June 2, 2023
Dear CAC Grading member, Please read this over carefully before making submissions to our CAC Grading office in Virginia. It includes important information regarding our "Plus" and "Legacy" designations. As many of you know, CAC stickering has never recognized the plus grade. We first announced this policy after PCGS and NGC made their stances clear in March 2010. CAC Grading, however, WILL be recognizing the plus.
Many NGC and PCGS plus coins will cross over to plus grades in the new CAC Grading holder but this is not an absolute guarantee. On the other hand, a considerable amount of non-plus coins will obtain a plus in Virginia Beach upon re-evaluation. This is a new “grading event” with a different grading team.
Submitters will have the ability to cross a PCGS/NGC coin for a plus only on our new submission forms. Coins stickered between November 2007 and June 5, 2023, and crossed to CAC Grading will have a Legacy designation “-L” after the serial number. However, if this Legacy coin earns a plus in Virginia Beach, it will NOT be designated as a legacy coin. This is a different grading event with a different team of finalizers, as stated earlier. So, a Legacy coin can NEVER have a plus designation. The June 5th cutoff date for the Legacy designation is there to avoid gamification. To see if your CAC stickered coin qualifies for an -L designation, please use our Coin Lookup page: and insert the serial number.
There will be separate grading teams in New Jersey and Virginia, but we will rotate staff between locations from time to time to keep them fresh, as even world-class graders need regular calibration. John Butler, Ron Drzewucki, and Bill Shamhart will remain as “finalizers" in Virginia Beach and John Albanese for CAC stickering in NJ. The grading standards at both locations will, of course, be the same.
Our grading set, which will eventually include thousands of examples, is key to keeping our standards. To ensure consistency, we plan to rotate the grading set between both our offices. Once a coin is placed in the grading set, IT WILL NEVER BE REMOVED. Of course, this excludes coins our members loan us to supplement our grading sets. There will be more information on the Legacy philosophy and plans for future legacy designations in the future. The CAC founders are committed to strict and consistent grading and will have a plan in place to protect future generations of coin collectors. Happy Collecting,
CAC Team |
Comments
It's basically a choice between having the two opinions of a Legacy coin (one of which is CAC's) or a solo CACG + grade. I'm inclined to favor the latter, but not by much. I wonder which the market will prefer.
Regarding the question, I’d clearly prefer the CACG + over the CACG L. With a bit of time, “The Market” will know that EVERY CACG + coin does not have an L, as it’s impossible for a CACG+ to have an L.
As such, I see very few collectors prizing a CACG coin in just a whole grade that CACG says is solid only at that whole grade, versus a CACG + coin that CACG says is solid at that plus grade.
Those CACG + coins are not necessarily just the opinion of CACG. It’s quite possible a PCGS or NGC CAC stickered coin had a plus grade, and when crossed, CACG agreed with the other TPG that the coin did indeed merit a plus. I recognize though that one looking at the CACG+ holder will not know this.
Steve
The idea that this avoids gamification means that CAC does not want someone to first submit to CAC to get a sticker and then submit to CACG to get the legacy label. But what's really wrong with that? The whole point of the legacy label is so that one would know that the coin is solid for the grade according to John Albanese's opinion. JA is still the main finalizer for the stickering service. So having a date cutoff makes no sense. CACG's goal is to be as good at grading as CAC stickering such that legacy labels don't add extra value. Plus, there's a very limited number of coins that have not stickered yet but deserves a sticker. So it's not like there's a lot of coins that people can do this with.
I also don't understand the no legacy on plus coins. Why is there a need to do that? Everyone already knows that legacy means previously stickered and previous stickered means it wasn't stickered with plus in mind. No one will be confused that the legacy label on a CACG+ coins means JA previously thought it was a + coin. By not having plus coins get the legacy label, you wouldn't know if a CACG 65+ was previously a stickered 65 or a 64 coin that CACG graded it too loosely. And now, the legacy label loses its original purpose of fighting CACG gradeflation.
Both wrong decisions IMO. Mind as well get rid of the legacy label as it's not useful anymore.
I agree with the first paragraph from @EliteCollection in that I don't understand why the June 5 date is a cutoff and I don't understand the fear or process of gaming this system. Perhaps it is obvious to others, but not to me. As I understand it, the Legacy label gives an extra layer of information to the owner or buyer to tell them that this coin was previously in an NGC or PCGS holder and had passed CAC standards for a sticker, but was later submitted to CACG and crossed at grade. While that is nice to know, and perhaps useful to know, I don't see what gamification could happen with this information. Therefore, the June 5 cutoff seems unnecessary.
As for the second paragraph, well, I have a different interpretation of the mechanism. If anyone has spent any time whatsoever reading the PCGS forums then one would know that an immense proportion of those members do not understand some of even the most basic principles of CAC. Another large swath of those members understand the basics of CAC, but routinely write erroneous/incorrect information regarding what CAC does or does not do. I'd assume, but cannot prove since I do not read the boards, that the NGC forums are quite similar. Heck, even on the CAC site I have read multiple instance of folks writing things regarding CAC that are clearly not correct and that should really be understood by now. Therefore, I highly doubt that the general coin collecting public, which I would imagine is even less educated about the ins-and-outs of the TPG world, would know every facet of CACG and what the Legacy cert might or might not mean. As such, certain ideas or statements cannot be assumed or taken as absolute. This would include the following-
"Everyone already knows that legacy means previously stickered and previous stickered means it wasn't stickered with plus in mind."
and
"No one will be confused that the legacy label on a CACG+ coins means JA previously thought it was a + coin."
The above are understood or known by the great minority of collectors, in my opinion, and I would extend that to even more "advanced" (ie: those who sink more money into the hobby) collectors and write that many of they, too, don't have the details lined up correctly. I lay the blame or responsibility for this in three portions and they are that in general most folks are too lazy or passive mentally to engage in the process of understanding somewhat complex issues; also, that there are plenty of online folks who are gladly willing to work as essentially agent provocateurs and who delight in misinformation; and lastly (perhaps most importantly) I believe CAC and now CACG have historically done an unsatisfactory job at communicating with their clients, potential clients and broader numismatic community about what they do, how they do it and what their goals are.
The way I read the criticism by @EliteCollection would mean that the Legacy label would only have validity if it included the exact original grade from the previous grading company on it, which CACG has decided they will not pursue.
One of the reasons for having the legacy label is that it would remove a reason for someone to not cross over a stickered coin to CACG. With this new policy, it's highly unlikely anyone would cross a CAC stickered PCGS plus coin to a CACG plus non-legacy coin. I for sure would no longer consider crossing my PCGS plus stickered coins anymore. I would only do it if CACG crosses it at a higher numerical grade. And that defeats the whole purpose of the legacy label.
I am sure that for many years to come new and old collectors will be showing up on various coin forums with questions about the CACG service and what the information on the label means.
I would suggest that CACG would be smart to provide a full and through definition of what the "L" on the label means once the new website is ready to launch in an effort to get ahead of those questions. @CAC_Team
Will this be done behind the scenes (e.g. a database of when a coin was stickered) or perhaps will the look of CAC stickers be altered post 06/05?
And given that most of the A-coins have ended up in PCGS/CAC holders over the years due to all the NGC-to-PCGS crossovers that have occurred, that probably means fewer A coins ending up in CACG holders. That may not be what was intended, but it seems like that's where this is steering things.
It’s clear that you as so many others haven’t read the bios on these 3 world class graders hired by JA. I don’t see why there is a lack of confidence in their ability to grade to a very high level classic coinage. Just because PCGS is established doesn’t necessarily prove they are better. You don’t even know which graders at PCGS are looking at your coins.
I am not putting down PCGS as I am sure their graders are very good. But you people constantly complain about their inconsistency. At least with CACG you know who will grade your coins and they are some of the country’s best. So stop worrying about CACG and their market credibility. It was pure genius of JA to put together this team!!!
----------
Yes, I have read their bios, and yes, they along with JA and the rest of his crew are the best graders on the planet. And it's also clear that you didn't read my post very well. Nowhere did I say that any of the other opinions available in the marketplace are better than or even close to being equal to CAC's, nor that there is a lack of confidence in CAC's ability to grade at the highest level, nor that I am worried about CACG and their market credibility. You seem extraodinarily intent on putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.
I was simply pointing out that the market does assign some value to having other opinions alongside that of CAC, even if they aren't nearly as valuable. I'm talking about what the market thinks, not about what I think or what you think. Just reading the other posts should make it clear that many people will think twice about crossing their stickered coins if it means losing the Legacy designation. If you dislike that then fine. You do with your coins as you see fit, and others will do with their coins as they see fit. That's what makes a market. There's no reason to get all fussy about it.