How can we see the CAC population of plus-graded coins? — Welcome to the CAC Educational Forum

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

How can we see the CAC population of plus-graded coins?

edited July 29 in General
Have seen Legend reference the CAC population of plus-graded coins. Can that be done using the website?

Please and thank you.
«1

Comments

  • edited July 29
    deleted
  • Thanks @ptolemyII, that was my understanding as well. I didn't keep a record of when those descriptions were made (something like 'this is only the 6th plus-graded coin approved by CAC') although similar comments were made on several occasions over the last 2/3 years.

    Semantics are critical here. Perhaps Legend was simply acknowledging the sticker on an already existing plus-graded coin without the suggestion that CAC gave their additional stamp of approval on the plus grade separately. So I might have misunderstood.

    In the end, the question is this: Is the population of CAC approved plus graded coins just a part of the overall CAC approved population for that grade, or are the plus graded coins in addition to and separate from the population of straight graded coins for that grade? Appreciate the clarification @CAC_Team.
  • edited July 28
    They are part of the single population for every grade listed. And because the info isn't available to some doesn't mean it isn't available to others. And if not available at all, it could be available with little problem if someone wanted it to be.
  • edited July 28
    All answers above are correct.

    Regarding Legend, when there are only a few coins in a grade with a plus, often times it’s not difficult at all to see the cert numbers of those coins with pluses, and then plug those Certs into the publicly available CAC Coin Look-Up tool, and you can then easily see how many and which of those plus coins have CAC stickers. I’ve done this myself!

    The key point, which is widely misunderstood by many in our hobby, is that when a coin with a plus has a CAC sticker, CAC is NOT saying that coin is solid as a plus, but is saying that the coin is only solid for that whole grade number.

    Additionally, the figures used in the CAC Price Guide are based on sales only of CAC coins without pluses.

    Steve
  • All answers above are correct.

    Regarding Legend, when there are only a few coins in a grade with a plus, often times it’s not difficult at all to see the cert numbers of those coins with pluses, and then plug those Certs into the publicly available CAC Coin Look-Up tool, and you can then easily see how many and which of those plus coins have CAC stickers. I’ve done this myself!

    The key point, which is widely misunderstood by many in our hobby, is that when a coin with a plus has a CAC sticker, CAC is NOT saying that coin is solid as a plus, but is saying that the coin is only solid for that whole grade number.

    Additionally, the figures used in the CAC Price Guide are based on sales only of CAC coins without pluses.

    Steve

    I would say the prices represent all coins sold at that grade, regardless of plus or absence of plus.
  • edited July 28
    I disagree, but perhaps @johnFeigenbaum can jump in and clarify, including his rationale.

    There are often situations in high grades where a plus will double the market value of a coin that is just a whole grade, like with an 1858 Large Letters Flying Eagle Cent, going from a MS66 to a MS66+. My understanding is that sales of those MS66+ coins are not reflected in the CAC Market Value prices of MS66, even though they ARE indeed included in the CAC pop figures!

    Steve
  • If a coin has a +designation and the coin is evaluated by CAC for only the numeric Grade given by the TPG and not evaluating the TPG + designation, then somebody is doing something that could possibly be described as illogical logic.
  • edited July 28
    john said:

    If a coin has a +designation and the coin is evaluated by CAC for only the numeric Grade given by the TPG and not evaluating the TPG + designation, then somebody is doing something that could possibly be described as illogical logic.

    Or it can be described as logical, as this is indeed what CAC does. While CAC will only sticker a coin that CAC believes merits the suffix, such as a color (BN RB, RD) or CAM or DCAM, they will NOT take into account if a coin has a "+" or not. For those, the plus is ignored, and the coin is only evaluated if it is solid for that whole grade number.

    Coins with a plus are basically at the very high end of the whole grade number, and CAC will sticker coins that are "B" coins and "A" coins. Notice that CAC does not differentiate or identify which coins are "A" or "B". That's the logic behind CAC's decision to ignore "+" grades, but only decide based on the whole grade number. So as I stated in my earlier reply above, if you see a coin with a CAC sticker that has a "+" grade (such as a MS66+), CAC is NOT saying that coin is solid as a 66+, but the sticker represents only that in CAC's opinion the coin is solid as 66.

    Steve
  • I think you may have missed the point I was presenting.....I was not commenting on A Mr. Feld Hypothetical. I'm a forgiving Soul, though, and accordingly, I Bless You.
  • My apologies for the misinterpretation. Thanks for your forgiveness.
  • You are very welcome. I distribute forgiveness frequently, for free.
    There is never any need to ever apologize to me for anything. I am not important enough to think there was some imaginative transgression, anyway.
  • edited July 29
    deleted
  • ptolemyII , thanks, but CAC has confirmed many times that they ignore plus grades, and only determine if their sticker should be applied based on just the whole grade number. Perhaps the only question that may need to be addressed is by @johnFeigenbaum regarding if sales of plus graded coins are incorporated into their pricing model of CAC retail values. I believe they are ignored, but no harm in having John Feigenbaum confirm or disagree.
  • edited July 29
    deleted

  • ptolemyll, no, I was just replying to your suggestion that I first pm @JACAC before making the statement that I made. I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that you were referring to my statement that CAC ignores plus grades in determining if a coin merits their sticker, and I said that CAC has made it clear many times that when they apply a sticker to a coin with a plus, they are NOT saying that coin is solid as a plus, but is only solid for that whole grade number.

    If I misinterpreted your point just above, my apologies for interpreting it the way I did.

    Steve
  • edited July 29
    deleted
  • @ptolemyII said:"your illogical logic comment could possibly be described as trolling"...

    you would be a babe in the woods in a Feld Hypothetical discussion.

    Is your nap time late morning or early evening?

    We can work it out, I think.
  • edited July 29
    deleted
  • It always makes me curious when a coin with a plus doesn't CAC. It makes me look closer to try and figure out why?
  • ptolemyII said:

    I cannot accept an apology for those you have misinformed.
    .
    You stated all previous statements above your first were correct.
    You decided to play expert and restated my "already correct" statement. How can you imagine I then would advise you to check with JA about something in which we were in agreement? What else was left? Good grief!
    .
    CAC doesn't differentiate or identify which coins are "A" and "B", That's the logic behind CAC's decision to ignore "+" grades.
    .
    That is very definitely NOT the logic behind CAC's decision to ignore the "+". A conflation of apples and oranges. There is no logical connection between their appraisal of eye-appeal and evaluation of technical grade. You're right about why they ignore the "+", but totally off about what "A" and "B" have to do with it. Which is nothing. Please amend your assumed air of expert explication. Talking the talk isn't as robust as 40 years of walking the walk :)
    .

    Rick, I think you’re making much more of that remark than was called for. And more importantly (as well as worse), you’re being unfairly harsh with an extremely conscientious, helpful and gentlemanly poster.
This discussion has been closed.