PCGS, NGC or CAC?

I've never submitted so the policies and procedures are not my forte.

I just know that earlier this year (late last-year, too) there were posts from folks with 1st-hand accouts of getting graded out of the Mint State bucket to AU or Details. I didn't really see much concern or angst about 1-grade lower submissions though there were a few.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm glad they are both around, FWIW.

I think there's a big difference though between CAC and CACG. With CAC, you sent in your PCGS or NGC coin and either got a bean or didn't -- the underlying grade didn't change.

With CACG, not only is the grade possibly going down (usually, though some coins might go up) but the big fear has been seeing formerly Mint State coins downgraded to AU or Details. Either because of wear or rub or friction or altered surfaces or whatever....when you send the coin in to CACG they just don't evaluate whether the coin is strong for the grade or not, they look at the grade itself.

In the past, the majority of U.S. domestic coins that sought the highest registry or monetary value usually tried for PCGS and a CAC sticker. Now, things are in flux as some collectors and big-time dealers have to decide if PCGS + CAC > CACG.

I have no dog in this hunt, I'm just trying to follow it from a distance.

 

CACG vs. CAC: Implied in my post above, but not stated directly....if CAC didn't sticker you had no idea if it meant the coin was OK for the grade... just not solid/exceptional....and thus no sticker.

But it also could mean because it was WAY overgraded (1-2 increments)...or worse....should have been deemed AU or Details but PCGS or NGC were lenient on a slight amount of rub/wear/friction on a single high-pint and net-graded the coin and kept it as Mint State because overall it looked great, had fantastic luster, etc.

That's the big thing with CACG as far as I can tell.

 

OK.
your thoughts confirm you are not JA.
THAT is the thrust of my commentary.

But, OK.

 

I should really make sure I don't send my Morgans in then, because some of them are borderline AU-MS. At least some of the more expensive ones like '03-O, 94-S, and so on.

I'm about 95% sure I'll pull the trigger and join up with CACG because I really don't mind an honest grade, even if that means my coin is downgraded to something I might not initially appreciate. I wonder how many 150-200+ year old coins they think exist that have never seen a thread of fabric touch it's surface though. Obviously, it if was wiped clean it deserves to be called out as such, but for a true straight-graded coin with no indication of fabric incidentally sliding along the fields (like being put into a pocket and taken out) over the course of a century or two, there can't be many examples out there.

All in all, I'm kind of excited to try out CACG. I want to see how close (or far) I am from their grade when I try to estimate here and expect it to straight grade. And seeing those pictures from above... wow! Surely better than I can do, and it seems the True View isn't very true anymore.

 

I know. That is why I worded the response as I did. I hear and read the same commentary as you mentioned, and it is disingenuous pouting. It is humbling to discover that the expert expert does not know how to grade, and some eon't admit it so mouth off.

If these expert experts were the best of the best of the best, why did they submit to JA entities at all?

Savvy?

THIS IS ESPECIALLY FACT WHEN GOLD PIECES ARE THE SUBJECT OF GRADING.

That causes wailing and gnashing of teeth and hair pulling.

Good.

 

You will never hear me post squat about grading gold. That is pure sorcery, human sacrifice, dogs and cats sleeping together, mass hysteria!

 

I think they can grade -- some are former graders, others collectors for over 50 years -- but they were surprised by the "zero-tolerance" standard imposed by CACG which certainly is a rupture with what they expect from PCGS and NGC.

People value consistency above all, I guess. CACG in some instances was being 100% strict and so the coin with a minute amount of wear/friction/rub on a single high-point despite fabulous attributes elsewhere (i.e., luster)....was NOT being "net-graded" but dropped to the AU bucket.

Not sure...curiousity....wanted to see if the grade held or went down by 1 increment (clearly, some went down lots more).

People have lots of respect for JA given his history so they were certainly going to be drawn to CACG. What I want to see if someone like LS, who was the #1 cheerleader for PCGS + CAC stickers.....will now be 100% behind CACG, 50-50, or only marginally pro-CACG.

JA (and CAC/CACG) do have the reputation of being tough gold graders. Probably a result of the laxness that appeared from time-to-time over the decades.

 

Excellent poiints.

Yes, I've often wondered/posted if a coin sliding in-and-out of a velvet pouch is technically guilty of having "wear" on the high points and thus can not be called MS but only AU.

I think anybody who sends coins to CACG and doesn't mind the risk of a lower grade should at least take photos of the coin in the existing holder with the grade and bar code so in the future they can at least say "Hey, this is a CACG AU-58 but another TPG had it MS-64 for years."

 

Do you have personal experience or evidence of large numbers of MS-graded coins being crossed to CACG and getting AU grades? This is kind of sounding like one of those "people are saying" type things. "Sliders" are an issue with every TPG. I'm having trouble believing the blanket assertion you are making.

 

Read her commentary. She has no complaints. her complaints are the lack of "Premium $" being low, for the quality, and that the Market is not building in true value, except for the price of Gold increase.

I tend to agree, IN GENERAL,, with the trust of her commentary, and the present Market conditions pricing. Ms. Sperber does have 'a way with words', so to speak.

BUT, she knows her shat, definitely.

 

I think that I will join CACG. Their prices seem reasonable and at the moment they claim that their turnaround times are relatively quick compared to the other TPG companies. I have bit of raw pre 1900 gold including eight classic head coins that I would like to get graded.

 

Let us know how it turns out. Cal

 

I don't think I am making "blanket assertions", KB. I'm just repeating what I've seen in a few threads over at CAC and PCGS forums. Maybe we haven't had any here or they weren't that active.

I wouldn't say it is LARGE numbers of MS-graded coins getting hit from MS to AU. I would say it is some (plus Details grades) from what I have read. Something not seen with any frequency when re-submitting from NGC to PCGS or vice-versa. The submitters were not beginners but folks who thought their PCGS/NGC grades were pretty solid for what they were given and figured downside was limited. Instead, a few went down 4-6 grade increments which was a shock to them.

These comments are this year, so they should be easy to find.

 

In other words, "people are saying."

 

I don't know about this umm CAC stuff, but it sounds like another ploy to get money out of people and increase value.
I'd rather buy either cheap on graded coins or just plain "raw" and I'll protect and self-grade it. After all. I don't sell often. Just give away coins for Xmas.
JMO of course....

 

Well, they're reporting back after getting the results.

I'm assuming nobody is lying. Some are showing pics.

 

THAT is not the basis of JA and what he is doing, and doing well, since late 2007. His efforts are directed at....and have been for many years....improving the Hobby for the Collector.

Money he does not need. Fame he does not need. Ability he does not need. Ploys are not a motivation and method he uses to improve the Hobby for Collectors.

 

C'mon, now...however in the spirit of Good Will, maybe we can agree to employ the words ".....maybe somebody is embellishing...".