Called JA today. He was intrigued by the idea and is considering the idea.
That’s great, I only have 1 older holder to try for a plus at this time, but if this idea is adopted by JA it will enormously benefit the collectors with large amounts of older holders that could be potentially crossed for a plus.
But what would happen if CACG sees a full grade higher. Do you get a sticker for the Higher Grade ? Food for thought?
I think this would cause more confusion than it's worth. There will be coins that PCGS doesn't plus but CAC does and PCGS+ coins that CAC doesn't plus. When you see a CAC non-plus sticker, you wouldn't know if CAC doesn't think it's a plus or it wasn't never sent to CAC for a plus sticker. I don't like this extra complexity that makes it harder for a collector to figure things out.
The ability to differentiate a CAC plus vs non-plus on an old holder that someone doesn't want to crack out is not worth all this confusion.
It’s NOT just old holders. Presumably PCGS will not change their policy of not allowing coins in holders of other TPG’s to partake in the PCGS Registry.
I’m not the only collector where the PCGS Registry is important enough to me that I will not cross my Registry coins to CACG. (Regardless, I will partake in both of the new CACG Registries with my PCGS holdered coins).
All of my coins eligible for a CAC sticker have one. But since about 37% of my PCGS/CAC coins that are eligible for a plus do not have a Plus grade, if this CACG+ sticker indeed came into effect, I would send in 100% of those CAC coins without pluses to see if some are deemed “A” coins by CACG and would therefore merit that new plus sticker. Some may now say that collectors with that attitude of sending everything in to CAC is what causes unnecessary backlogs, but the difference here is that EVERY coin being sent in already has a CAC sticker!
I fully recognize that will not help me with the PCGS Registry, but I believe it will help maximize value for when the time comes to sell those coins, either by me or my heirs.
While as noted above these plus stickers won’t help with the PCGS Registry, I strongly believe they WILL help with each of the two new CACG Registries.
Steve
Edit - I just counted, and those roughly 37% of my PCGS/CAC coins eligible for a plus but that don’t have one, comes to 125 coins. Just estimating a fee of $35 each, I’m willing to spend the $4,375 plus round trip shipping, even with NO collector credit for coins that fail to get the plus sticker. I feel confident that the coins that are “A” coins that merit the plus stickers will easily have an increased market value well in excess of those costs.
I think this would cause more confusion than it's worth. There will be coins that PCGS doesn't plus but CAC does and PCGS+ coins that CAC doesn't plus. When you see a CAC non-plus sticker, you wouldn't know if CAC doesn't think it's a plus or it wasn't never sent to CAC for a plus sticker. I don't like this extra complexity that makes it harder for a collector to figure things out.
The ability to differentiate a CAC plus vs non-plus on an old holder that someone doesn't want to crack out is not worth all this confusion.
I am not sure there will be so much confusion. A Plus Sticker is still the same as a CACG Plus Holder. A Plus is a Plus no matter what form it’s in.
How do you rank and price these coins sight unseen then: PCGS 65 PCGS 65 CAC PCGS 65 CAC+ PCGS 65+ PCGS 65+ CAC PCGS 65+ CAC+ NGC 65 NGC 65 CAC NGC 65 CAC+ NGC 65+ NGC 65+ CAC NGC 65+ CAC+ CACG 65 CACG 65 Legacy CACG 65+ CACG 65+ Legacy
This is assuming they reuse the same green sticker for non-plus CAC. If they have a new sticker, it gets even more complicated. And if they don't have a new sticker, then you'll never be sure if it's not a plus because CAC has not looked at it after they started doing plus stickers. Like I said, it's going to be very confusing.
It’s NOT just old holders. Presumably PCGS will not change their policy of not allowing coins in holders of other TPG’s to partake in the PCGS Registry.
This I get, but my point is having just a CAC sticker is good enough in this case. A CAC plus sticker will likely not affect PCGS set ratings anyways.
I believe it will help maximize value for when the time comes to sell those coins, either by me or my heirs.
When the time comes to sell, just cross them over to the TPG that will yield the most value. It might be CACG or it might still be PCGS. It's not a decision you have to make today.
It’s NOT just old holders. Presumably PCGS will not change their policy of not allowing coins in holders of other TPG’s to partake in the PCGS Registry.
This I get, but my point is having just a CAC sticker is good enough in this case. A CAC plus sticker will likely not affect PCGS set ratings anyways.
I believe it will help maximize value for when the time comes to sell those coins, either by me or my heirs.
When the time comes to sell, just cross them over to the TPG that will yield the most value. It might be CACG or it might still be PCGS. It's not a decision you have to make today.
I agree with the above - in particular, with the last part. Many collectors (who aren’t presently selling) spend a lot of money on grading, stickers, crossover attempts, regrading, regrading, again and so on. In many cases, by the time they do sell, something has changed in the world of grading. And that change “requires” that they go through part or all of those exercises yet, again, anyway.
I realize that some of the above is done for current registry set purposes, but a lot of it isn’t.
On the surface this sounds like a great idea that will benefit many collectors of older holders. However, after much thought and consideration of how this would actually play out, it seems like a convoluted idea... 1. It cheapens the existing CAC stickered coins. 2. The CACG "Legacy" holders will already make this more complex. This potentially adds a whole new level of complexity to an already complex pricing structure for A/B/C coins. Not necessarily saying this is a bad idea, it just needs to be considered heavily and rolled out in a meaningful way.
As someone who owns several CAC’d old holders, no thank you. I’m tired of the back and forth nature of this idea and just want to enjoy my coins without further hassle.
As someone who owns several CAC’d old holders, no thank you. I’m tired of the back and forth nature of this idea and just want to enjoy my coins without further hassle.
What? You want to just enjoy your coins without all of the complications and distractions?
Another use for the plus sticker is the slabbed red copper cent. From a liability standpoint CACG should be very reluctant to re-slab red copper coins. Better to keep them in their current holders for the buyer, the seller and CAC.
The good news is, regardless of what is offered, each collector can easily choose what to do, or not to do, with their own coins. While not great examples, right now PCGS offers Regrade, Reconsideration, specialized photo Grade services (I believe), reholder, etc. Those collectors who want to avail themselves of one or more of these "supplemental" services for some of their coins can do so. Those that don't want to utilize those offerings don't have to.
With that in mind, why speak out against the offer to keep others from utilizing the services? MANY collectors will never send in some of their coins for Regrade or Reconsideration. Does that mean they should speak out against the offering?
Now, while the current idea of a plus I find unappealing, the idea as a whole could be beneficial.
CACG/CAC could offer a CAM or PL/DPL sticker for older slabs, which is something that would actually make a difference in price and is extremely useful for collectors.
The good news is, regardless of what is offered, each collector can easily choose what to do, or not to do, with their own coins. While not great examples, right now PCGS offers Regrade, Reconsideration, specialized photo Grade services (I believe), reholder, etc. Those collectors who want to avail themselves of one or more of these "supplemental" services for some of their coins can do so. Those that don't want to utilize those offerings don't have to.
With that in mind, why speak out against the offer to keep others from utilizing the services? MANY collectors will never send in some of their coins for Regrade or Reconsideration. Does that mean they should speak out against the offering?
Steve
Steve, I won't try to answer for others, but here are my thoughts...
It pains me to see so many collectors preoccupied with and fixated on all of the grade-related options and distractions, as opposed to the coins, themselves. At the same time, I believe that collectors should collect as they please, though hopefully well educated and aware.
Additionally, the more complicated things become, the less it will be about the coins.
And lastly, the more time the grading companies spend on exceptions and new options of the type being discussed, the less time they will have to spend on grading. If everyone with a request or suggestion that sounded good in a vacuum were to get their way, the unacceptable grading backlog would probably be the subject of multiple new discussions.
Please know that I feel bad disagreeing with you, because you're extremely reasonable and a great collector, forum member and person.
The good news is, regardless of what is offered, each collector can easily choose what to do, or not to do, with their own coins. While not great examples, right now PCGS offers Regrade, Reconsideration, specialized photo Grade services (I believe), reholder, etc. Those collectors who want to avail themselves of one or more of these "supplemental" services for some of their coins can do so. Those that don't want to utilize those offerings don't have to.
With that in mind, why speak out against the offer to keep others from utilizing the services? MANY collectors will never send in some of their coins for Regrade or Reconsideration. Does that mean they should speak out against the offering?
Steve
Steve, I won't try to answer for others, but here are my thoughts...
It pains me to see so many collectors preoccupied with and fixated on all of the grade-related options and distractions, as opposed to the coins, themselves. At the same time, I believe that collectors should collect as they please, though hopefully well educated and aware.
Additionally, the more complicated things become, the less it will be about the coins.
And lastly, the more time the grading companies spend on exceptions and new options of the type being discussed, the less time they will have to spend on grading. If everyone with a request or suggestion that sounded good in a vacuum were to get their way, the unacceptable grading backlog would probably be the subject of multiple new discussions.
Please know that I feel bad disagreeing with you, because you're extremely reasonable and a great collector, forum member and person.
Mark, no apologies necessary. It's positive that we each have the ability to share our thoughts (and my skin is not thin, AND I'm used to having a minority opinion on MANY issues, so all is good).
Some collectors, like myself, choose to take what's available to maximize value. Many collectors choose not to. To your separate point about the TPG's having time for their primary purpose of grading - should PCGS temporarily stop offering reholdering, Regrade, Reconsideration, Restoration (which then gets regraded) so they can catch up???????????
And not EVERY suggestion will ever be accepted, so that doesn't move me.
As someone who owns several CAC’d old holders, no thank you. I’m tired of the back and forth nature of this idea and just want to enjoy my coins without further hassle.
I am with catbert on this. At some point I think that offering more and more options makes you a jack of all trades and master of none. And if JA is of the opinion that there are already too many grades in, say, AU, then it seems defeating to essentially double the number of possible AU grades by adding pluses to the mix. One shouldn’t need an Enigma machine to figure out the grade of a coin.
As someone who owns several CAC’d old holders, no thank you. I’m tired of the back and forth nature of this idea and just want to enjoy my coins without further hassle.
Silence of the clams says:
I am with catbert on this. At some point I think that offering more and more options makes you a jack of all trades and master of none. And if JA is of the opinion that there are already too many grades in, say, AU, then it seems defeating to essentially double the number of possible AU grades by adding pluses to the mix. One shouldn’t need an Enigma machine to figure out the grade of a coin.
My reply:
I'm under the impression that with PCGS and NGC plus grades are currently used for most of the various AU numerical grades, so I would think that CACG will be using each of those plus grades anyway.
The good news is, regardless of what is offered, each collector can easily choose what to do, or not to do, with their own coins. While not great examples, right now PCGS offers Regrade, Reconsideration, specialized photo Grade services (I believe), reholder, etc. Those collectors who want to avail themselves of one or more of these "supplemental" services for some of their coins can do so. Those that don't want to utilize those offerings don't have to.
With that in mind, why speak out against the offer to keep others from utilizing the services? MANY collectors will never send in some of their coins for Regrade or Reconsideration. Does that mean they should speak out against the offering?
Steve
Steve, I won't try to answer for others, but here are my thoughts...
It pains me to see so many collectors preoccupied with and fixated on all of the grade-related options and distractions, as opposed to the coins, themselves. At the same time, I believe that collectors should collect as they please, though hopefully well educated and aware.
Additionally, the more complicated things become, the less it will be about the coins.
And lastly, the more time the grading companies spend on exceptions and new options of the type being discussed, the less time they will have to spend on grading. If everyone with a request or suggestion that sounded good in a vacuum were to get their way, the unacceptable grading backlog would probably be the subject of multiple new discussions.
Please know that I feel bad disagreeing with you, because you're extremely reasonable and a great collector, forum member and person.
Mark, no apologies necessary. It's positive that we each have the ability to share our thoughts (and my skin is not thin, AND I'm used to having a minority opinion on MANY issues, so all is good).
Some collectors, like myself, choose to take what's available to maximize value. Many collectors choose not to. To your separate point about the TPG's having time for their primary purpose of grading - should PCGS temporarily stop offering reholdering, Regrade, Reconsideration, Restoration (which then gets regraded) so they can catch up???????????
And not EVERY suggestion will ever be accepted, so that doesn't move me.
Steve
Steve, in answer to your question (should PCGS temporarily stop offering reholdering, Regrade, Reconsideration, Restoration (which then gets regraded) - I don't think that's a fair comparison to the addition of a new sticker/service.
That was a valid point regarding my exaggeration pertaining to suggestions being accepted. Guilty, as charged.
Comments
The ability to differentiate a CAC plus vs non-plus on an old holder that someone doesn't want to crack out is not worth all this confusion.
I’m not the only collector where the PCGS Registry is important enough to me that I will not cross my Registry coins to CACG. (Regardless, I will partake in both of the new CACG Registries with my PCGS holdered coins).
All of my coins eligible for a CAC sticker have one. But since about 37% of my PCGS/CAC coins that are eligible for a plus do not have a Plus grade, if this CACG+ sticker indeed came into effect, I would send in 100% of those CAC coins without pluses to see if some are deemed “A” coins by CACG and would therefore merit that new plus sticker. Some may now say that collectors with that attitude of sending everything in to CAC is what causes unnecessary backlogs, but the difference here is that EVERY coin being sent in already has a CAC sticker!
I fully recognize that will not help me with the PCGS Registry, but I believe it will help maximize value for when the time comes to sell those coins, either by me or my heirs.
While as noted above these plus stickers won’t help with the PCGS Registry, I strongly believe they WILL help with each of the two new CACG Registries.
Steve
Edit - I just counted, and those roughly 37% of my PCGS/CAC coins eligible for a plus but that don’t have one, comes to 125 coins. Just estimating a fee of $35 each, I’m willing to spend the $4,375 plus round trip shipping, even with NO collector credit for coins that fail to get the plus sticker. I feel confident that the coins that are “A” coins that merit the plus stickers will easily have an increased market value well in excess of those costs.
PCGS 65
PCGS 65 CAC
PCGS 65 CAC+
PCGS 65+
PCGS 65+ CAC
PCGS 65+ CAC+
NGC 65
NGC 65 CAC
NGC 65 CAC+
NGC 65+
NGC 65+ CAC
NGC 65+ CAC+
CACG 65
CACG 65 Legacy
CACG 65+
CACG 65+ Legacy
I realize that some of the above is done for current registry set purposes, but a lot of it isn’t.
With that in mind, why speak out against the offer to keep others from utilizing the services? MANY collectors will never send in some of their coins for Regrade or Reconsideration. Does that mean they should speak out against the offering?
Steve
CACG/CAC could offer a CAM or PL/DPL sticker for older slabs, which is something that would actually make a difference in price and is extremely useful for collectors.
It pains me to see so many collectors preoccupied with and fixated on all of the grade-related options and distractions, as opposed to the coins, themselves. At the same time, I believe that collectors should collect as they please, though hopefully well educated and aware.
Additionally, the more complicated things become, the less it will be about the coins.
And lastly, the more time the grading companies spend on exceptions and new options of the type being discussed, the less time they will have to spend on grading. If everyone with a request or suggestion that sounded good in a vacuum were to get their way, the unacceptable grading backlog would probably be the subject of multiple new discussions.
Please know that I feel bad disagreeing with you, because you're extremely reasonable and a great collector, forum member and person.
Some collectors, like myself, choose to take what's available to maximize value. Many collectors choose not to. To your separate point about the TPG's having time for their primary purpose of grading - should PCGS temporarily stop offering reholdering, Regrade, Reconsideration, Restoration (which then gets regraded) so they can catch up???????????
And not EVERY suggestion will ever be accepted, so that doesn't move me.
Steve
I am with catbert on this. At some point I think that offering more and more options makes you a jack of all trades and master of none. And if JA is of the opinion that there are already too many grades in, say, AU, then it seems defeating to essentially double the number of possible AU grades by adding pluses to the mix. One shouldn’t need an Enigma machine to figure out the grade of a coin.
My reply:
I'm under the impression that with PCGS and NGC plus grades are currently used for most of the various AU numerical grades, so I would think that CACG will be using each of those plus grades anyway.
Steve
That was a valid point regarding my exaggeration pertaining to suggestions being accepted. Guilty, as charged.