The legacy designation may be unfair to collectors who don't submit their coins to cac now (because they have no plans to sell, so it's just throwing money away at CAC), but may wish to cross their coins to CAC when the time finally does come to sell.
You could say not having a legacy designation is unfair to collectors who have submitted their coins to cac in the past (for whatever reasons), but those collectors would still have the choice to leave their coins in the pcgs/cac or ngc/cac holders.
The legacy designation may be unfair to collectors who don't submit their coins to cac now (because they have no plans to sell, so it's just throwing money away at CAC), but may wish to cross their coins to CAC when the time finally does come to sell.
You could say not having a legacy designation is unfair to collectors who have submitted their coins to cac in the past (for whatever reasons), but those collectors would still have the choice to leave their coins in the pcgs/cac or ngc/cac holders.
But again.. what is the point?!?!
If you trust CACG grading why would anyone care if it crossed from PCGS, NGC or any other TPG? Or even past grades....if CACG is trusted who cares what past grades were?
It honestly makes no sense. I see it as just another way for someone to justify paying moon money for an otherwise correctly graded coin for the sheer fact that at one point in time it was in PCGS/NGC plastic and had a bean.
If this were so important why doesn't PCGS or NGC do the same and keep track on the labels? Because it's unimportant!
Would you honestly pay more for a CACG coin because you knew at one point it was a PCGS coin? Does this really matter to anyone?
I think there is a fair number of cac collectors who are ocd. And as long as cac is still stickering coins. It will affect The number of submissions to cacg. From what I’m hearing and reading most people prefer the idea of having pcgs and cac. So I have a feeling as long as cac is stickering coins they will continue to seek that combo. However if cac stops stickering. CACG would have a chance to really take a good chunk of these customers who only prefer both but if they are forced to pick one may decide to go cacg. What incentive does a pcgs registry participant have, to send new coins directly to cacg? What will draw people to use cacg instead of continuing there pcgs registry? If there were no stickers anymore. I think there would be more incentive to go with cacg because the coins would be PQ example and the market trust cac.
Thoughts?
The ocd continues with the idea of collectors wanting to see the sticker on the slabs. I think it’s smart to keep them.
I go back and forth on the legacy thing. But I don’t see the need to add legacy. Because cac standards are what I prefer. I doubt the legacy label will add any value at all to the market because it won’t differentiate (as it shouldn’t) between a prior NGC or PCGS slabbed coin. As it is NGC sells for less than pcgs with cac approval. And as long as cac still stickers pcgs and cac will sell for more than cacg.
I think a legacy CAC sticker gives a coin provenance. It gives it the credibility that it has been around the block multiple times, and every time, arrives at the top of its grade for eye appeal/toning/strike, etc.
I know as a collector, I wish to scrutinize each coin in my registry sets to the point of perfection. I am very happy to see that a coin has been exhaustively examined more than one time by multiple entities.
I don't think the legacy sticker will imply that a coin was better when grading was more stringent, but rather, a history of where it came from. Knowing the history of a coin is very important. That's why I'm drawn to the Redfield collection and various other hoards.
I am hopeful that with CACG, an MS64+ Peace dollar coming in raw will be just as exemplary as an MS64+ that used to be in a PCGS or NGC stickered holder.
A legacy sticker simply lets you know it has been elsewhere at one time or another and that it was important at that time as well.
People would pay more for a coin approved by both PCGS and CAC precisely BECAUSE it was approved by both. Two opinions are worth more to most people than just one of those two opinions, even if they value one more than the other. Just because someone values the CAC opinion more doesn't mean they don't value the PGCS opinion at all. If there is no legacy designation then there would be little incentive for people to submit stickered coins to CAC Grading, and PCGS/CAC would trade at a premium to just CAC.
People would pay more for a coin approved by both PCGS and CAC precisely BECAUSE it was approved by both. Two opinions are worth more to most people than just one of those two opinions, even if they value one more than the other. Just because someone values the CAC opinion more doesn't mean they don't value the PGCS opinion at all. If there is no legacy designation then there would be little incentive for people to submit stickered coins to CAC Grading, and PCGS/CAC would trade at a premium to just CAC.
So on the "Legacy" slabs CACG will note on the label that: 1) This coin was previously graded by PCGS and approved by CAC, or 2) This coin was previously graded by NGC and approved by CAC, or 3) This coin has not been previously graded by another TPG and approved by CAC?
The provenance of PCGS vs NGC is significant to many collectors so without noting who the previous grading company was, the "Legacy" label is of dubious value imo.
I truly do not understand the need for the "Legacy" and a bean on holders that were previously CAC approved in other holders. To me it adds absolutely no value.
I am buying the coin. Not the holder. Why would I pay a premium because a coin in a CACG holder used to be in PCGS plastic with a bean? Why would it matter if the coin was PCGS MS65, or 63 gold CAC and crossed to CACG as MS65? You trust CACG so why does anyone care where it was before or what grade it had?
If everyone trusts CAC and their grading skills it's is absolutely irrelevant whether the coin was crossed from PCGS or NGC or if it had a bean or not. All it does is add yet another fake market value to the coins.
Just my opinion, but I truly don't understand this want for legacy bean tracking.
At least you admit you truly don’t understand.
I’m not the one to explain it thoroughly but allow me to make a comment or two.
You say buy the coin not the holder. Ok we agree but if you’re buying a coin online how do you know the coin lives up to its grade ? Which you are paying for . CAC had the coins in hand to evaluate and affixed a green bean if it met standards . The collecting community trusts cac and their opinion thus are willing to pay a premium for such coins that have been found to be solid for the grade.
The legacy of that assurance must be protected. I know I and a lot of others want to know if the coin had previously been cac approved .
I’m sure cacg will figure it all out but for right now I believe their should be a distinction between coins previously cac approved and coins that are now just being straight graded by cacg and placed in holders .
I’m interested in how they’ll deal with the + grades since premiums have been quite steep. I wouldn’t want my + coin with green bean simply placed in a holder with a grade without mention of its history or of being solid for the grade .
I get what you are saying. But I whole heartedly disagree.
You are basically saying if CAC put their sticker on a coin, it means it's premium for the grade so you want that preserved to show continuity. I understand. But....if CAC is keeping with the same standards they use for snickering, then it is irrelevant what the grade was prior to crossing to CACG because in theory all coins in CACG plastic should cross to any other TPG at the appropriate grade.
So who cares if the coin was PCGS MS66 or 65 green bean or 63 gold bean. If it's in a CACG holder at 65 that means it's a 65 regardless of how it was graded previously.
You are all way over thinking the legacy issue and I think all it does is develop a false premium for otherwise appropriately graded coins....
And I understand you as well. I get what you’re saying . In the end I support the legacy ideas ( though as you point out it’s not needed . ) and like seeing the green bean for nostalgic reasons . In the end it’ll all play out and most everyone will be onboard is my feeling on the matter.
It’d be cool way down the road having the early cacg holders with the legacy stuff on it. That’ll be a collectible in and of itself . 😉😎
The provenance of PCGS vs NGC is significant to many collectors so without noting who the previous grading company was, the "Legacy" label is of dubious value imo.
--------
My understanding is that if CAC Grading does go with a legacy designation it will not specify PCGS vs. NGC. That would certainly cloud the issue a bit since most people value the PCGS opinion more than the NGC opinion. But it would still indicate that there was a second opinion previously that agreed with the CAC opinion. And that still has some value to most people. Some have expressed the opinion that NGC/CAC might actually be worth less than just CAC because of how many people attempt to cross NGC coins to PCGS, leaving lots of marginal and over-graded coins in NGC holders. That argument may have some merit, but I'm not convinced that the market overall has so little respect for NGC that it actually has negative value. I put some positive value on the NGC opinion, so if there is no legacy designation then I would probably leave my NGC/CAC coins as is, and I'm guessing that most other people would too.
Actually that's a great point VanHalen. Owners of pcgs cac coins may have little incentive to cross to cacg while owners of ngc cac coins may have a big incentive (due to market difference between pcgs and ngc), hence the majority or even a large percentage of "legacy" coins will likely have been ngc coins. This may end up being like an "anti" sticker and hurt the value.
I am on Chlorinated side, that more people just need to pay attention to the coins themselves and/or learn to grade themselves. I think CAC should cater towards that group of collectors and on educating less experienced collectors into that group. Of course though it's the group that likes the double validations (or dealers that cater to them) that will spend more money on slabbing or stickering fees so I understand if CAC decides to go the other way.
People would pay more for a coin approved by both PCGS and CAC precisely BECAUSE it was approved by both. Two opinions are worth more to most people than just one of those two opinions, even if they value one more than the other. Just because someone values the CAC opinion more doesn't mean they don't value the PGCS opinion at all. If there is no legacy designation then there would be little incentive for people to submit stickered coins to CAC Grading, and PCGS/CAC would trade at a premium to just CAC.
I think the one exception is the prestige and added value a plus from a CACG graded coin might have over the PCGS/CAC sticker. Do you agree?
If they designate that the coin was prior in a pcgs holder that coin will get a premium over the coin that was ngc before. I hope we lose the prior history. That it was stickered before is all that should matter. If they do a history thing I'll crack every NGC coin and submit raw. What's going to happen though is the coins with + grades are going to be considered A coins. CAC graded + coins will be the new "sticker" And to those who want to keep their old history, take a pictorial picture of that coin in its current slab. Then send it off to JA. Then you can remember it was in a pcgs holder before!
They’ve already made it clear their plan is to NOT specify on a Legacy coin if it crossed from NGC vs PCGS. That’s one reason you’ll see a LOT of NGC/CAC coins getting crossed to CACG, and that’s perfectly fine.
Tied in with that, the NGC Registry currently allows coins in other TPG holders (PCGS) into the NGC Registry. Presumably, NGC will decide to also allow CACG holders into the NGC Registry as well. That’s another reason you’ll see a LOT more NGC holdered CAC coins cross, since they don’t have the “problem” that those of us that want to continue with the PCGS Registry have (like me). Presumably PCGS will continue their current policy of NOT allowing coins in other holders into the PCGS Registry. That’s why I won’t cross my PCGS Registry coins, but will only cross my dupes!
I’ve seen a number of posts referring to the PCGS or NGC “provenance” being included on CACG labels. I’m sure I’m in a tiny minority, but I care more about the proper use of the word than I do about that aspect of the grading label. I think “previous known grading history” would be a far more accurate term. Of course, when writing or speaking, that would be four words, compared to just one for “provenance”. 😉
From one of a number of searches I did for “”provenance”:
the place of origin or earliest known history of something. "an orange rug of Iranian provenance" Similar: origin source place of origin birthplace spring wellspring fount roots history pedigree derivation root etymology provenience radix the beginning of something's existence; something's origin. "they try to understand the whole universe, its provenance and fate" a record of ownership of a work of art or an antique, used as a guide to authenticity or quality. plural noun: provenances "the manuscript has a distinguished provenance"
I am amazed the backing this whole Legacy issue is getting. And I agree with @MeantToBeSpent above. Adding the Legacy sticker only serves to create false value and inflate prices for an otherwise correctly graded coin. What it does do is serve those of use who want technical grades and those new to the hoby.
Who cares if PCGS or NGC graded it previously and it matched with CACG grading or not. Why does that matter? We all know the top TPGs market grade...not technical like CCAG....so why would anyone be surprised if the grade is different? All it shows is the other TPG graded the coin correctly rather than going with the current market.
In addition, provenance is Newman, Green, etc. Not PCGS or NGC. Let's not confuse that term please.
If you want to pay more for a coin because you know it's been in PCGS plastic in the past...have at it. But you are paying a fake premium for plastic and nothing more.
This hobby has always been about the coins for me. Not the plastic. The plastic for me serves as coin protection, help in dermining a genuine coin, and giving my heirs a baseline to go by when I'm gone. The TPG name means nothing to me.
I realize this is my opinion and clearly I'm in the minority here. But, I trust CACG grading, so atleast I know what I have in hand is accurate. Good enough for me. The rest I could care less about.
Before I say what I’m about to say. Know that I only focus on Seated Dollars. And I know I’m in the minority on this.
I personally put very little trust in PCGS or NGC. The amount of trash I see in straight graded plastic is sickening. I look at them both as a company that puts coins in a protective slab. I’m really looking forward to cacg! I’ll be able to get the coin protected and get the opinion of the experts I respect.
Before I say what I’m about to say. Know that I only focus on Seated Dollars. And I know I’m in the minority on this.
I personally put very little trust in PCGS or NGC. The amount of trash I see in straight graded plastic is sickening. I look at them both as a company that puts coins in a protective slab. I’m really looking forward to cacg! I’ll be able to get the coin protected and get the opinion of the experts I respect.
Yes with older coins pcgs is getting worse. Some of the NGC stuff I've seen i think would get details - cleaned in anacs holders...
Pointing out the impact that a legacy designation (or lack thereof) might have doesn't imply support or otherwise for such a designation. I'm actually quite ambivalent on the issue at this point. It is the coin itself that ultimately matters after all. However, what's on the holder does impact the market and the prices that everyone has to pay to get these coins, unless they are being purchased raw. So even if you don't think much of PCGS, NGC, or "legacy" designations you still have to deal with the market realities that they create, warts and all, if you want to collect most coins these days.
Comments
awayat CAC), but may wish to cross their coins to CAC when the time finally does come to sell.You could say not having a legacy designation is unfair to collectors who have submitted their coins to cac in the past (for whatever reasons), but those collectors would still have the choice to leave their coins in the pcgs/cac or ngc/cac holders.
If you trust CACG grading why would anyone care if it crossed from PCGS, NGC or any other TPG? Or even past grades....if CACG is trusted who cares what past grades were?
It honestly makes no sense. I see it as just another way for someone to justify paying moon money for an otherwise correctly graded coin for the sheer fact that at one point in time it was in PCGS/NGC plastic and had a bean.
If this were so important why doesn't PCGS or NGC do the same and keep track on the labels? Because it's unimportant!
Would you honestly pay more for a CACG coin because you knew at one point it was a PCGS coin? Does this really matter to anyone?
I think there is a fair number of cac collectors who are ocd. And as long as cac is still stickering coins. It will affect The number of submissions to cacg. From what I’m hearing and reading most people prefer the idea of having pcgs and cac. So I have a feeling as long as cac is stickering coins they will continue to seek that combo. However if cac stops stickering. CACG would have a chance to really take a good chunk of these customers who only prefer both but if they are forced to pick one may decide to go cacg. What incentive does a pcgs registry participant have, to send new coins directly to cacg? What will draw people to use cacg instead of continuing there pcgs registry? If there were no stickers anymore. I think there would be more incentive to go with cacg because the coins would be PQ example and the market trust cac.
The ocd continues with the idea of collectors wanting to see the sticker on the slabs. I think it’s smart to keep them.
I disagree about the stickers. Once crossed the stickers have no meaning.
I agree legacy is not needed and just creates artificial value for coins that were previously graded at another TPG.
I know as a collector, I wish to scrutinize each coin in my registry sets to the point of perfection. I am very happy to see that a coin has been exhaustively examined more than one time by multiple entities.
I don't think the legacy sticker will imply that a coin was better when grading was more stringent, but rather, a history of where it came from. Knowing the history of a coin is very important. That's why I'm drawn to the Redfield collection and various other hoards.
I am hopeful that with CACG, an MS64+ Peace dollar coming in raw will be just as exemplary as an MS64+ that used to be in a PCGS or NGC stickered holder.
A legacy sticker simply lets you know it has been elsewhere at one time or another and that it was important at that time as well.
The provenance of PCGS vs NGC is significant to many collectors so without noting who the previous grading company was, the "Legacy" label is of dubious value imo.
It’d be cool way down the road having the early cacg holders with the legacy stuff on it. That’ll be a collectible in and of itself . 😉😎
The provenance of PCGS vs NGC is significant to many collectors so without noting who the previous grading company was, the "Legacy" label is of dubious value imo.
--------
My understanding is that if CAC Grading does go with a legacy designation it will not specify PCGS vs. NGC. That would certainly cloud the issue a bit since most people value the PCGS opinion more than the NGC opinion. But it would still indicate that there was a second opinion previously that agreed with the CAC opinion. And that still has some value to most people. Some have expressed the opinion that NGC/CAC might actually be worth less than just CAC because of how many people attempt to cross NGC coins to PCGS, leaving lots of marginal and over-graded coins in NGC holders. That argument may have some merit, but I'm not convinced that the market overall has so little respect for NGC that it actually has negative value. I put some positive value on the NGC opinion, so if there is no legacy designation then I would probably leave my NGC/CAC coins as is, and I'm guessing that most other people would too.
I am on Chlorinated side, that more people just need to pay attention to the coins themselves and/or learn to grade themselves. I think CAC should cater towards that group of collectors and on educating less experienced collectors into that group. Of course though it's the group that likes the double validations (or dealers that cater to them) that will spend more money on slabbing or stickering fees so I understand if CAC decides to go the other way.
Tied in with that, the NGC Registry currently allows coins in other TPG holders (PCGS) into the NGC Registry. Presumably, NGC will decide to also allow CACG holders into the NGC Registry as well. That’s another reason you’ll see a LOT more NGC holdered CAC coins cross, since they don’t have the “problem” that those of us that want to continue with the PCGS Registry have (like me). Presumably PCGS will continue their current policy of NOT allowing coins in other holders into the PCGS Registry. That’s why I won’t cross my PCGS Registry coins, but will only cross my dupes!
From one of a number of searches I did for “”provenance”:
the place of origin or earliest known history of something.
"an orange rug of Iranian provenance"
Similar:
origin
source
place of origin
birthplace
spring
wellspring
fount
roots
history
pedigree
derivation
root
etymology
provenience
radix
the beginning of something's existence; something's origin.
"they try to understand the whole universe, its provenance and fate"
a record of ownership of a work of art or an antique, used as a guide to authenticity or quality.
plural noun: provenances
"the manuscript has a distinguished provenance"
Who cares if PCGS or NGC graded it previously and it matched with CACG grading or not. Why does that matter? We all know the top TPGs market grade...not technical like CCAG....so why would anyone be surprised if the grade is different? All it shows is the other TPG graded the coin correctly rather than going with the current market.
In addition, provenance is Newman, Green, etc. Not PCGS or NGC. Let's not confuse that term please.
If you want to pay more for a coin because you know it's been in PCGS plastic in the past...have at it. But you are paying a fake premium for plastic and nothing more.
This hobby has always been about the coins for me. Not the plastic. The plastic for me serves as coin protection, help in dermining a genuine coin, and giving my heirs a baseline to go by when I'm gone. The TPG name means nothing to me.
I realize this is my opinion and clearly I'm in the minority here. But, I trust CACG grading, so atleast I know what I have in hand is accurate. Good enough for me. The rest I could care less about.
I personally put very little trust in PCGS or NGC. The amount of trash I see in straight graded plastic is sickening. I look at them both as a company that puts coins in a protective slab. I’m really looking forward to cacg! I’ll be able to get the coin protected and get the opinion of the experts I respect.
I think the one exception is the prestige and added value a plus from a CACG graded coin might have over the PCGS/CAC sticker. Do you agree?
--------
Yes. The CACG + grade does throw an interesting twist into all this.