....A gold sticker means at least 1.5 points higher.
--------
If that's the case, then does that mean that a green sticker can sometimes indicate an under-graded coin? For example a coin that is "just" 1.0 points higher, and not the 1.5 required to get a gold sticker?
If so, then I guess that would explain the coins that have gotten green stickers at two different grade levels.
Real simple…green bean gets a green “L” gold bean gets a gold “L”
All CAC stickers deserve the Legacy designation whether coin is upgraded or not because the prior CAC review was consistent by the same grading team!
Hmmm...
A PCGS 55 green CAC upgrades to a CACG 58 and gets a "green L" while a different PCGS 58 green CAC crosses straight to CACG 58 and would also get a "green L", right?
I'll have to think about it as I'm not sold quite yet.
I believe he meant a pcac gold 55 upgrades to cacg 58 and gets a gold L, not a green cac 55
EliteCollection said:
....A gold sticker means at least 1.5 points higher.
--------
If that's the case, then does that mean that a green sticker can sometimes indicate an under-graded coin? For example a coin that is "just" 1.0 points higher, and not the 1.5 required to get a gold sticker?
If so, then I guess that would explain the coins that have gotten green stickers at two different grade levels.
Yes, exactly. And I believe there are cases where a green stickered NGC coin got down crossed to a lower grade PCGS holder and only got a green sticker afterwards.
EliteCollection said:
....A gold sticker means at least 1.5 points higher.
--------
If that's the case, then does that mean that a green sticker can sometimes indicate an under-graded coin? For example a coin that is "just" 1.0 points higher, and not the 1.5 required to get a gold sticker?
If so, then I guess that would explain the coins that have gotten green stickers at two different grade levels.
Yes, exactly. And I believe there are cases where a green stickered NGC coin got down crossed to a lower grade PCGS holder and only got a green sticker afterwards.
That’s still incorrect. A gold 65 is at least a solid 66 but more likely closer to 67 and probably a 66 +. If a green 65 upgrades to a green 66 it had to be a minimum 66.5 or better and should have been graded as a GOLD to begin with.
....A gold sticker means at least 1.5 points higher.
--------
If that's the case, then does that mean that a green sticker can sometimes indicate an under-graded coin? For example a coin that is "just" 1.0 points higher, and not the 1.5 required to get a gold sticker?
If so, then I guess that would explain the coins that have gotten green stickers at two different grade levels.
Yes, exactly. And I believe there are cases where a green stickered NGC coin got down crossed to a lower grade PCGS holder and only got a green sticker afterwards.
That’s still incorrect. A gold 65 is at least a solid 66 but more likely closer to 67 and probably a 66 +. If a green 65 upgrades to a green 66 it had to be a minimum 66.5 or better and should have been graded as a GOLD to begin with.
In theory, yes, but that's just not how it always works from what ive seen. In my experience, the gold beans are not only coins that are under graded by a good 1.5 pts if not more, but also tremendous eye appeal and more than likely in an OGH, Rattler, or NGC fatty. @EliteCollection's observation is similar to mine, with respect to green CAC coins getting downgraded upon crossover, and getting a green again. It happens all the time, and It is somewhat of an inconsistency that people have questions about regarding the transition to CACG standards. I don't necessarily disagree with you Stevie, but at the same time I do recognize that grading is subjective and its hard to make the judgement call with the gold bean when were talking about .1 or .2 of a grade on borderline coins.
EliteCollection said:
....A gold sticker means at least 1.5 points higher.
--------
If that's the case, then does that mean that a green sticker can sometimes indicate an under-graded coin? For example a coin that is "just" 1.0 points higher, and not the 1.5 required to get a gold sticker?
If so, then I guess that would explain the coins that have gotten green stickers at two different grade levels.
Yes, exactly. And I believe there are cases where a green stickered NGC coin got down crossed to a lower grade PCGS holder and only got a green sticker afterwards.
That’s still incorrect. A gold 65 is at least a solid 66 but more likely closer to 67 and probably a 66 +. If a green 65 upgrades to a green 66 it had to be a minimum 66.5 or better and should have been graded as a GOLD to begin with.
In theory, yes, but that's just not how it always works from what ive seen. In my experience, the gold beans are not only coins that are under graded by a good 1.5 pts if not more, but also tremendous eye appeal and more than likely in an OGH, Rattler, or NGC fatty. @EliteCollection's observation is similar to mine, with respect to green CAC coins getting downgraded upon crossover, and getting a green again. It happens all the time, and It is somewhat of an inconsistency that people have questions about regarding the transition to CACG standards. I don't necessarily disagree with you Stevie, but at the same time I do recognize that grading is subjective and its hard to make the judgement call with the gold bean when were talking about .1 or .2 of a grade on borderline coins.
You make some good points. I will say that I believe there is an inherent bias towards older holders when it comes to gold labels. My 2 gold stickers came from Older Blue Holders. So I think it’s almost impossible to get a gold sticker in a newer holder post 2010-present. The graders are subconsciously thinking a possible upgrade on the older holders especially rattlers and OGH.
The Legacy designation is used for coins that were previously approved by CAC. It's does not identify if a coin was previously graded by PCGS or NGC. What is important is that CAC considered the coin solid for the grade.
As @EliteCollection said “JA of course is doing everything he can to make sure that CACG grading standards are the same as CAC stickering standards." This includes having the final word when the grading team is unable to agree on the grade. "The Legacy designation is there to assure people crossing CAC stickered coins to CACG grading that the label will still show that the coin meets the JA-only CAC stickering standards.”
The Legacy designation is used for coins that were previously approved by CAC. It's does not identify if a coin was previously graded by PCGS or NGC. What is important is that CAC considered the coin solid for the grade.
As @EliteCollection said “JA of course is doing everything he can to make sure that CACG grading standards are the same as CAC stickering standards." This includes having the final word when the grading team is unable to agree on the grade. "The Legacy designation is there to assure people crossing CAC stickered coins to CACG grading that the label will still show that the coin meets the JA-only CAC stickering standards.”
I agree that the "L" will be useful to assure people the coin was previously OKed by JA. I would push back on: "It's does not identify if a coin was previously graded by PCGS or NGC." as having the "L" also necessarily means PCGS or NGC has previously graded the coin. That may not be the intent of the "L" but it is an unavoidable side effect of the current plan as I understand it. Whether it gives someone warm fuzzies that JA previously liked it or PCGS/NGC previously liked it is more open for debate.
The main question as I see it is if previous stickers were applied as a CAC ..company.. standard. My impression was that JA was a "finalizer" for most stickering. Not necessarily that ..every.. sticker was HIS viewing. IF it's true that every sticker was HIS acceptance regardless of TPG brand slab, then the "L" may have a worthwhile effect.
It's obvious that the L means the coin was previously graded by PCGS or NGC since these are the only two companies that CAC stickers.
Perhaps my statement wasn't clear. Let me explain a different way, the L does not differentiate between the two companies. Therefore, in most cases you will not know which company originally graded the coin. This makes sense to me because regardless of which company graded the coin it met CAC standards.
It's obvious that the L means the coin was previously graded by PCGS or NGC since these are the only two companies that CAC stickers.
Perhaps my statement wasn't clear. Let me explain a different way, the L does not differentiate between the two companies. Therefore, in most cases you will not know which company originally graded the coin. This makes sense to me because regardless of which company graded the coin it met CAC standards.
I understand and agree. Thanks for clarifying. At the end of the day it's CAC's opinion that means the most to me anyhow. I do like the idea of having the "L" to signify the coin was previously stickered and knowing PCGS or NGC previously graded it is of significantly less importance to me.
It's obvious that the L means the coin was previously graded by PCGS or NGC since these are the only two companies that CAC stickers.
Perhaps my statement wasn't clear. Let me explain a different way, the L does not differentiate between the two companies. Therefore, in most cases you will not know which company originally graded the coin. This makes sense to me because regardless of which company graded the coin it met CAC standards.
I understand and agree. Thanks for clarifying.
At the end of the day it's CAC's opinion that means the most to me anyhow. I do like the idea of having the "L" to signify the coin was previously stickered and knowing PCGS or NGC previously graded it is of significantly less importance to me.
I think the L designation is a mistake. It just muddles the waters for the new grading service. CACG Should be able to stand and prosper on its OWN MERITS. It may create a premium for L coins over its regular product. After all the L is just a rubber stamp of their own PCGS/NGC Sticker service
It's obvious that the L means the coin was previously graded by PCGS or NGC since these are the only two companies that CAC stickers.
Perhaps my statement wasn't clear. Let me explain a different way, the L does not differentiate between the two companies. Therefore, in most cases you will not know which company originally graded the coin. This makes sense to me because regardless of which company graded the coin it met CAC standards.
I understand and agree. Thanks for clarifying. At the end of the day it's CAC's opinion that means the most to me anyhow. I do like the idea of having the "L" to signify the coin was previously stickered and knowing PCGS or NGC previously graded it is of significantly less importance to me.
I think the L designation is a mistake. It just muddles the waters for the new grading service. CACG Should be able to stand and prosper on its OWN MERITS. It may create a premium for L coins over its regular product. After all the L is just a rubber stamp of their own PCGS/NGC Sticker service
Without the L designation, I would be very hesitant to cross anything from PCGS without first seeing how the market reacts to the new slabs. One of the things CACG is going to want to do to establish itself is get some killer coins in the new holders. Most killer coins already have stickers, and not offering the L designation could be a huge setback towards that goal, as many collectors feel the same way that I do about crossing and losing the "two opinions". Even though its clear that we value CAC's opinion more, not all collectors feel that same way.
It's obvious that the L means the coin was previously graded by PCGS or NGC since these are the only two companies that CAC stickers.
Perhaps my statement wasn't clear. Let me explain a different way, the L does not differentiate between the two companies. Therefore, in most cases you will not know which company originally graded the coin. This makes sense to me because regardless of which company graded the coin it met CAC standards.
I understand and agree. Thanks for clarifying. At the end of the day it's CAC's opinion that means the most to me anyhow. I do like the idea of having the "L" to signify the coin was previously stickered and knowing PCGS or NGC previously graded it is of significantly less importance to me.
I think the L designation is a mistake. It just muddles the waters for the new grading service. CACG Should be able to stand and prosper on its OWN MERITS. It may create a premium for L coins over its regular product. After all the L is just a rubber stamp of their own PCGS/NGC Sticker service
Fair enough. I see the "L" as insurance for me in the event that CACG is for whatever reasdoesn't work out as planned. I think that is an unlikely outcome but a non-zero possibility.
It's obvious that the L means the coin was previously graded by PCGS or NGC since these are the only two companies that CAC stickers.
Perhaps my statement wasn't clear. Let me explain a different way, the L does not differentiate between the two companies. Therefore, in most cases you will not know which company originally graded the coin. This makes sense to me because regardless of which company graded the coin it met CAC standards.
I understand and agree. Thanks for clarifying. At the end of the day it's CAC's opinion that means the most to me anyhow. I do like the idea of having the "L" to signify the coin was previously stickered and knowing PCGS or NGC previously graded it is of significantly less importance to me.
I think the L designation is a mistake. It just muddles the waters for the new grading service. CACG Should be able to stand and prosper on its OWN MERITS. It may create a premium for L coins over its regular product. After all the L is just a rubber stamp of their own PCGS/NGC Sticker service
Without the L designation, I would be very hesitant to cross anything from PCGS without first seeing how the market reacts to the new slabs. One of the things CACG is going to want to do to establish itself is get some killer coins in the new holders. Most killer coins already have stickers, and not offering the L designation could be a huge setback towards that goal, as many collectors feel the same way that I do about crossing and losing the "two opinions". Even though its clear that we value CAC's opinion more, not all collectors feel that same way.
I'll be in the minority. The "L" designation will not influence my decision to buy CACG coins or whether to cross my coins to CACG. If a CACG holdered coin is the gold standard of grading, then I'm satisfied. However, if having a L designation floats the boat of some people who post here, than I'm glad they are satisfied!
Comments
....A gold sticker means at least 1.5 points higher.
--------
If that's the case, then does that mean that a green sticker can sometimes indicate an under-graded coin? For example a coin that is "just" 1.0 points higher, and not the 1.5 required to get a gold sticker?
If so, then I guess that would explain the coins that have gotten green stickers at two different grade levels.
In theory, yes, but that's just not how it always works from what ive seen. In my experience, the gold beans are not only coins that are under graded by a good 1.5 pts if not more, but also tremendous eye appeal and more than likely in an OGH, Rattler, or NGC fatty. @EliteCollection's observation is similar to mine, with respect to green CAC coins getting downgraded upon crossover, and getting a green again. It happens all the time, and It is somewhat of an inconsistency that people have questions about regarding the transition to CACG standards. I don't necessarily disagree with you Stevie, but at the same time I do recognize that grading is subjective and its hard to make the judgement call with the gold bean when were talking about .1 or .2 of a grade on borderline coins.
As @EliteCollection said “JA of course is doing everything he can to make sure that CACG grading standards are the same as CAC stickering standards." This includes having the final word when the grading team is unable to agree on the grade. "The Legacy designation is there to assure people crossing CAC stickered coins to CACG grading that the label will still show that the coin meets the JA-only CAC stickering standards.”
I....feel...it....coming....
IF it's true that every sticker was HIS acceptance regardless of TPG brand slab, then the "L" may have a worthwhile effect.
Perhaps my statement wasn't clear. Let me explain a different way, the L does not differentiate between the two companies. Therefore, in most cases you will not know which company originally graded the coin. This makes sense to me because regardless of which company graded the coin it met CAC standards.
At the end of the day it's CAC's opinion that means the most to me anyhow. I do like the idea of having the "L" to signify the coin was previously stickered and knowing PCGS or NGC previously graded it is of significantly less importance to me.
Without the L designation, I would be very hesitant to cross anything from PCGS without first seeing how the market reacts to the new slabs. One of the things CACG is going to want to do to establish itself is get some killer coins in the new holders. Most killer coins already have stickers, and not offering the L designation could be a huge setback towards that goal, as many collectors feel the same way that I do about crossing and losing the "two opinions". Even though its clear that we value CAC's opinion more, not all collectors feel that same way.
Fair enough.
I see the "L" as insurance for me in the event that CACG is for whatever reasdoesn't work out as planned. I think that is an unlikely outcome but a non-zero possibility. I think the L designation is a mistake. It just muddles the waters for the new grading service. CACG Should be able to stand and prosper on its OWN MERITS. It may create a premium for L coins over its regular product. After all the L is just a rubber stamp of their own PCGS/NGC Sticker service
Without the L designation, I would be very hesitant to cross anything from PCGS without first seeing how the market reacts to the new slabs. One of the things CACG is going to want to do to establish itself is get some killer coins in the new holders. Most killer coins already have stickers, and not offering the L designation could be a huge setback towards that goal, as many collectors feel the same way that I do about crossing and losing the "two opinions". Even though its clear that we value CAC's opinion more, not all collectors feel that same way.
Well said.