I do think it's a fair comparison. If there's concern about the delays in the TPG's primary function of grading (and I fully agree that is indeed their primary function), then using that problem as a reason for not adding an additional service can then legitimately be applied as the reasoning for temporarily suspending other services to accomplish that very same goal - shorten the abnormally long wait that occurs in their primary function - grading.
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.
Steve
Most likely. My position is that not extending pluses to some grade levels would be better for CACG than following the crowd. But just my opinion.
.... and then there was Coca-Cola, thinking a bit too much about what the Customers would like. Nope. Oops of the Century...the Goizueta Formula7X Murder....otherwise known as the Emotion Factor.
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 do think it's a fair comparison. If there's concern about the delays in the TPG's primary function of grading (and I fully agree that is indeed their primary function), then using that problem as a reason for not adding an additional service can then legitimately be applied as the reasoning for temporarily suspending other services to accomplish that very same goal - shorten the abnormally long wait that occurs in their primary function - grading.
Steve
Closer, but no cigar. I still don't think it's a fair comparison and here's why...It's one thing when there's a large backlog that could be reduced by the temporary halt of long-standing services. It's another, to offer new services, knowing in advance that they might be contribute to a large backlog from the start.
I believe that at the very least, CACG should open and see how things go, before starting new services, that might result in complications, confusion and longer grading turnaround times.
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.
Agree with the words of caution. By restricting the plus sticker to only vintage PCGS and NGC holders, this avoids the cheapening of the existing CAC stickered coins. Perhaps the only exception is to plus sticker the red copper coins to protect them in their older holder.
This makes sure that the rollout is measured and meaningful.
I do think it's a fair comparison. If there's concern about the delays in the TPG's primary function of grading (and I fully agree that is indeed their primary function), then using that problem as a reason for not adding an additional service can then legitimately be applied as the reasoning for temporarily suspending other services to accomplish that very same goal - shorten the abnormally long wait that occurs in their primary function - grading.
Steve
Closer, but no cigar. I still don't think it's a fair comparison and here's why...It's one thing when there's a large backlog that could be reduced by the temporary halt of long-standing services. It's another, to offer new services, knowing in advance that they might be contribute to a large backlog from the start.
I believe that at the very least, CACG should open and see how things go, before starting new services, that might result in complications, confusion and longer grading turnaround times.
I agree what you say makes sense, but I then also believe that if the idea of an additional service is deemed worthwhile by you and others, then that too should be put on the back burner for the reason you state. As such, we do agree the back burner should be the place initially, regardless of the merits of the suggestion made by the OP.
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.
Agree with the words of caution. By restricting the plus sticker to only vintage PCGS and NGC holders, this avoids the cheapening of the existing CAC stickered coins. Perhaps the only exception is to plus sticker the red copper coins to protect them in their older holder.
This makes sure that the rollout is measured and meaningful.
Where would the line be drawn in distinguishing "vintage" holders? And how would that be fair to those with different holders, protecting coins they treasure as much as you do yours?
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.
Agree with the words of caution. By restricting the plus sticker to only vintage PCGS and NGC holders, this avoids the cheapening of the existing CAC stickered coins. Perhaps the only exception is to plus sticker the red copper coins to protect them in their older holder.
This makes sure that the rollout is measured and meaningful.
Where would the line be drawn in distinguishing "vintage" holders? And how would that be fair to those with different holders, protecting coins they treasure as much as you do yours?
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.
Agree with the words of caution. By restricting the plus sticker to only vintage PCGS and NGC holders, this avoids the cheapening of the existing CAC stickered coins. Perhaps the only exception is to plus sticker the red copper coins to protect them in their older holder.
This makes sure that the rollout is measured and meaningful.
Where would the line be drawn in distinguishing "vintage" holders? And how would that be fair to those with different holders, protecting coins they treasure as much as you do yours?
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.
Agree with the words of caution. By restricting the plus sticker to only vintage PCGS and NGC holders, this avoids the cheapening of the existing CAC stickered coins. Perhaps the only exception is to plus sticker the red copper coins to protect them in their older holder.
This makes sure that the rollout is measured and meaningful.
Where would the line be drawn in distinguishing "vintage" holders? And how would that be fair to those with different holders, protecting coins they treasure as much as you do yours?
The line should be the last of the old blue holders which ended in the middle of 2010 before prong holders with Plus grades came out.
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.
Agree with the words of caution. By restricting the plus sticker to only vintage PCGS and NGC holders, this avoids the cheapening of the existing CAC stickered coins. Perhaps the only exception is to plus sticker the red copper coins to protect them in their older holder.
This makes sure that the rollout is measured and meaningful.
Where would the line be drawn in distinguishing "vintage" holders? And how would that be fair to those with different holders, protecting coins they treasure as much as you do yours?
Stevie replied:
The line should be the last of the old blue holders which ended in the middle of 2010 before prong holders with Plus grades came out.
I replied:
Hey, I want some cake too, for my reasons. As Mark commented, why not let me play too????
OK, we're moving a bit closer, lol.
I do think it's a fair comparison. If there's concern about the delays in the TPG's primary function of grading (and I fully agree that is indeed their primary function), then using that problem as a reason for not adding an additional service can then legitimately be applied as the reasoning for temporarily suspending other services to accomplish that very same goal - shorten the abnormally long wait that occurs in their primary function - grading.
Steve
Closer, but no cigar.
I still don't think it's a fair comparison and here's why...It's one thing when there's a large backlog that could be reduced by the temporary halt of long-standing services. It's another, to offer new services, knowing in advance that they might be contribute to a large backlog from the start.
I believe that at the very least, CACG should open and see how things go, before starting new services, that might result in complications, confusion and longer grading turnaround times.
I agree what you say makes sense, but I then also believe that if the idea of an additional service is deemed worthwhile by you and others, then that too should be put on the back burner for the reason you state. As such, we do agree the back burner should be the place initially, regardless of the merits of the suggestion made by the OP.
The problem at PCGS is the large volume of modern mint products and lack of graders NOT LEGITIMATE SERVICES. The Plus Sticker is a very good idea whose time has come that is being unnecessarily taken apart and disparaged by forum members in my opinion. It is much easier to add a sticker than re-encapsulate a coin such as PCGS does with their Plus Grades.
Mark Feld asked; Where would the line be drawn in distinguishing "vintage" holders? And how would that be fair to those with different holders, protecting coins they treasure as much as you do yours?
Stevie replied: The line should be the last of the old blue holders which ended in the middle of 2010 before prong holders with Plus grades came out.
My added comment: I was thinking an older generation of vintage holder but Stevie’s suggestion makes sense as his dividing line is the PCGS holder that never offered a plus grade as opposed to rejecting a plus grade. Perhaps the NGC holder dividing line should be the same.
I would take it a step further. CAC should just offer stickers with their grade on them. Even if the grade is lower, it might be nice to know say that your pcgs ms66 would get a 65+ sticker, ie that it would be straight graded and a close call. This would be a lot less risk to the coin than cracking it out, and save on parts and labor, and the coin could be used in both registries. If I were CAC I'd even just cover up the pcgs logo with theirs!
I would take it a step further. CAC should just offer stickers with their grade on them. Even if the grade is lower, it might be nice to know say that your pcgs ms66 would get a 65+ sticker, ie that it would be straight graded and a close call. This would be a lot less risk to the coin than cracking it out, and save on parts and labor, and the coin could be used in both registries. If I were CAC I'd even just cover up the pcgs logo with theirs!
YES !! Then if you preferred the 66 grade over the 65+ the new lower sticker could be peeled off.
No - the only grade on the CACG holder should be the CACG grade. They are now a grading company. The coins valuation basis is now the CACG grade on the holder. What holder it was in, grade, or sticker it had on its other TPG holder before should not be part of the narrative.
No - the only grade on the CACG holder should be the CACG grade.
I think you misinterpreted the issue.
I believe they’re saying if you take a coin in a PCGS or NGC holder that has a green sticker, regardless of whether it’s a whole grade or a grade with a plus, and send it to CACG not to cross, but to find out if CACG feels if they did cross it and would cross it at a plus grade, keep it in the original TPG holder, but put a new sticker on that original TPG holder that says “CACG +”.
The submitter would still pay the same CACG grading fee, successful or not, but would have the “advantages” of retaining the coin in that original TPG holder, but now potentially with that theoretical new sticker that tells the world (and buyers, and the new CACG Registries) that in the opinion of CACG, this is a + coin!
What will this do to the Pop/Price tables? I'm really confused now. Will the slabs with stickers on other TPGs now be defunct? Was a 64 green, now a 63 +
Comments
I do think it's a fair comparison. If there's concern about the delays in the TPG's primary function of grading (and I fully agree that is indeed their primary function), then using that problem as a reason for not adding an additional service can then legitimately be applied as the reasoning for temporarily suspending other services to accomplish that very same goal - shorten the abnormally long wait that occurs in their primary function - grading.
Steve
I still don't think it's a fair comparison and here's why...It's one thing when there's a large backlog that could be reduced by the temporary halt of long-standing services. It's another, to offer new services, knowing in advance that they might be contribute to a large backlog from the start.
I believe that at the very least, CACG should open and see how things go, before starting new services, that might result in complications, confusion and longer grading turnaround times.
This makes sure that the rollout is measured and meaningful.
Steve
Steve
The line should be the last of the old blue holders which ended in the middle of 2010 before prong holders with Plus grades came out.
I replied:
Hey, I want some cake too, for my reasons. As Mark commented, why not let me play too????
Steve
Where would the line be drawn in distinguishing "vintage" holders? And how would that be fair to those with different holders, protecting coins they treasure as much as you do yours?
Stevie replied:
The line should be the last of the old blue holders which ended in the middle of 2010 before prong holders with Plus grades came out.
My added comment:
I was thinking an older generation of vintage holder but Stevie’s suggestion makes sense as his dividing line is the PCGS holder that never offered a plus grade as opposed to rejecting a plus grade. Perhaps the NGC holder dividing line should be the same.
I believe they’re saying if you take a coin in a PCGS or NGC holder that has a green sticker, regardless of whether it’s a whole grade or a grade with a plus, and send it to CACG not to cross, but to find out if CACG feels if they did cross it and would cross it at a plus grade, keep it in the original TPG holder, but put a new sticker on that original TPG holder that says “CACG +”.
The submitter would still pay the same CACG grading fee, successful or not, but would have the “advantages” of retaining the coin in that original TPG holder, but now potentially with that theoretical new sticker that tells the world (and buyers, and the new CACG Registries) that in the opinion of CACG, this is a + coin!
Steve
I'm really confused now. Will the slabs with stickers on other TPGs now be defunct?
Was a 64 green, now a 63 +