Guide to CACG No Grade Codes?

Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by jackrabb1t, Jul 29, 2025 at 12:48 PM.

  1. jackrabb1t

    jackrabb1t Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. geekpryde

    geekpryde Husband and Father Moderator

    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.... o_O

    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.
     
  4. geekpryde

    geekpryde Husband and Father Moderator

    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.)
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2025 at 2:18 PM
    Mr. Numismatist likes this.
  5. jackrabb1t

    jackrabb1t Well-Known Member

    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:

    [​IMG]
     
    geekpryde likes this.
  6. jackrabb1t

    jackrabb1t Well-Known Member

    This is interesting. I found a Poor Details CACG slab...and it's using 89:

    [​IMG]
     
    geekpryde likes this.
  7. geekpryde

    geekpryde Husband and Father Moderator

    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) :wacky:
     
  8. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes?

    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.
     
  9. geekpryde

    geekpryde Husband and Father Moderator

    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.
     
    Mr. Numismatist likes this.
  10. No_Ragrets

    No_Ragrets Self-proclaimed Semi-Amateur Numismatist Supporter

    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...
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page