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?
If you have a problem-free 65 C coin, do you actually feel it shouldn’t be straight graded at any grade in the new CAC Grading Company holder, while at the same time, a 64 A or 64 B example should be holdered? That would make no sense to me.
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?
As long as we’re talking about “problem free” C coins, I suspect that even today if that 65 C coin was put in a PCGS or NGC holder as a 64+, that CAC would indeed apply their sticker to that holder.
After all, the only reason that problem free 65C coin did not sticker is because it was “not solid” for the 65 grade. If it’s reholdered to a PCGS or NGC 64+, it would be deemed solid for the grade.
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?
Yup this really cuts to the root of the issue. I don’t think you’re missing anything and it’s a hard problem!
Here’s a crazy idea: Keep the stickers! I’m only half kidding.
* Today’s CAC coins move over to CAC holders properly graded with (embdedded) stickers.
* Coins that are overgraded but still otherwise worthy (eg a 65 Saint that’s not quite there) gets a 64 w/ sticker (same as what would happen today, basically. A nice Saint that’s not quite fully gem wouldn’t sticker at PCGS 65 but would sticker at PCGS 64.
* Coins that don’t earn a sticker due to garbage surfaces (“market acceptable”) get Details grades at CAC.
* And those tough in-between coins that are ok-but-not-quite-premium get straight grades in new CAC holders but without the embedded sticker.
That would keep parity with today’s system (a PCGS no-sticker 65 and a CAC no-sticker 65 are basically equivalent), the stickered coins are still the premium ones for the grade, but we all have a one-stop shop to get our coins graded & (maybe) stickered without having to ship coins all over the place.
I see no reason to distinguish sticker appearance just because JA is not present a small amount of time each month.
From reading this and other forums I think some collectors perceive a particular value in having JA himself evaluate a coin for a bean. If JA is unable to review each of the beaned coins in the future, as I understand he does now, then there could be a perceived value loss by some people. Therefore, switching to a new bean style would allow for a clear choice by collectors if JA does in fact stop reviewing all applied stickers in the future.
Mark Feld said: "If you have a problem-free 65 C coin, do you actually feel it shouldn’t be straight graded at any grade in the new CAC Grading Company holder, while at the same time, a 64 A or 64 B example should be holdered?"
No. I feel that a problem-free coin of any kind should be straight graded since it's problem-free. But that just points out the dilemma of trying to do this. It may be the "right" thing to do, but it will still increase the pool of CAC coins, and won't that dilute the brand?
Winesteven makes a good point that if these coins were downgraded by PCGS and NGC and then resubmitted to CAC that they might get stickered (although there seem to be some that don't when that actually does happen). But doesn't that just mean that every problem-free coin is a CAC coin at some grade level? And if that's the case the the population of "CAC" coins would explode, and wouldn't that just dilute the brand?
Mark Feld said: "If you have a problem-free 65 C coin, do you actually feel it shouldn’t be straight graded at any grade in the new CAC Grading Company holder, while at the same time, a 64 A or 64 B example should be holdered?"
No. I feel that a problem-free coin of any kind should be straight graded since it's problem-free. But that just points out the dilemma of trying to do this. It may be the "right" thing to do, but it will still increase the pool of CAC coins, and won't that dilute the brand?
Winesteven makes a good point that if these coins were downgraded by PCGS and NGC and then resubmitted to CAC that they might get stickered (although there seem to be some that don't when that actually does happen). But doesn't that just mean that every problem-free coin is a CAC coin at some grade level? And if that's the case the the population of "CAC" coins would explode, and wouldn't that just dilute the brand?
As long as, one way or another, the C coins are differentiated from the B and A coins, there shouldn’t be any dilution of the brand.
MS 65 "C" problem-free coin should be graded MS 64++ to distinguish it from a single plus for a 64 "A" coin
your suggestion may be heading in the right direction and i realize what you have to say carries tons more weight than anything i can mention here .. but can you also suggest simply keeping all 65 coins in 65 holders, but add a single '+' to represent 'b' and a double '++' to represent 'a' and the 65 slab without a '+' will be known to represent 'c'
Noahlh said: Here’s a crazy idea: Keep the stickers! I’m only half kidding. * Today’s CAC coins move over to CAC holders properly graded with (embdedded) stickers. * Coins that are overgraded but still otherwise worthy (eg a 65 Saint that’s not quite there) gets a 64 w/ sticker (same as what would happen today, basically. A nice Saint that’s not quite fully gem wouldn’t sticker at PCGS 65 but would sticker at PCGS 64. * Coins that don’t earn a sticker due to garbage surfaces (“market acceptable”) get Details grades at CAC. * And those tough in-between coins that a fine but not quite premium get straight grades in new CAC holders but without the embedded sticker
----------
I think you summarized it nicely. The problem is in trying to be a one-stop shop for holdering all coins, while still maintaining the premium perception of the CAC brand. It's the second and fourth categories you listed that would dramatically increase the population of "CAC" coins, and the fourth category especially that would really degrade the perception of the CAC brand if there is no "embedded sticker" or some other differentiation on the holder to distinguish them from current CAC worthy coins.
Call me naive if you want, but somehow I don't think the notion that every problem-free coin is a "CAC" coin at the right grade level is going to fly with people (not counting details coins).
If they somehow distinguish the C coins from the A and B coins in their CAC holders then I think it would function much like it does now, with coins either having a CAC "sticker" or not, but it doesn't sound like they're going to do that.
Agreed. I’m worried about that as well (see note above). CAC = Quality. If a ms65 C coin that is (a) problem free and (b) not an ms64 gets into a CAC ms65 holder, that seems to undercut the whole purpose of CAC. If it gets downgraded to a ms64 holder, then why does C grading even exist? Apologies to JA for being a C level coin grader. It’s also too late on a Sunday to be thinking about coin grading, but it sure beats preparing for the work week.
I think we will see a significant number of “Market Acceptable” coins that look great end up in CAC Genuine holders! All that’s going to du is funnel more business back to PCGS/NGC! I have about ten or so coins in my collection that failed CAC; however, it would take a well trained eye to spot why they failed. These problems are so subtle that it takes a loop and angled light to find some of them and for that reason they have a place in my mostly CAC collection. The thought of a Genuine CAC holdered coin almost seems like an oxymoron when CAC is all about quality within an assigned grade. Crack-out artists will make a fortune buying these nice Genuine CAC coins below market value and sending to PCGS for straight grade! I see unintended consequences here coming.
It sounds to me like they are now going to holder all problem-free coins with no differentiation other than the grade, so all coins in a CAC holder (other than details coins) will now be "CAC" coins. That's an awful lot of new "CAC" coins. Seems like a prescription for two markets: CAC stickered coins and CAC holdered coins, with the stickered coins commanding a premium, and few people willing to crack out a stickered coin once the stickers are phased out for fear of losing that premium.
On the plus side (no pun intended), many CAC coins will be submitted to new CAC grading which will differentiate A & B coins, thus driving up demand and value for the now identifiable “A” status for many coins. Could the CAC+ become the new “Gold” bean status to a certain degree?
If the market/collector doesn't value a PCGS 65 coin in a CAC 64+ holder, people will not cross it the CAC holder. I don't see how that will result in a ton more CAC coins. And if CAC 64+ is valued over a non-CAC 65, people can currently try to downgrade their coins to get it stickered. So there's really no difference.
I believe when a CAC stickered coin is crossed to a CAC holder, there will be something on the holder to specify the coin was previously stickered. This will preserve the value if there is additional value to a previously stickered coin. John can confirm if that's the case.
the few of you here that know me will likely agree that i am the least qualified person to comment about the new cac service and the assignment of grades going forward .. so i will refrain from suggesting to @JACAC and the @CAC_Team what they should do
however, i would like to mention that the topic of 'red dots' and 'yellow dots' has not yet been introduced to the insightful discussions here thus far .. unless i missed those posts somehow
my curiosity is whether a coin that previously came back with a 'red dot' instead of a 'yellow dot' will end up in the new cac holder the same as if it had previously came back from cac with the 'yellow dot'
as an example, a coin that is currently in a pcgs ms66 slab that came back from cac with a 'red dot' will likely not be submitted back to pcgs for it to be placed in a slab at the next lower grade (perhaps ms65+ is appropriate) because there is an indication that it will still not be stickered in either a pcgs ms65+ slab or a pcgs ms65 slab .. although if it came back from cac instead with a 'yellow dot' there is an indication that it may sticker in the pcgs ms65+ slab
this is somewhat perplexing to me, but many of you here should try to help suggest how to arrive at a good way to correctly grade a coin that previously came back from cac with a 'red dot' if it's now submitted to the new cac grading service .. my understanding is that 'red dot != 'yellow dot'
Hello John and thanks for taking the time to answer my prior question about technical/ market grading. If I may make a suggestion, your concise red and yellow dot reasons for no-CAC would be a big help to many out there on what constitutes a downgrade versus a no-grade genuine coin. For example, AU-50 with an note “lacks luster” would probably make XF-45 under CAC grading. These many reasons a coin doesn’t sticker could be spelled out in your new grading service standards as to whether a coin will grade or not to compliment your future grading sets!
MS 65 "C" problem-free coin should be graded MS 64++ to distinguish it from a single plus for a 64 "A" coin
your suggestion may be heading in the right direction and i realize what you have to say carries tons more weight than anything i can mention here .. but can you also suggest simply keeping all 65 coins in 65 holders, but add a single '+' to represent 'b' and a double '++' to represent 'a' and the 65 slab without a '+' will be known to represent 'c'
thank you so much!
perhaps it's much easier for a slab to have a single '+' to represent either 'a' or 'b' and a slab without a '+' to represent a 'c'
Comments
After all, the only reason that problem free 65C coin did not sticker is because it was “not solid” for the 65 grade. If it’s reholdered to a PCGS or NGC 64+, it would be deemed solid for the grade.
Steve
Here’s a crazy idea: Keep the stickers! I’m only half kidding.
* Today’s CAC coins move over to CAC holders properly graded with (embdedded) stickers.
* Coins that are overgraded but still otherwise worthy (eg a 65 Saint that’s not quite there) gets a 64 w/ sticker (same as what would happen today, basically. A nice Saint that’s not quite fully gem wouldn’t sticker at PCGS 65 but would sticker at PCGS 64.
* Coins that don’t earn a sticker due to garbage surfaces (“market acceptable”) get Details grades at CAC.
* And those tough in-between coins that are ok-but-not-quite-premium get straight grades in new CAC holders but without the embedded sticker.
That would keep parity with today’s system (a PCGS no-sticker 65 and a CAC no-sticker 65 are basically equivalent), the stickered coins are still the premium ones for the grade, but we all have a one-stop shop to get our coins graded & (maybe) stickered without having to ship coins all over the place.
From reading this and other forums I think some collectors perceive a particular value in having JA himself evaluate a coin for a bean. If JA is unable to review each of the beaned coins in the future, as I understand he does now, then there could be a perceived value loss by some people. Therefore, switching to a new bean style would allow for a clear choice by collectors if JA does in fact stop reviewing all applied stickers in the future.
"If you have a problem-free 65 C coin, do you actually feel it shouldn’t be straight graded at any grade in the new CAC Grading Company holder, while at the same time, a 64 A or 64 B example should be holdered?"
No. I feel that a problem-free coin of any kind should be straight graded since it's problem-free. But that just points out the dilemma of trying to do this. It may be the "right" thing to do, but it will still increase the pool of CAC coins, and won't that dilute the brand?
Winesteven makes a good point that if these coins were downgraded by PCGS and NGC and then resubmitted to CAC that they might get stickered (although there seem to be some that don't when that actually does happen). But doesn't that just mean that every problem-free coin is a CAC coin at some grade level? And if that's the case the the population of "CAC" coins would explode, and wouldn't that just dilute the brand?
In theory, if EVERY coin was in a properly graded holder, CAC would not exist!
Steve
thank you so much!
Here’s a crazy idea: Keep the stickers! I’m only half kidding.
* Today’s CAC coins move over to CAC holders properly graded with (embdedded) stickers.
* Coins that are overgraded but still otherwise worthy (eg a 65 Saint that’s not quite there) gets a 64 w/ sticker (same as what would happen today, basically. A nice Saint that’s not quite fully gem wouldn’t sticker at PCGS 65 but would sticker at PCGS 64.
* Coins that don’t earn a sticker due to garbage surfaces (“market acceptable”) get Details grades at CAC.
* And those tough in-between coins that a fine but not quite premium get straight grades in new CAC holders but without the embedded sticker
----------
I think you summarized it nicely. The problem is in trying to be a one-stop shop for holdering all coins, while still maintaining the premium perception of the CAC brand. It's the second and fourth categories you listed that would dramatically increase the population of "CAC" coins, and the fourth category especially that would really degrade the perception of the CAC brand if there is no "embedded sticker" or some other differentiation on the holder to distinguish them from current CAC worthy coins.
If they somehow distinguish the C coins from the A and B coins in their CAC holders then I think it would function much like it does now, with coins either having a CAC "sticker" or not, but it doesn't sound like they're going to do that.
I believe when a CAC stickered coin is crossed to a CAC holder, there will be something on the holder to specify the coin was previously stickered. This will preserve the value if there is additional value to a previously stickered coin. John can confirm if that's the case.
however, i would like to mention that the topic of 'red dots' and 'yellow dots' has not yet been introduced to the insightful discussions here thus far .. unless i missed those posts somehow
my curiosity is whether a coin that previously came back with a 'red dot' instead of a 'yellow dot' will end up in the new cac holder the same as if it had previously came back from cac with the 'yellow dot'
as an example, a coin that is currently in a pcgs ms66 slab that came back from cac with a 'red dot' will likely not be submitted back to pcgs for it to be placed in a slab at the next lower grade (perhaps ms65+ is appropriate) because there is an indication that it will still not be stickered in either a pcgs ms65+ slab or a pcgs ms65 slab .. although if it came back from cac instead with a 'yellow dot' there is an indication that it may sticker in the pcgs ms65+ slab
this is somewhat perplexing to me, but many of you here should try to help suggest how to arrive at a good way to correctly grade a coin that previously came back from cac with a 'red dot' if it's now submitted to the new cac grading service .. my understanding is that 'red dot != 'yellow dot'
Larry C
thank you so much!
perhaps it's much easier for a slab to have a single '+' to represent either 'a' or 'b' and a slab without a '+' to represent a 'c'