB

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/30/2023 at 2:18 PM, J P M said:

It is going to end up being a lot of BS. I can see the replies from dealers all ready. You want to sell your MS65 but it is in an NGC or a PCGS holder so it is really a MS64 so you get half of that. If it was in a  CAC  holder it is a real MS65 You still get half from the dealer, but it is real. I still say it is all just an opinion and I am sure JA is not doing the grading by himself. It will be a new experience for all Numismatics everywhere. .  

Mega-thread on this ATS with some very good commentary no matter what side of the fence you sit on.  I highly recommend it. 

We have some good comments on this on the US WORLD COINS section but they have some ex-graders weighing in there which adds to the debate. 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/31/2023 at 1:13 PM, Coinbuf said:

You can doubt me all you want

Typo, CB....I added the word "NO" just now which I must have accidentally deleted while typing and cutting-pasting the long post.   My point was.... you were right and I was wrong.   Instead I typed it as:  I was right and you were wrong (or I didn't believe you)...which wasn't the case. 

Sorry for the confusion. 

Edited January 1 by GoldFinger1969