CAC Grading Company Announcement & FAQ Question Submission - Page 7 — Welcome to the CAC Educational Forum

CAC Grading Company Announcement & FAQ Question Submission

145791037

Comments

  • Pyrite said:

    What I haven't seen addressed (or maybe missed in the throng) is the incentive for a CAC slab for a coin that hasn't been anywhere before.

    While I've been reading all these "strategy" concerns re: finessing an already slabbed coin into whatever a more advantageous "pricing" element might be garnered, I've yet to see the varied reasons for starting with a CAC slab.

    My initial entry into slabbing in general was for AUTHENTICITY.
    From there, the rest gets into almost minutiae.



    My sense is the incentive to have a CAC holder of raw coins (besides protecting them from mishandling, etc.) is not only to authenticate, but to also have it in a holder that is straight graded, AND properly graded in the opinion of CAC! That has value!

    Steve
    Isn't that sort of assuming that the other TPGs are grading IMPROPERLY and to a large extent?
  • Pyrite said:

    Pyrite said:

    What I haven't seen addressed (or maybe missed in the throng) is the incentive for a CAC slab for a coin that hasn't been anywhere before.

    While I've been reading all these "strategy" concerns re: finessing an already slabbed coin into whatever a more advantageous "pricing" element might be garnered, I've yet to see the varied reasons for starting with a CAC slab.

    My initial entry into slabbing in general was for AUTHENTICITY.
    From there, the rest gets into almost minutiae.



    My sense is the incentive to have a CAC holder of raw coins (besides protecting them from mishandling, etc.) is not only to authenticate, but to also have it in a holder that is straight graded, AND properly graded in the opinion of CAC! That has value!

    Steve
    Isn't that sort of assuming that the other TPGs are grading IMPROPERLY and to a large extent?
    Each TPG has their own standards, and since humans do the grading at each TPG, including CAC, errors will be made. But for those that have full confidence in the grading and consistency of other TPG's, I agree there is no need to consider having CAC slab their coins, and for those collectors, there's never been a reason to have CAC examine their slabbed coin for a potential sticker.

    Some collectors and dealers recognize the higher value a CAC opinion sometimes offers, and while they may have full confidence in the other TPG's (as I do with PCGS), they may just want to benefit from that higher value for when the time comes for that coin to be sold, whether by the dealer, collector, or their heirs. It also seems coins with CAC stickers sell "easier" than their non stickered counterparts, even with full confidence in the other TPG's!

    Steve

  • JACAC said:

    Sharp Strike.  Great question! The ms65-C Saint Gaudens $20 that will reside in the New Cac holder as a 64+ will be consistent in grade with the current Cac ma64 and 64+ stickered coins - this will avoid confusion. Many of today’s  Cac ms64 stickered  Saints are a match to what we see in ma65 non Cac holders today. JA 

    John can you share thoughts on how you will handle a less clear-cut scenario than a 65-C Saint or an egregiously-cleaned 93-S?

    Say, a Draped Bust half or some early gold that doesn't *quite* make the high bar for a CAC sticker today but has very acceptable surfaces and detail (just not sticker-worthy).

    Are you expecting we'll see an increase in Details-graded early coins or will they end up in lower-graded CAC holders?

    (I know impossible to make good generalizations, but I'm trying to get a sense for overall direction).
  • Don't get me wrong. I am a fan of CAC. I trust their expertise and have seen the advantages of it at resale.
    I also note the preferences of some high profile quality dealers who have moved most if not all of their offerings to stickered coins.
    I'm trying to understand the value of a CAC slab as compared to the same opinion registered on a coin in another TPG slab.

  • Pyrite said:
    Don't get me wrong. I am a fan of CAC. I trust their expertise and have seen the advantages of it at resale. I also note the preferences of some high profile quality dealers who have moved most if not all of their offerings to stickered coins. I'm trying to understand the value of a CAC slab as compared to the same opinion registered on a coin in another TPG slab.
    The main values of the CAC holder: There won’t be market acceptable stuff in straight-graded CAC holders. There also won’t be C coins cross at grade.
    Initially, I was of the opinion that no-problem C coins should cross at grade, but have since come to my senses. CAC will maintain it’s premium status.
  • For ME, at this point I see no incentive to cross my PCGS CAC coins, as I still want to partake in the PCGS Registry, as well as each of the two new CAC registries. We can do that with coins in PCGS (and NGC slabs). If crossed into a new CAC holder, as of what I now know, those coins will then not be eligible for the PCGS registry.

    With that said, IF there's a point that PCGS will accept the new CAC slabs in their Registry, I would still need to see a tangible benefit for me to incur the expense of crossing and shipping expenses, At this point, I see no benefit to cross.

    Steve
  • LarryC said:
    For that reason alone many will submit to CAC. I have many stickered early holders so I will leave those alone; however, I will be sending in some NGC stickered coins and a few PCGS as well to see if I’m more in the A or B camp.

    --------

    The problem with that is that if your coin turns out to be in the B camp then it will now be lumped in with all the C coins. With the current CAC stickers, the A's and B's are lumped together. If I understand JA correctly, with the new CAC holders, the A's will get the +'s, and the B's will now be lumped in with the C's, which seems like it would dilute their value and give the A's even more of a premium. I guess it comes down to whether you would want to gamble on whether your coin is an A coin or a B coin. It seems like they're shifting the distinction from A/B vs. C, to A vs. B/C, which seems more similar to how PCGS and NGC handle their + vs. "no +" criteria.

  • LarryC said:
    For that reason alone many will submit to CAC. I have many stickered early holders so I will leave those alone; however, I will be sending in some NGC stickered coins and a few PCGS as well to see if I’m more in the A or B camp.

    --------

    The problem with that is that if your coin turns out to be in the B camp then it will now be lumped in with all the C coins. With the current CAC stickers, the A's and B's are lumped together. If I understand JA correctly, with the new CAC holders, the A's will get the +'s, and the B's will now be lumped in with the C's, which seems like it would dilute their value and give the A's even more of a premium. I guess it comes down to whether you would want to gamble on whether your coin is an A coin or a B coin. It seems like they're shifting the distinction from A/B vs. C, to A vs. B/C, which seems more similar to how PCGS and NGC handle their + vs. "no +" criteria.

    The problem free "C" coins will get holdered with the grade number LOWER than it is now. So someone with a 65 B CAC coin will then cross to a 65 CAC holder. A problem free 65 C coin without a CAC will cross to a 64 or more likely a 64+ CAC holder. So 65 B with CAC will not be commingled with 65 C non CAC.
  • edited October 2022
    I certainly see your point Winesteven. For Registry participants this whole thing is bound to generate a degree of uncertainty, anxiety, and confusion as to exactly how all of this will affect rankings.

    On the other hand some of us don't play the Registry game. I see how popular the Registry concept is, and I certainly am keenly aware that to a large degree the Registry is a key driving force for HIGHER VALUES.

    But I became disenchanted with Registry competition once it was apparent that GRADEFLATION was here to stay.

    So I look fwd hoping CACG will become a powerful anti-gradeflation force. I don't want to see coins I used to own in an MS64 holder floating around the market in an MS66+ holder. I want to see them graded properly and consistently the first time around. I believe CACG can and will do just that: provide a one-stop grading event instead of having to ship our stuff here and there at considerable expense and risk. THAT is why we need a new TPG, the Registry is just gravy.



  • Winesteven said:
    The problem free "C" coins will get holdered with the grade number LOWER than it is now. So someone with a 65 B CAC coin will then cross to a 65 CAC holder. A problem free 65 C coin without a CAC will cross to a 64 or more likely a 64+ CAC holder. So 65 B with CAC will not be commingled with 65 C non CAC.

    --------

    I understand your point, but those B coins (and even A coins) WILL be co-mingled with coins dropping down from the next higher grade level that were not previously CAC coins. Turning all those non-CAC problem-free C coins into CAC coins as lower levels will create a whole lot more "CAC" coins as a result. Are people going to be okay with that and still see the CAC holdered coin as a premium coin?
  • LarryC said:
    For that reason alone many will submit to CAC. I have many stickered early holders so I will leave those alone; however, I will be sending in some NGC stickered coins and a few PCGS as well to see if I’m more in the A or B camp.

    --------

    The problem with that is that if your coin turns out to be in the B camp then it will now be lumped in with all the C coins. With the current CAC stickers, the A's and B's are lumped together. If I understand JA correctly, with the new CAC holders, the A's will get the +'s, and the B's will now be lumped in with the C's, which seems like it would dilute their value and give the A's even more of a premium. I guess it comes down to whether you would want to gamble on whether your coin is an A coin or a B coin. It seems like they're shifting the distinction from A/B vs. C, to A vs. B/C, which seems more similar to how PCGS and NGC handle their + vs. "no +" criteria.

    The problem free "C" coins will get holdered with the grade number LOWER than it is now. So someone with a 65 B CAC coin will then cross to a 65 CAC holder. A problem free 65 C coin without a CAC will cross to a 64 or more likely a 64+ CAC holder. So 65 B with CAC will not be commingled with 65 C non CAC.
    would it be better for everyone if the problem free "c" coins are encapsulated in the new cac holder at the grade as they are assigned now, but the "b" and "a" coins are encapsulated in the new cac holder with the '+' designation?
  • I certainly see your point Winesteven. For Registry participants this whole thing is bound to generate a degree of uncertainty, anxiety, and confusion as to exactly how all of this will affect rankings.

    On the other hand some of us don't play the Registry game. I see how popular the Registry concept is, and I certainly am keenly aware that to a large degree the Registry is a key driving force for HIGHER VALUES.

    But I became disenchanted with Registry competition once it was apparent that GRADEFLATION was here to stay.

    So I look fwd hoping CACG will become a powerful anti-gradeflation force. I don't want to see coins I used to own in an MS64 holder floating around the market in an MS66+ holder. I want to see them graded properly and consistently the first time around. I believe CACG can and will do just that: provide a one-stop grading event instead of having to ship our stuff here and there at considerable expense and risk. THAT is why we need a new TPG, the Registry is just gravy.



    I fully AGREE!!!!!
  • noahlh said:

    JACAC said:

    Sharp Strike.  Great question! The ms65-C Saint Gaudens $20 that will reside in the New Cac holder as a 64+ will be consistent in grade with the current Cac ma64 and 64+ stickered coins - this will avoid confusion. Many of today’s  Cac ms64 stickered  Saints are a match to what we see in ma65 non Cac holders today. JA 

    John can you share thoughts on how you will handle a less clear-cut scenario than a 65-C Saint or an egregiously-cleaned 93-S?

    Say, a Draped Bust half or some early gold that doesn't *quite* make the high bar for a CAC sticker today but has very acceptable surfaces and detail (just not sticker-worthy).

    Are you expecting we'll see an increase in Details-graded early coins or will they end up in lower-graded CAC holders?

    (I know impossible to make good generalizations, but I'm trying to get a sense for overall direction).
    I think this is a really important question. If CAC Grading becomes the accepted market standard and detail grades what are now considered "market acceptable" cleanings by PCGS/NGC, the presumption for certain series (e.g., early type and early gold) could eventually become that anything not stickered or in a CAC straight-graded slab is now effectively a details coin. That presumption already exists to some degree, but it would be a harsh awakening for the owners of market acceptable "liner" coins, and could serve as a major drag on their value (while also further increasing premiums for CAC-approved coins).

    One alternative could be for CAC Grading to slab the coins they consider "market acceptable" but not sticker-worthy with an "MA" label, to distinguish the liners from the total dreck.

    Wherever this lands, CAC will probably need to publish standards for what it considers acceptable old/light cleanings and what misses the mark...which presumably differs by series. I suspect this could be even harder than having complete technical grading sets (which is already a massive undertaking!).
  • Winesteven said:
    The problem free "C" coins will get holdered with the grade number LOWER than it is now. So someone with a 65 B CAC coin will then cross to a 65 CAC holder. A problem free 65 C coin without a CAC will cross to a 64 or more likely a 64+ CAC holder. So 65 B with CAC will not be commingled with 65 C non CAC.

    --------

    I understand your point, but those B coins (and even A coins) WILL be co-mingled with coins dropping down from the next higher grade level that were not previously CAC coins. Turning all those non-CAC problem-free C coins into CAC coins as lower levels will create a whole lot more "CAC" coins as a result. Are people going to be okay with that and still see the CAC holdered coin as a premium coin?

    I agree with you regarding the higher grade non-CAC coins (like 66) dropping down to a PROPERLY graded 65 or 65+. YES, that WILL increase the number of "CAC" coins (other TPG stickered added with "new" CAC holdered coins that in CAC's opinion were previously not solid for the grade they were in). Yes, it can (and probably will) have an impact, but I think the bottom line is if indeed those coins drop to a grade that CAC feels is correct, then all is good. I think that's good for the hobby too, on the assumption that CAC's OPINION is "more correct". So while there will be more CAC coins, on that prior assumption we will have fewer coins in holders in higher grades that MAYBE should not have been that high?

    Steve
  • bigtree said:

    noahlh said:

    JACAC said:

    Sharp Strike.  Great question! The ms65-C Saint Gaudens $20 that will reside in the New Cac holder as a 64+ will be consistent in grade with the current Cac ma64 and 64+ stickered coins - this will avoid confusion. Many of today’s  Cac ms64 stickered  Saints are a match to what we see in ma65 non Cac holders today. JA 

    John can you share thoughts on how you will handle a less clear-cut scenario than a 65-C Saint or an egregiously-cleaned 93-S?

    Say, a Draped Bust half or some early gold that doesn't *quite* make the high bar for a CAC sticker today but has very acceptable surfaces and detail (just not sticker-worthy).

    Are you expecting we'll see an increase in Details-graded early coins or will they end up in lower-graded CAC holders?

    (I know impossible to make good generalizations, but I'm trying to get a sense for overall direction).
    I think this is a really important question. If CAC Grading becomes the accepted market standard and detail grades what are now considered "market acceptable" cleanings by PCGS/NGC, the presumption for certain series (e.g., early type and early gold) could eventually become that anything not stickered or in a CAC straight-graded slab is now effectively a details coin. That presumption already exists to some degree, but it would be a harsh awakening for the owners of market acceptable "liner" coins, and could serve as a major drag on their value (while also further increasing premiums for CAC-approved coins).

    One alternative could be for CAC Grading to slab the coins they consider "market acceptable" but not sticker-worthy with an "MA" label, to distinguish the liners from the total dreck.

    Wherever this lands, CAC will probably need to publish standards for what it considers acceptable old/light cleanings and what misses the mark...which presumably differs by series. I suspect this could be even harder than having complete technical grading sets (which is already a massive undertaking!).
    how shall we define a new cac slab with the label that states 'genuine' instead of 'details' or any other suggestions that you may have?

    thank you so much!
  • Winesteven makes a great point. So if 85% of 1917 SLQ ms65FH have been passed over by CAC, then the market acceptable non-beaned examples will eventually be submitted to CACG and regraded as ms64 (or lower) over time. Thus, while the TOTAL population of CAC coins for 1917 SLQs IN ALL GRADES will slowly increase as CACG becomes the preferred TPG, the TOTAL number of CAC-worthy 1917 SLQs in ms65FH will remain largely unchanged. Now I can sleep tonight.
  • Wait….but what about all the ms66 and 67FH coins which have not been beaned? I suspect they could end up in CACG ms65 holders, assuming the owners want to swap CAC approval for a downgrade…will participants who own those coins stick to their guns and nonetheless hope for ms66FH money for a coin that remains in PCGS/NGC plastic with no stickers…? the market will be fascinating to watch next year…
  • Wait….but what about all the ms66 and 67FH coins which have not been beaned? I suspect they could end up in CACG ms65 holders, assuming the owners want to swap CAC approval for a downgrade…will participants who own those coins stick to their guns and nonetheless hope for ms66FH money for a coin that remains in PCGS/NGC plastic with no stickers…? the market will be fascinating to watch next year…

    i like your "wait .." thoughts
Sign In or Register to comment.