Is there a guide to the no grade codes that appear on CACG holders? For example, PCGS has this page where they specify 82 = filed rims, 91 = questionable color, etc. Since the equivalent page on the CACG website does not include the numerical codes, I did a quick survey of CACG Details holders and found the following (each line represents the no grade code and verbal description from a holder): 84 - Harshly Cleaned 86 - Cleaned 86 - Damage 86 - Scratched 87 - Cleaned 87 - Damage 88 - Cleaned 89 - Cleaned 89 - Damage 89 - Questionable Surfaces 99 - Harshly Cleaned There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason here.
See this link, CAC Grading Details Code Breakdown I will note that the link somehow doesn't actually list the "codes" for each problem type.... If I were to guess, the didn't come back and update that link once they had locked them all in to list the code next to the description and name.
This is what I have been able to come up with so far: .80 = Poor details (not verified) .81 = Fair details .82 = About Good details .83 = Good details .84 = VG details .85 = F details .86 = VF details .87 = XF details .88 = AU details .89 = UNC details / MS details (I have seen both using .89) .90 = MS details (not verified) .99 = Proof details Meaning, they don't work like PCGS codes. These numbers don't represent the human readable listed problem on the slab (cleaned, bent, scratch, etc), they represent the GRADE only (good details, MS details, etc.)
Ah! I did not consider the possibility that the code corresponds to the level of detail, not the particular problem with the coin. So far your scale seems to match up. Also, it appears that UNC Details and MS Details are both designated by 89:
HMM, that is crazy! Doesn't fit at all with the last ~200 problem coins I just reviewed!? So now, .89 = (UNC details, MS details, & Poor details)
I am actually kind of surprised to see problem coins in CAC holders... I thought the point of CAC was to weed out the problem coins! Kind of dilutes the brand.
I dont have problem with a grading company slabbing problem coins, but I do have a problem with their decision to include the green been on the problem slabs. MANY CAC fans also objected to this (forums posts on CAC forums among other places), but in the end, it was a business decision they made. They should have simply lacked the green been, it would have been a nice visual cue for problem coins.
Scratch? Like that tiny little mark on the cheek? Good lord that's tough to deal with! A 99 year old coin got handled? Clutches pearls...
Thus far I am quite baffled by CACG coin grading. I have only had a chance to see a few dozen Seated Coins in slabs so statistically there is no way any assumptions can be drawn. On the other hand I have seen 2 extremes in the last 2 days. 1 was a coin for auction with (my guess) is a small scratch in the left obverse field about one quarter inch. Scratch looks rather new but didn't seem to be so bad it warranted a detail grade. Coin 2 had numerous very old scratches but was in a straight grade holder. not sure yet if age of scratches makes a difference. james
