Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GoldFinger1969, post: 24872844, member: 73489&quot;]<b><i>Charley, I&#039;m just trying to see what CACG is doing now vs. what JA and CAC said 15 years ago.&nbsp; That&#039;s it.</i></b></p><p><br /></p><p>And yeah, at the time -- and he certainly has the right to change his mind, I fully agree -- but JA said he had no intention of creating an additional TPG under the CAC banner.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>So...the reversal on how &quot;C&quot; coins are treated (not &quot;D&quot; or &quot;F&quot; coins clearly overgraded) is what has changed.</b>&nbsp; Back in the early-days (and maybe in recent years, too) CAC saw lots of heavily bagged coins that nonetheless got a grade like MS-65 and JA/CAC concurred it was OK for a 65 but not a CAC sticker.</p><p><br /></p><p>What he is saying now is that if he sees the same exact MS-65 &quot;C&quot; coin, it would NOT be graded or cross to a CACG MS-65 holder.&nbsp; The CAC holder is implying solid for the grade -- like an &quot;A&quot; or &quot;B&quot; coin meriting a CAC sticker.</p><p><br /></p><p>If I&#039;m wrong on this (and I&nbsp; have been corrected a few times already, so I&#039;m not discounting the possibility <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie8" alt=":D" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />), tell me what I posted was wrong.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in