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!
I don’t think you’re necessarily in the minority- perhaps instead you’re in the mostly silent majority. I don’t care about the L designation, nor about a gold sticker or an old holder blah blah blah- just give me the coins, plain and simple, in a nice new shiny CACG holder, accurately graded with good photography and I couldn’t be happier!
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!
I don’t think you’re necessarily in the minority- perhaps instead you’re in the mostly silent majority. I don’t care about the L designation, nor about a gold sticker or an old holder blah blah blah- just give me the coins, plain and simple, in a nice new shiny CACG holder, accurately graded with good photography and I couldn’t be happier!
I think the photography isn’t catching much attention actually.
I vaguely remember JA saying that CACG’s idea was to have the best photography in the TPG realm. I don’t know for sure if that’s true, so don’t quote me on it (I don’t want a CACFan situation )
Many people don’t realize just how hard it is to actually match the quality of TrueViews done by Phil. I think we could name the number of photographers who could do it on one hand, but it’s arguable that no one is consistently better than Phil. For those reasons, I’m very interested to see the photos. I hope they found a good photographer!
I recall that was a statement from my favorite enjoyment coin news source CACFan....which was of course on behalf of the entire Ownership of the CAC/CACG Entities....with their tacit mental agreement with all things uttered by CACFan. Don't you remember him informing us of his mental Mind Mold Mr. Spock-like ability?
I am sure of it. I don't mean to start trouble or anything, but.....oh well.
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!
Count me as someone that does not care about the legacy designation. Most rare coins in a certain state of preservation have already been to PCGS or NGC. For those that believe the L designation should bring a premium, consider the following thought experiment:
Coin A: One group of experts believes the coin is a 65 (or better); another group of experts thinks it is only a 64 Coin B: Both groups of experts agree the coin is only a 64
Which coin would you rather have? Which coin will have an L on the label?
Coin A: One group of experts believes the coin is a 65 (or better); another group of experts thinks it is only a 64 Coin B: Both groups of experts agree the coin is only a 64
Which coin would you rather have? Which coin will have an L on the label?
Of course in your example, most people would pick coin A. This is a bad example because you are comparing a PCGS non-CAC 65 (Coin A) with a CACG 64 L (Coin B ).
A better example is to compare:
Coin A: One group of experts believes the coin is a 65 (or better); another group of experts thinks it is only a 64 Coin B: Both groups of experts agree the coin is only a 65
Then everyone would want Coin B, which is a CACG 65 L coin.
Good try Elite but that doesn't work. Coin A could be the same coin in both examples but clearly
Kate_B < A < Elite_B
as Kate_B and Elite_B are at completely different pricing levels.
Reality is coin C, one group of experts think its only a 64, and another group of experts think its only a 64 but is prodded or re-educated by management to grade it 65 so as to keep the orders flowing in.
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!
Count me as someone that does not care about the legacy designation. Most rare coins in a certain state of preservation have already been to PCGS or NGC. For those that believe the L designation should bring a premium, consider the following thought experiment:
Coin A: One group of experts believes the coin is a 65 (or better); another group of experts thinks it is only a 64 Coin B: Both groups of experts agree the coin is only a 64
Which coin would you rather have? Which coin will have an L on the label?
So basically and a little more simply stated, you don't care what the "L" goes on.
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!
Count me as someone that does not care about the legacy designation. Most rare coins in a certain state of preservation have already been to PCGS or NGC. For those that believe the L designation should bring a premium, consider the following thought experiment:
Coin A: One group of experts believes the coin is a 65 (or better); another group of experts thinks it is only a 64 Coin B: Both groups of experts agree the coin is only a 64
Which coin would you rather have? Which coin will have an L on the label?
So basically and a little more simply stated, you don't care what the "L" goes on.
No, more simply stated, many times a coin without the L will be of a higher quality for the grade.
Coin A: One group of experts believes the coin is a 65 (or better); another group of experts thinks it is only a 64 Coin B: Both groups of experts agree the coin is only a 64
Which coin would you rather have? Which coin will have an L on the label?
Of course in your example, most people would pick coin A. This is a bad example because you are comparing a PCGS non-CAC 65 (Coin A) with a CACG 64 L (Coin B ).
A better example is to compare:
Coin A: One group of experts believes the coin is a 65 (or better); another group of experts thinks it is only a 64 Coin B: Both groups of experts agree the coin is only a 65
Then everyone would want Coin B, which is a CACG 65 L coin.
In my example, Coin A was a PCGS 65 that crossed to CACG 64 (no legacy designation). Coin B was a PCGS 64 CAC that crossed to a CACG 64 (with legacy designation).
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!
Count me as someone that does not care about the legacy designation. Most rare coins in a certain state of preservation have already been to PCGS or NGC. For those that believe the L designation should bring a premium, consider the following thought experiment:
Coin A: One group of experts believes the coin is a 65 (or better); another group of experts thinks it is only a 64 Coin B: Both groups of experts agree the coin is only a 64
Which coin would you rather have? Which coin will have an L on the label?
So basically and a little more simply stated, you don't care what the "L" goes on.
No, more simply stated, many times a coin without the L will be of a higher quality for the grade.
My humor fail....My apologies. It is rare I miss by that much.
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!
Count me as someone that does not care about the legacy designation. Most rare coins in a certain state of preservation have already been to PCGS or NGC. For those that believe the L designation should bring a premium, consider the following thought experiment:
Coin A: One group of experts believes the coin is a 65 (or better); another group of experts thinks it is only a 64 Coin B: Both groups of experts agree the coin is only a 64
Which coin would you rather have? Which coin will have an L on the label?
So basically and a little more simply stated, you don't care what the "L" goes on.
No, more simply stated, many times a coin without the L will be of a higher quality for the grade.
My humor fail....My apologies. It is rare I miss by that much.
No apologies necessary. I find the fetishization of the L designation so illogical, perhaps I was overeager to engage in a substantive discussion.
Comments
I vaguely remember JA saying that CACG’s idea was to have the best photography in the TPG realm. I don’t know for sure if that’s true, so don’t quote me on it (I don’t want a CACFan situation
Many people don’t realize just how hard it is to actually match the quality of TrueViews done by Phil. I think we could name the number of photographers who could do it on one hand, but it’s arguable that no one is consistently better than Phil. For those reasons, I’m very interested to see the photos. I hope they found a good photographer!
I am sure of it. I don't mean to start trouble or anything, but.....oh well.
However, the problem is that the poor quality TrueView images I've seen were taken by someone other than Phil.
"Just give me the coins, plain and simple, in a nice new shiny CACG holder, accurately graded with good photography and I couldn’t be happier!"
Count me as someone that does not care about the legacy designation. Most rare coins in a certain state of preservation have already been to PCGS or NGC. For those that believe the L designation should bring a premium, consider the following thought experiment:
Coin A: One group of experts believes the coin is a 65 (or better); another group of experts thinks it is only a 64
Coin B: Both groups of experts agree the coin is only a 64
Which coin would you rather have? Which coin will have an L on the label?
A better example is to compare:
Coin A: One group of experts believes the coin is a 65 (or better); another group of experts thinks it is only a 64
Coin B: Both groups of experts agree the coin is only a 65
Then everyone would want Coin B, which is a CACG 65 L coin.
Kate_B < A < Elite_B
as Kate_B and Elite_B are at completely different pricing levels.
Reality is coin C, one group of experts think its only a 64, and another group of experts think its only a 64 but is prodded or re-educated by management to grade it 65 so as to keep the orders flowing in.
Coin A: One group of experts believes the coin is a 65 (or better); another group of experts thinks it is only a 64
Coin B: Both groups of experts agree the coin is only a 64
Which coin would you rather have? Which coin will have an L on the label?
So basically and a little more simply stated, you don't care what the "L" goes on.
No, more simply stated, many times a coin without the L will be of a higher quality for the grade.
My humor fail....My apologies. It is rare I miss by that much.
No apologies necessary. I find the fetishization of the L designation so illogical, perhaps I was overeager to engage in a substantive discussion.