Another interesting question. Why do we need to get CAC rejected coins reholdered with a different serial number? That would indicate a bias, which isn’t supposed to be there. I bought a three PCGS TPG pioneer gold coins all without sticker. I asked my dealer if they had been sent to CAC. He said he didn’t send them but if I intended to he recommended getting them reholdered with a new serial number in case they previously had been. I don’t have enough experience with resubmission to know but I don’t think it should matter. Does it? Anyone know?
I don't think a new coin number specifically would help for sure. I have never tried sending a coin to cac twice, but I bet they would be fair and honest with each coin.
A number of years ago I sent in an 1803/2 $5 PCGS MS61 OGH and (did not hope for but) expected a gold bean. It was an obvious upgrade and a gold would evoke more juice than green in the next grade. I wouldn't be telling this story if it went gold. I cracked it and sent it in raw. It graded MS62 and went green. Why? It was not, in CAC's opinion, a 62+.
Wait ! CAC doesn't have separate verification levels for plus grades, so why would they have a 62+ grade internally? They will correct egregious numerical deficiencies. The "two-point upgrade" is at least "1.6".
CAC's 62+ is not the equivalent of either a PCGS or NGC 62+, though there is a great deal of overlap. This particular coin had the luster some 64's would envy, but also a "mostly" inobtrusive hairline.
A number of years ago I sent in an 1803/2 $5 PCGS MS61 OGH and (did not hope for but) expected a gold bean. It was an obvious upgrade and a gold would evoke more juice than green in the next grade. I wouldn't be telling this story if it went gold. I cracked it and sent it in raw. It graded MS62 and went green. Why? It was not, in CAC's opinion, a 62+.
Wait ! CAC doesn't have separate verification levels for plus grades, so why would they have a 62+ grade internally? They will correct egregious numerical deficiencies. The "two-point upgrade" is at least "1.6".
CAC's 62+ is not the equivalent of either a PCGS or NGC 62+, though there is a great deal of overlap. This particular coin had the luster some 64's would envy, but also a "mostly" inobtrusive hairline.
Who says that CAC has a 62+ (or other + grade) internally? They ignore plus grades when evaluating coins.
I’ve had about 3-4 sticker when I’ve sent them in again for a second look.
Did you ask JA to review them or were they sent as new coins?
I asked JA to review them for a second look but as my earlier post in this thread stated, I had one coin that was denied a sticker and then regraded at PCGS and awarded a sticker after it was seen again at the same grade with a different cert #.
A number of years ago I sent in an 1803/2 $5 PCGS MS61 OGH and (did not hope for but) expected a gold bean. It was an obvious upgrade and a gold would evoke more juice than green in the next grade. I wouldn't be telling this story if it went gold. I cracked it and sent it in raw. It graded MS62 and went green. Why? It was not, in CAC's opinion, a 62+.
Wait ! CAC doesn't have separate verification levels for plus grades, so why would they have a 62+ grade internally? They will correct egregious numerical deficiencies. The "two-point upgrade" is at least "1.6".
CAC's 62+ is not the equivalent of either a PCGS or NGC 62+, though there is a great deal of overlap. This particular coin had the luster some 64's would envy, but also a "mostly" inobtrusive hairline.
Who says that CAC has a 62+ (or other + grade) internally? They ignore plus grades when evaluating coins.
I mispoke. My understanding is that a coin qualifies for a gold bean if it is high-end for the next grade. Whatever the CAC definition of high-end might be 66.5/66.6/66.7/65.8/ to qualify for upgrade to MS66, there is a point at which each grader must indicate a recommendation for this "high-end". I mispoke in calling it 65+. Maybe I might have call it 65++. Sloppy. It should be called 66+...
CAC has no internal "plus" grades, only a "higher" grade. I think it's important to make this point, which I think is much of the focus of @MarkFeld's concerns.
Many coins are priced as if CAC has validated the "plus", and this often (to usually) results in a higher value being assigned, particularly at auction. The buyer should be aware that any decision made about a TPG assignment of a "plus" grade should be made absent the assumption that CAC validates such a PQ assignment.
@MarkFeld should correct any further mess I've made.
I re-submitted two Morgans that I previously submitted - one 1878 7/8 TF Strong (NGC) and an 1878-CC (PCGS) Both MS64. I was surprised, yet elated that they stickered on their second try! I had purchased the first on ebay and the second at a local coin show.
I bought a rare Liberty Eagle a while back, PCGS pop ~100 in all grades and total CAC pop of 2, knowing that it had previously not stickered. I had it regraded with resulting new certificate number (same PCGS grade) and it failed to sticker again.
Comments
It was an obvious upgrade and a gold would evoke more juice than green in the next grade.
I wouldn't be telling this story if it went gold.
I cracked it and sent it in raw.
It graded MS62 and went green.
Why?
It was not, in CAC's opinion, a 62+.
Wait !
CAC doesn't have separate verification levels for plus grades, so why would they have a 62+ grade internally?
They will correct egregious numerical deficiencies. The "two-point upgrade" is at least "1.6".
CAC's 62+ is not the equivalent of either a PCGS or NGC 62+, though there is a great deal of overlap. This particular coin had the luster some 64's would envy, but also a "mostly" inobtrusive hairline.
CAC has no internal "plus" grades, only a "higher" grade. I think it's important to make this point, which I think is much of the focus of @MarkFeld's concerns.
Many coins are priced as if CAC has validated the "plus", and this often (to usually) results in a higher value being assigned, particularly at auction. The buyer should be aware that any decision made about a TPG assignment of a "plus" grade should be made absent the assumption that CAC validates such a PQ assignment.
@MarkFeld should correct any further mess I've made.