After the first two or three taps, take a look at which direction the coin is moving. If you need to change corners, that's the time to do it.
--------
It worked! I have a 1795 Flowing Hair Half Dollar that was almost sideways in its PCGS holder. It took quite a bit of tapping, but I eventually got it back into vertical alignment. I found that it also worked by tapping it against my hand, and I could do that as hard as I wanted without worrying about scratching up the side of the holder on a hard surface.
Is it just me or does this seem to happen a lot more often with PCGS holders than with NGC holders? I don't really like how the NGC holders look, but they seem more robust to me, and it seems like their insert keeps a better grip on the coin.
Regarding the new holder, the question of the series number has arisen. Currently, the CAC Price Guide uses the PCGS series numbers for coin look up. I (and others) were wondering what CAC Grading will use. Greysheet has posted this answer:
Note: The CAC Grading company will incorporate the Greysheet ID # on the front of the slab label. In this example, the number displayed is 10150 which correlates to the 1927 Saint Gaudens $20 double eagle. This catalog system will be made available under license to companies interested in working with our extensive database index, which includes U.S. coins, U.S paper money, world paper money (Banknote Book) and our expanding listing of world coins.
I've noticed that with both PCGS and NGC holders coins will occasionally get twisted out of alignment in their holders, so that they end up anywhere from slightly out of alignment to completely sideways sometimes, which is not a good look, especially on the obverse. I'm not talking about the mint-made cases where the dies were out of alignment and you can only line up one side, but cases where the coins have physically moved in the holder. I'm sure it's probably from rough handling/dropping that the prongs are not strong enough to handle. Is it just not realistic to get tolerances tight enough that this doesn't happen so often?
I had one come back from grading crooked. I'm still not sure I'm not going to send it back with a letter telling them to fix it. It didn't move that much in shipping. I've tried everything and it won't move. It had to have been put in crooked and left that way.
MY REPLY: The TPG will reholder it at no cost and even pay return shipping, at least in my experience.
Nice I didn't know that. I tried to tap it. Thought with a larger coin it might work. But not. And it definitely didn't move in shipping. I can actually get most of my rattlers straight no problem. But not other holders very well.
I mentioned this in an email and on Instagram, but it bears repeating: @CAC_Team & @CAC_Ops -- well done. It's deeply appreciated that you took community feedback to heart, and the holder looks great. Thanks for having us all involved (and I apologize on behalf of myself and everyone else for doing design-by-committee, which I know from real world experience is just. the. worst.)
Looking forward to seeing the 1.0 holders in the flesh!
The holder looks great! I didn't see the question answered about the Legacy holder that was mentioned in the previous holder reveal. Is it still planned? Here's my idea of a Legacy design in any case.
Very nice! Thanks for listening to our ramblings and making the changes. The bean on the front looks great…I’m guessing the “12” after the cert number is the legacy year of the bean?
That makes sense. Still no answer whether the bean will be there on non-legacy coins? Would be nice to have a definitive answer on these two aspects?
Why are people concerned with what it may have BEEN IN? If that's a factor, keep it in the present slab.
Because when we cross to CAC, some of us want potential buyers down the road to know that the coin was previously approved by CAC for that whole grade it had been in AND by that other TPG as a separate confirmation, as opposed to a defect-free "C" coin that is now in a CACG holder, or a coin that is now raw, being sent to CAC, and getting approved but not having the "additional" approval of another TPG agreeing with that grade. Taking this into account, there are a variety of reasons to cross to CACG if the other prior "double" approval can still be demonstrated. THAT'S what the concept of the "Legacy" designation is all about!
Why are people concerned with what it may have BEEN IN? If that's a factor, keep it in the present slab.
Because when we cross to CAC, some of us want potential buyers down the road to know that the coin was previously approved by CAC for that whole grade it had been in AND by that other TPG as a separate confirmation, as opposed to a defect-free "C" coin that is now in a CACG holder, or a coin that is now raw, being sent to CAC, and getting approved but not having the "additional" approval of another TPG agreeing with that grade. Taking this into account, there are a variety of reasons to cross to CACG if the other prior "double" approval can still be demonstrated. THAT'S what the concept of the "Legacy" designation is all about!
Unless the coin previously had a gold bean, in which case the other TPG didn't agree with the grade. (Assuming an upgrade of course). Also, some non-gold-bean coins may be upgraded with a plus or otherwise when crossed. I'm not a fan of the Legacy bean idea, but customers speak.
Why are people concerned with what it may have BEEN IN? If that's a factor, keep it in the present slab.
Because when we cross to CAC, some of us want potential buyers down the road to know that the coin was previously approved by CAC for that whole grade it had been in AND by that other TPG as a separate confirmation, as opposed to a defect-free "C" coin that is now in a CACG holder, or a coin that is now raw, being sent to CAC, and getting approved but not having the "additional" approval of another TPG agreeing with that grade. Taking this into account, there are a variety of reasons to cross to CACG if the other prior "double" approval can still be demonstrated. THAT'S what the concept of the "Legacy" designation is all about!
Very well stated. I am in the same boat as you though as far as sending in my PCGS stickered coins, which compromise over 80% of my collection. Until I see how the registry component works they will stay where they are, even though I have a good amount that I feel will + grade.
Why are people concerned with what it may have BEEN IN? If that's a factor, keep it in the present slab.
Because when we cross to CAC, some of us want potential buyers down the road to know that the coin was previously approved by CAC for that whole grade it had been in AND by that other TPG as a separate confirmation, as opposed to a defect-free "C" coin that is now in a CACG holder, or a coin that is now raw, being sent to CAC, and getting approved but not having the "additional" approval of another TPG agreeing with that grade. Taking this into account, there are a variety of reasons to cross to CACG if the other prior "double" approval can still be demonstrated. THAT'S what the concept of the "Legacy" designation is all about!
Very well stated. I am in the same boat as you though as far as sending in my PCGS stickered coins, which compromise over 80% of my collection. Until I see how the registry component works they will stay where they are, even though I have a good amount that I feel will + grade.
Like you (and presumably many others), for those of us that want to continue to partake in the PCGS Registry, there's no reason to cross, assuming PCGS will continue to NOT allow coins in holders of other TPG's to partake in their Registry.
BUT, with that said, as I have dupes from upgrades, I plan to cross those dupes if they are currently in a whole grade number with a CAC. If they currently have a plus grade with a CAC, I probably will not attempt to cross at that same grade, unless market valuations indicated otherwise.
I mentioned this in an email and on Instagram, but it bears repeating: @CAC_Team & @CAC_Ops -- well done. It's deeply appreciated that you took community feedback to heart, and the holder looks great. Thanks for having us all involved (and I apologize on behalf of myself and everyone else for doing design-by-committee, which I know from real world experience is just. the. worst.)
Looking forward to seeing the 1.0 holders in the flesh!
--Noah
Thanks for the encouraging words! At CAC, we do our best to listen to the customer - we greatly appreciate and value the feedback.
BUT, with that said, as I have dupes from upgrades, I plan to cross those dupes if they are currently in a whole grade number with a CAC. If they currently have a plus grade with a CAC, I probably will not attempt to cross at that same grade, unless market valuations indicated otherwise.
Do you happen to know if one can cross stipulating a "+" as the minimum? Still might be a waste of money I suppose.
Yes, when submitting to CACG for crossover, one can specify any grade you choose as a minimum. For example, if your present coin is graded 65, you can say; 1. Cross at ANY grade. 2. Cross at the same grade or better. 3. Cross at 64 or better. 4. Cross at 65+ or better. 5. Cross at 68 or better.
Anything you want, you can request. Just make sure your minimum grade request for crossover is CLEAR on their submission form.
Completing a submission form for a third-party grader should NEVER be as tedious as filing your own taxes! Our plan is to keep our form simple and easy to use.
Completing a submission form for a third-party grader should NEVER be as tedious as filing your own taxes! Our plan is to keep our form simple and easy to use.
Completing a submission form for a third-party grader should NEVER be as tedious as filing your own taxes! Our plan is to keep our form simple and easy to use.
How does the diameter of your new slab compare in thickness to the current PCGS slab?
Comments
After the first two or three taps, take a look at which direction the coin is moving. If you need to change corners, that's the time to do it.
--------
It worked! I have a 1795 Flowing Hair Half Dollar that was almost sideways in its PCGS holder. It took quite a bit of tapping, but I eventually got it back into vertical alignment. I found that it also worked by tapping it against my hand, and I could do that as hard as I wanted without worrying about scratching up the side of the holder on a hard surface.
Is it just me or does this seem to happen a lot more often with PCGS holders than with NGC holders? I don't really like how the NGC holders look, but they seem more robust to me, and it seems like their insert keeps a better grip on the coin.
Steve
Note: The CAC Grading company will incorporate the Greysheet ID # on the front of the slab label. In this example, the number displayed is 10150 which correlates to the 1927 Saint Gaudens $20 double eagle. This catalog system will be made available under license to companies interested in working with our extensive database index, which includes U.S. coins, U.S paper money, world paper money (Banknote Book) and our expanding listing of world coins.
I would think that a more flexible/softer material insert which applies more friction at the three points of contact would help this problem.
Looking forward to seeing the 1.0 holders in the flesh!
--Noah
I didn't see the question answered about the Legacy holder that was mentioned in the previous holder reveal. Is it still planned?
Here's my idea of a Legacy design in any case.
If that's a factor, keep it in the present slab.
BUT, with that said, as I have dupes from upgrades, I plan to cross those dupes if they are currently in a whole grade number with a CAC. If they currently have a plus grade with a CAC, I probably will not attempt to cross at that same grade, unless market valuations indicated otherwise.
BUT, with that said, as I have dupes from upgrades, I plan to cross those dupes if they are currently in a whole grade number with a CAC. If they currently have a plus grade with a CAC, I probably will not attempt to cross at that same grade, unless market valuations indicated otherwise.
Do you happen to know if one can cross stipulating a "+" as the minimum? Still might be a waste of money I suppose.
1. Cross at ANY grade.
2. Cross at the same grade or better.
3. Cross at 64 or better.
4. Cross at 65+ or better.
5. Cross at 68 or better.
Anything you want, you can request. Just make sure your minimum grade request for crossover is CLEAR on their submission form.