Where Will the Line be Drawn? — Welcome to the CAC Educational Forum
›

Where Will the Line be Drawn?

CoinsteinCoinstein
in Grading
I think many are wondering where CACG will draw the line on grading “Details” coins versus what has been deemed as “Market Acceptable” coins. I know many of us have coins like this where the boundary is a bit blurred, especially if you take rarity into consideration. Will CACG use the same scrutiny to “grade”coins as they do now to “sticker” them?

Comments

  • CACfanCACfan
    edited December 2022
    CAC has already said that the CAC sticker standards will be identical to those of the CAC slab.
  • DeplorableDanDeplorableDan
    CACfan said:
    CAC has already said that the CAC sticker standards will be identical to those of the CAC slab.
    Yes, but that doesn’t answer question of whether or not the coin that did not sticker, would have been downgraded or details graded at the new service. 

    @Coinstein , I’m not sure if anyone is going to be able to define in words, where that line will be. I believe CAC will be much less forgiving in terms of “market acceptability”, but other than that I think we’re just going to have to wait and see.
  • WilliamJWilliamJ
    edited December 2022
    I wonder if CACG will give out a few red or yellow dots to help explain what they see in a coin? @CAC_Ops &/ or where they draw the line within the grade?
  • MarkFeldMarkFeld
    DeplorableDan said:


    CACfan said:

    CAC has already said that the CAC sticker standards will be identical to those of the CAC slab.

    Yes, but that doesn’t answer question of whether or not the coin that did not sticker, would have been downgraded or details graded at the new service. 

    @Coinstein , I’m not sure if anyone is going to be able to define in words, where that line will be. I believe CAC will be much less forgiving in terms of “market acceptability”, but other than that I think we’re just going to have to wait and see.


    In most cases, we don’t know whether coins were rejected because they were thought to be low end for the grade, over-graded or deserving of details-grades. My guess is that a good number of them were thought to be details-grade coins and that CACG will decline to straight-grade them.
  • CACfanCACfan
    "Details" means not straight-gradable. CAC has already said that the will slab "Details" coins using a verbal grade without a number. Their threshold for straight grading will certainly be higher than that of PCGS/NGC.
  • LarryCLarryC
    In addition to grading sets, CACG should have a baseline set for what is deemed not gradable. For example is “friction” acceptable at any MS level. What about “brushed” or “abrasions” etc. While “PVC” and “Cleaned” may seem obvious to many, this set should show examples as many CAC rejects barley show evidence of such. Examples of natural vs artificial toning would be helpful too!
  • VERTIGOVERTIGO
    I don't think there will be straight graded market acceptable coins in any CAC holder. And I know some of mine that missed, missed due to old problems. Those coins will stay in their pcgs holders. And if I get coins that are market acceptable I'll submit those to pcgs and not here. I'll just send the nicest stuff in to CAC. 
  • CoinsteinCoinstein
    edited December 2022
    MarkFeld said:

    DeplorableDan said:


    CACfan said:

    CAC has already said that the CAC sticker standards will be identical to those of the CAC slab.

    Yes, but that doesn’t answer question of whether or not the coin that did not sticker, would have been downgraded or details graded at the new service. 

    @Coinstein , I’m not sure if anyone is going to be able to define in words, where that line will be. I believe CAC will be much less forgiving in terms of “market acceptability”, but other than that I think we’re just going to have to wait and see.
    In most cases, we don’t know whether coins were rejected because they were thought to be low end for the grade, over-graded or deserving of details-grades. My guess is that a good number of them were thought to be details-grade coins and that CACG will decline to straight-grade them.



    I believe that will be the case for many, and most will recognize this when evaluating what they send in to CACG.

    There will be a number of coins that were previously deemed to be C coins and have no major issues. These borderline coins are where the question becomes; is it worth the effort?

    I’m sure we all own some of these…..really nice coins that were rejected when submitted for stickers, but we shake are head at why they didn’t pass, and will they straight grade at a lower number.
  • JACACJACAC
    We will have details examples in our grading set. We’re going to focus on coins that barely didn’t earn a straight-grade.  Blatantly polished or damaged coins will not be needed in the grading set as there’s not much to learn from them. JA 
  • CoinsteinCoinstein
    Makes perfect sense. It’s the lightly dipped and “naturally” re-toned ones that cause me headaches. Often, they look perfectly fine, super natural and almost original if you will. It’s a fine line on these….
  • johnjohn
    JACAC said:

    We will have details examples in our grading set. We’re going to focus on coins that barely didn’t earn a straight-grade.  Blatantly polished or damaged coins will not be needed in the grading set as there’s not much to learn from them. JA 

    I wonder if a separate example set is of value. I think a significant percentage of hobbyists would definitely benefit from such a presentation. After all, a hobbyist experiences such coins for sale at any given coin Show, and many are bought by collectors that don't realize the shortcomings, either due to the seller gift of gab and/or lighting, etc.

    I think such a publicly available display would be wonderful and of immense value, especially to new collectors of all ages. I have never seen a public display of same. I have my own secret stash that I share on occasion when the opportunity presents, but it would not hold any bragging rights to a display assembled by CAC. After all, I always enjoy seeing Also Ran But No Soup For You displays, because I learn. Philately has this approach in the education forums (Ok I collect stamps, also. Don't hit me.)

    Just an opinion, FWIW.
  • WilliamJWilliamJ
    Some of those coins that were cleaned a long time ago but have no hairlines can be troublesome.
  • VasantiVasanti
    edited December 2022
    WilliamJ said:
    Some of those coins that were cleaned a long time ago but have no hairlines can be troublesome.
    I’m guessing it will depend on what was done to it. I can’t imagine CACG declining to grade any dipped coins, even though I would love it if they decided not to because I love original finishes. Even that can get super tricky I would imagine. 
  • Insider3Insider3
    There was NO "LINE" in the original Technical Grading System used at first to help precisely ID a coin for internal records. If it were thrown into a pile of a hundred similar coin, each of them could also be identified. True, much of this was done with just the coin's weight and photo BUT the very strict grading also helped. Unlike today, buffed or polished coins were not described merely as "Cleaned." A patch of hairlines that was not a "wheel mark" was simply called "hairlined."

    Most things we see on a coin are actually there. It is a pregnant/not pregnant or AU/MS decision. Today, a moving line of "market acceptability" that is based on several unrelated factors such as "rare" makes for some unusual coins such as a damaged, unique $3 being straight graded.

    One thing is for sure. Whatever the standards any new TPGS adopts in the beginning will change. We have PCGS and NGC to prove it has happened before.
Sign In or Register to comment.