Check this CAC grading comparison

See the link below. I found this to be very interesting the differences betwen CAC and primarily PCGS. Opinions appreciated. I just did a horrible job of posting the link.

My opinion is there appears to be varied opinions in coin grading as many have said for many years.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Link?

 

Some of these things are hard to determine thru a slab and then a video. Just using the first couple, one would have to go to the definitions that CACG uses to determine QC and environmental damage. Both the SMS and Small date had terminal toning. I don't disagree at all with the grade. Infact I don't have a problem with the majority of the slabs seen in the video. There has been a need for a market correction for a while now. Call it conservative, well anything you want. Sliders should be called out for what they are a details coin or an AU. The Eagles sure didn't have that blazing, eye widening luster that a 69 or even a 70 should have so, I am on board with the grades.

On the other hand the dealer could have sent out below standard coins knowing that they wouldn't receive the grades that they had in the first place. (click bait?)

Anyways!

 

I took a look at the video twice, what a loss for the submitter. I have seen a lot of CACG details coins on eBay and wondered…..That submitter must be furious. I would need closer examination and not obstructed by original TPG label.

However - do you think some appear to be low end coins to begin with? A case in point why one would want specify minimum grade on a submission.

 

It felt like a large # of older, improperly stored cents in that collection.

 

I have a file of photos that I have saved over the years called "CAC Question." They are the pieces that I thought fell short of the assigned grade despite the fact that they have a green CAC sticker.

I think that CAC gets it right over 95% of the time, but it's the clunkers and some of the rejects which get to me. There are collectors and dealers who disparage every coin that does not have a CAC sticker. They imply that CAC has seen 100% of the graded coins, which is clearly not true.

Sometimes I’m glad when I see a coin that I like which does not have the sticker. That means I can probably buy it for less money. If this coin had gotten a sticker, I would not own it. PCGS graded it AU-58. At one time it was in an NGC MS-62 holder.



Here are a couple CAC approved coins which I thought missed the mark.

1861 $20 gold




Compare that one with this 1861 which is graded AU-58



Monroe Commemorative graded MS-67.




Compare it with this one graded MS-64, which costs far less. (Grey Sheet numbers, $20,000 for the MS-67, $180 for the MS-64.

 

I have watched enough of the video to make a comment and know of several CACG coins that were returned back into straigh grade holders.

Grading is a personal thing (subjective). The "correctness" of that grade opinion by anyone is influenced by many factors; however, RIGHT OR WRONG that opinion is subject to change. In spite of all the factors that may change that grade such as market conditions, gradeflation, etc. a majority consensus by knowledgeable examiners is what will dtermine a satisfactory grade opinion at that time. This is what the TPGS have tried to do for all of us. Obviously, all TPGS are not the same yet four have managed to be successful and now there will probably be a fifth.

I worked at the INS Authentication Bureau whice was the the first coin grading service in the U.S. INS was the second authentication service. We graded coins for free until the second grading service at the ANA's Authentication Service charged to have a coin graded. Our grading was extremely strict. It was based on Sheldon's verbal descriptions for each grade. Our ONLY consideration was the coin's condition of preservation from the day it was made. The ANA's employees at the second grading service unsucessfully tried to copy our system and failed. They called our original system which they failed to understand "Technical Grading."

As soon as coin dealers became involved by attempting to put a value on a coin using commercial grading, net grading and market acceptability, the simple act of of ranking a coin's condition of preservation - its grade (as long as the coin remained the same) that would never change over time became impossible. The video is further proof.

One thing you shold all know is that when any new TPGS (I'll use NGC and PCGS as examples) start out they are very strict until the "market" slaps them into conformity. Otherwise, they die like the first grading service.

As for the video, market acceptability to corrosion, slight friction, scratches, and other minor problems will cause many coins to be rejected by CACG. They will either be able to return grading back to a stricter time, or they will have to loosen up big time!

 

Iwas waiting for someone to post along this logic.

 

Having been around for over 60 years, I'll tell you what a "wrong grade" is. It's when you try to sell a coin for which you have paid the current going rate or which now has a value established for the grade, which all of the offers are less than 50% of what you paid. I learned those lessons the hard way, and that was one of the ways I learned to grade.

 

The backlash on Instagram is fairly strong. Lots of complaints about the strictness of CAC grading. It seems to be a common occurrence that if you send your coins to this company, they down grade or details. I've never understood the desire to regrade already graded coins, but I'm not much of a gambler.

 

All grading services have their fans and detractors, and arguing with them is worse than arguing about politics or religion. Occasionally, perhaps only at the point of a sword, you can convert somebody's politics or religion.

The CACG fans are going to take this video as "See, we were right, CACG is the one true arbitrator of the one true grade".

Detractors are going to point to coins turned in the holders and say "other grading company was correct at the time they viewed the coin, they're not responsible for what happens afterwards". Given the labels look like 2012-2014 era, there could be truth both ways.

 

The ultimate Logic that applies to the Thread conversation is that the Market will produce the answer.

 

Still, even if I agree that some of the Lincolns may have reached terminal toning since their original grading, that still leaves a group of coins that are body-bagged for really marginal reasons.

Nearly every Morgan, for example, has dings and scratches from mint handling. When you throw a bagful of heavy silver disks together, it’s bound to happen. It’s pretty unusual for a coin to survive that abuse unmarked. Let’s now grade every Morgan to the standard that a 1/4 inch ding results in a Details - Scratched grade. Now we have, say, 90% of all Morgans grade out at MS60 (Details), and the other 10% spread out among the remaining grades.

I really despise the Details grade. It throws away all the other useful information about the coin. For example, if we removed the barely perceptible scratch from the Morgan in the video, would it still be a 60, or a 65, maybe 67? How is the eye appeal? Is it lustrous? Toned? Frankly, would I like it?

All of that information is thrown away - all you get is “Details”. Then you are back to treating all these coins as ungraded, in that you have to grade it yourself to decide if it is worth having. As a collector, I would not buy a coin sight unseen anyway. For the market that treats graded coins as a commodity with a price, that can no longer be done if any tiny flaw grades as Details.

 

There are early ANACS slabs where they tried to do that... AU55 Scratched Net VF35 Details.

 

If I were King and started a new grading service, my two main areas of concern would be

• The AU/MS problem. Treat wear like any other flaw, but keep it balanced with other criteria. Don’t let AU58 be better than MS62.
• The Details problem. Don’t drop any uncirculated coin’s grade straight to Details. Deduct for flaws, sure, but set up a sliding scale for just how much they deduct from the “eye appeal” score. A tiny ding on a Morgan might drop it 1/2 point, while gouges all over the cheek drop at least a full point, just for example. Treating an MS66 coin with a small ding as if it were MS60 does no one any good, in my opinion.

I don’t see the point of using a grading scale that makes it harder, instead of easier, to tell what the coin is really like. I think I would have liked the ANACS approach better.

 

It seems odd to me that someone would spend so much to have all those Lincolns graded again.

 

Agreed. Sure makes it seem like someone collected together all their marginal coins just to see what would happen. Which is what @Pickin and Grinin was wondering earlier in this thread.

At this rate they will have had it graded by PCGS or NGC, then by CACg to get Details, then again by another company to see if they can get some semblance of the original grade back again. By then the entire value of the coin will have been spent on grading.

 

This problem has NOTHING TO DO with grading. IMO, you have posted the difference between wholesale and retail.

Those Lincolns were probably corroded when they were holdered. Want proof? Look at the auctions for beautifully toned coins. A very large number of them have terminal black corroded rims!

As for the Monroe 50c comparison, at the moment colorful toning is popular. Therefore, in order to put a "value" on a coin the TPGS gives a grade bump for color. Trying to put a value on a coin with a grade number is stupid. That's why a very large number of coins that were considered to be XF's at one time are nw considered MS! As their value exploded into five figures, their grade needed to be changed in the market. If common sense had prevailed coins graded XF in the 1940's would still be graded XF. Only today, a collector would need to pay $$,$$$ for that XF!

That's what original "Technical grading" was all about. A very strict "archival" grade that would never change that folks could price any way they pleased then and into the future forever. Dealers did not like it at all. So along came PCGS and the rest is history.