“ it would seem wrong “. And maybe it is but it would be much more harmful to dilute every coin with a CAC sticker. Keep in mind, we have to be diplomatic and state that if a coin doesn’t sticker it doesn’t mean it’s overgraded, it just doesn’t meet out standard. There’s no right and wrong here , every grading service has a different standard . Many feel we are too strict and refuse to send us coins -that’s OK , we’re not looking for 100% market share . JA
100% agree. It only seems wrong from the perspective of the current grading standards. You and CAC should decide on your own grading standard. And if the standard is exactly the same as current CAC stickering standard, that's actually easier for the market and community to understand.
I think that’s a fair point. What about CAC Grading co. labeling problem-free MS65 “C coins” as “65-“, then? That would still fairly recognize the coins as straight-grade 65’s, but at the same time, distinguish them from “B coins” and “A coins” that CAC has been stickering. I’m sure many market participants would object, but that will be the case with any decision that’s made, regardless of how reasonable it is.
A minus has an obvious negative connotation. I don't think it's a good idea to add that.
“ it would seem wrong “. And maybe it is but it would be much more harmful to dilute every coin with a CAC sticker. Keep in mind, we have to be diplomatic and state that if a coin doesn’t sticker it doesn’t mean it’s overgraded, it just doesn’t meet out standard. There’s no right and wrong here , every grading service has a different standard . Many feel we are too strict and refuse to send us coins -that’s OK , we’re not looking for 100% market share . JA
100% agree. It only seems wrong from the perspective of the current grading standards. You and CAC should decide on your own grading standard. And if the standard is exactly the same as current CAC stickering standard, that's actually easier for the market and community to understand.
I think that’s a fair point. What about CAC Grading co. labeling problem-free MS65 “C coins” as “65-“, then? That would still fairly recognize the coins as straight-grade 65’s, but at the same time, distinguish them from “B coins” and “A coins” that CAC has been stickering. I’m sure many market participants would object, but that will be the case with any decision that’s made, regardless of how reasonable it is.
A minus has an obvious negative connotation. I don't think it's a good idea to add that.
It does. But other than a 65- or 64+ grade for such (problem-free, but low end/65 C) coins, what would you suggest?
“ it would seem wrong “. And maybe it is but it would be much more harmful to dilute every coin with a CAC sticker. Keep in mind, we have to be diplomatic and state that if a coin doesn’t sticker it doesn’t mean it’s overgraded, it just doesn’t meet out standard. There’s no right and wrong here , every grading service has a different standard . Many feel we are too strict and refuse to send us coins -that’s OK , we’re not looking for 100% market share . JA
Thank you for thinking through all of these important issues. Being a CAC only collector this makes me feel much better having made that decision years ago. It gives all of us even more confidence in you in particular and CAC in general.
If I'm reading correctly what John is saying, CAC grading will grade current grading standard's 65 "C" problem-free coin as a 64+ grade in a CAC holder. I think that's the best way to handle it.
I think a grade of (65- ) seems like a tainted coin. No question that 64+ sounds more desirable. Grading a coin (65-) is going to make that coin undesirable IMO. Especially to a CAC fan. It seems almost like publishing the coins that get submitted to CAC but fail to sticker. Something to be avoided on several levels.
I’m now puzzled why C coins need to be graded by CAC. Why not simply body bag them, as occurs now when they are returned without a bean? Why should “meh” coins and CAC be associated? I think CAC grading should be the premium grading service for coins that deserve the association, not the “all comers welcome” service, that are the hallmarks of other slab companies. Seeing CAC and a lousy coin associated with each other is a form of brand dilution. IMHO.
I think a grade of (65- ) seems like a tainted coin. No question that 64+ sounds more desirable. Grading a coin (65-) is going to make that coin undesirable IMO. Especially to a CAC fan. It seems almost like publishing the coins that get submitted to CAC but fail to sticker. Something to be avoided on several levels.
I can certainly understand your thinking. And for all I know, you might even be in a large majority. But if so, it’s probably almost entirely due to the significant influence that CAC has had on the marketplace.
Think about pre-CAC days and if the major TPG companies had been using + grades back then… the thought of 65- coins being tainted and perhaps less desirable than 64+‘s would have seemed crazy.😉
On the subject of how CAC should handle “C” coins that are otherwise problem free, I’ve refrained from giving suggestions, but chose to wait to hear from JA.
Now that JA has weighed in, but may be waffling a bit, I’ll throw my two cent suggestions into the ring:
It seems that there’s widespread agreement that problem free but low end coins for the grade (“C” coins) are properly graded. As such, I think it was Mark who suggested giving this coin a minus grade (e.g. MS65-). Yes, there’s a negative connotation, but a low end coin for the grade already has a negative connotation.
By giving “C” coins a minus within its proper grade, several problems are resolved:
1. “C” coins are still given their “proper” grade. 2. There’s NO need for CAC to apply green stickers to their new slabs - a “B” coin will get the whole grade number with NO minus or plus! 3. Since CAC has already decided to use plus grades going forward, “A” coins get a “+” added to the grade number. As you can see, NO green stickers are needed on the new CAC slabs. 4. So following is a new wrinkle that once you think about it for a bit, I believe is OK too. If someone submits a CAC stickered plus coin for crossover (such as 65+), CAC will determine if in their new holder it will grade 65, 65+, or possibly 66-. We know from its old green sticker it shouldn’t get a 65-. So while some may see the 66- grade as negative, I think that with time, many will see a “boost/upgrade” to a 66- from a 65+ as truly an upgrade. As such, minus coins can then over time lose some of what some initially feel is a negative connotation.
As one who has plenty of plus coins, I would welcome upgrades to the next higher grade, even with a minus. Not only would that coin get more registry points, it SHOULD have a higher market value as well, especially in the higher grades. How many times do we see very expensive 67 coins with no CAC sticker, yet they sell for a LOT more than my 66+ CAC coins! Those coins in a new CAC holder with grades of 67- (or 68-) should still hold their value!
I’m now puzzled why C coins need to be graded by CAC. Why not simply body bag them, as occurs now when they are returned without a bean? Why should “meh” coins and CAC be associated? I think CAC grading should be the premium grading service for coins that deserve the association, not the “all comers welcome” service, that are the hallmarks of other slab companies. Seeing CAC and a lousy coin associated with each other is a form of brand dilution. IMHO.
Why is an attractive eye appealing C coin with a few extra contact marks undesirable? It should rightly be a 64 or 64+ coin in the new CAC holder
A little off subject. But for the CAC registry how will you determine the weight of each coin. For seated dollars I’d like to suggest the developers utilize the CAC population report rather then survival estimates.
Cacnut- I believe you are misinterpreting a bit. A “ lousy “ coin meaning a cleaned coin as in the 1893-s dollar example, I agree , it shouldn’t be straight graded. The other example of the problem free Saint Gaudens grading ms65 and not quite earning a sticker, would in fact be a premium coin as an ms64. JA
Winesteven There was never an intent for CAC Grading to label coins 66c or 66- . Ms 65 is considered to be a “gem” and gem coins should never have a negative qualifier . I hope this clears up the confusion. John A
Not sure where to put this … but I’d like to comment on the future registry.
It is my sincere hope ( and I have no reason to believe it won’t be ) that the registries are monitored and sets are kept up to date / current and accurate. A few members have noticed that some sets are either partially made up containing coins not owned . A big problem is also retired sets being left in the current column as well. One set in Saints date set is both of the above , thus keeping my set at # 6 when it should be #5. Several of us have requested it be removed . Person even acknowledged the situation yet hasn’t acted in good faith . Its extremely unfair and frustrating . Hoping cac registry can police matters like these .
Winesteven There was never an intent for CAC Grading to label coins 66c or 66- . Ms 65 is considered to be a “gem” and gem coins should never have a negative qualifier . I hope this clears up the confusion. John A
It seems that a priority is maintaining value of CAC stickered coins while at the same time allowing the market to work out what is perhaps preferred and/or is not desirable. One way to do this may be to change the style of CAC stickers applied to holders after CAC grading is up and running. This would allow for previously stickered coins to be distinguishable from newly beaned coins which could possibly be perceived differently as JA's time will be split between the NJ and the VA operations and the reduced time may not allow for final review of the to-be-beaned coins by JA himself. In such a scenario it would make sense to have both old/new style stickered coins be automatically accepted into the new CAC holders if desired. The market can then easily distinguish between classic stickers/new stickers/new holders and be the ultimate judge. This idea may admittedly muddy the waters somewhat but would allow for collectors to make the final decision where they think the value lies.
I'm having a hard time seeing how putting C coins in lower grade CAC holders doesn't dilute the CAC brand. Those C coins are not currently CAC coins. If you put them in CAC holders, even at a lower grade, they will now be CAC coins if there is no indication on the holder that they were previously not CAC coins. How does that not dilute the pool of CAC coins? It seems like that would create a bifurcated market for CAC coins, with CAC stickered coins being the most valuable, and CAC holdered coins being worth less because they now include coins that were not previously CAC coins. What am I missing?
Comments
Thank you for thinking through all of these important issues. Being a CAC only collector this makes me feel much better having made that decision years ago.
It gives all of us even more confidence in you in particular and CAC in general.
Think about pre-CAC days and if the major TPG companies had been using + grades back then… the thought of 65- coins being tainted and perhaps less desirable than 64+‘s would have seemed crazy.😉
Now that JA has weighed in, but may be waffling a bit, I’ll throw my two cent suggestions into the ring:
It seems that there’s widespread agreement that problem free but low end coins for the grade (“C” coins) are properly graded. As such, I think it was Mark who suggested giving this coin a minus grade (e.g. MS65-). Yes, there’s a negative connotation, but a low end coin for the grade already has a negative connotation.
By giving “C” coins a minus within its proper grade, several problems are resolved:
1. “C” coins are still given their “proper” grade.
2. There’s NO need for CAC to apply green stickers to their new slabs - a “B” coin will get the whole grade number with NO minus or plus!
3. Since CAC has already decided to use plus grades going forward, “A” coins get a “+” added to the grade number. As you can see, NO green stickers are needed on the new CAC slabs.
4. So following is a new wrinkle that once you think about it for a bit, I believe is OK too. If someone submits a CAC stickered plus coin for crossover (such as 65+), CAC will determine if in their new holder it will grade 65, 65+, or possibly 66-. We know from its old green sticker it shouldn’t get a 65-. So while some may see the 66- grade as negative, I think that with time, many will see a “boost/upgrade” to a 66- from a 65+ as truly an upgrade. As such, minus coins can then over time lose some of what some initially feel is a negative connotation.
As one who has plenty of plus coins, I would welcome upgrades to the next higher grade, even with a minus. Not only would that coin get more registry points, it SHOULD have a higher market value as well, especially in the higher grades. How many times do we see very expensive 67 coins with no CAC sticker, yet they sell for a LOT more than my 66+ CAC coins! Those coins in a new CAC holder with grades of 67- (or 68-) should still hold their value!
Steve
It is my sincere hope ( and I have no reason to believe it won’t be ) that the registries are monitored and sets are kept up to date / current and accurate. A few members have noticed that some sets are either partially made up containing coins not owned . A big problem is also retired sets being left in the current column as well. One set in Saints date set is both of the above , thus keeping my set at # 6 when it should be #5. Several of us have requested it be removed . Person even acknowledged the situation yet hasn’t acted in good faith . Its extremely unfair and frustrating . Hoping cac registry can police matters like these .
Thank you
Steve
This idea may admittedly muddy the waters somewhat but would allow for collectors to make the final decision where they think the value lies.