should stickered coin which upgrades at CACG receive legacy "L"? — Welcome to the CAC Educational Forum

should stickered coin which upgrades at CACG receive legacy "L"?

I know the plan is for CACG to recognize coins which previously had CAC stickers with a legacy "L" designation. I also believe the plan is that any coin which is submitted to CACG for new encapsulation/cross-over will be considered for possible upgrade.
Do we know if a previously stickered coin which upgrades (say 55 to 58) will have the legacy "L" applied to the holder?
The reason I ask is that my understanding is the "L" not only is meant to represent a prior stickered coin but also is to represent at least minimum agreement of the grade from either PCGS or NGC. For instance, if a coin is PCGS 55 and gets a green or gold bean each of PCGS and CAC have agreed the coin is a 55. If a coin upgrades at CACG I don't believe minimum agreement of the grade will exist any longer. Using the earlier example, CACG now thinks the coin is 58 but PCGS has not changed its opinion from 55 to 58 and therefore the companies are no longer in agreement.
What do you think? Should the coin receive the "L" if it upgrades with CACG?
«1345

Comments

  • Two scenarios here. If it has a "Green" bean then it should not upgrade, but may receive a "+" if deemed to be an "A" coin, then I think it should carry the "L" designation. If it has a "Gold" bean then it should upgrade, and then I think it should not carry the "L" designation.
  • Coinstein said:

    Two scenarios here. If it has a "Green" bean then it should not upgrade, but may receive a "+" if deemed to be an "A" coin, then I think it should carry the "L" designation. If it has a "Gold" bean then it should upgrade, and then I think it should not carry the "L" designation.

    I agree that most green beaned coins probably won't upgrade but would imagine a handful will, those with existing +'s perhaps being more likely. Gold beaned coins likely will upgrade, yes.
    Are you saying that ANY full upgrade to the next grade higher (e.g. 55 to 58) should not receive an "L" but that any 'partial' upgrade to a + should? If so, is your reasoning that the prior grading company (e.g. PCGS) and current grading company (CACG) will no longer be in agreement?
    Thanks.
  • I try not to over think stuff like this, to me it really doesn't matter. In my view the "L" only signifies that the coin was previously in an NGC or PCGS holder, nothing more nothing less. If everyone here really values the CACG grade as much as they claim, what difference does it make what TPG or the previous TPG grade.

    I guess next you all will be telling PCGS and NGC that they should be designating what coins were crossovers vs raw submissions, and what TPG it came from if a crossover. :D >:) It's all just a bit silly, I guess I'm just crazy because all this is secondary to if I like the coin or not.
  • edited April 2023
    One thing to be clear about is that the Legacy designation is used for previously CAC stickered coin. It's not about whether it was previously PCGS or NGC. What matters is that JA has previously considered this coin solid for the grade. As we know JA will not be able to grade every single CACG coins like has has with CAC stickered coins, so CACG grading could potentially start to become less strict than CAC stickering. JA of course is doing everything he can to make sure CACG grading standards is the same as CAC stickering standards. 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.

    With that in mind, CACG should NOT put a Legacy "L" designation on a coin that has a full point upgrade from the previous TPG stickered grade. If they did that, it would defeat the whole purpose of Legacy designation IMO, because one can no longer be assured that a CACG "L" coin was previously considered solid for the grade by JA.
  • That said, one thing CACG should do is to send these coins (stickered coins that will upgrade a full point at CACG) to JA for confirmation. JA could reject the upgrade or he could also say that the coin is still solid for the grade at the new higher grade and still give the coin a Legacy designation.
  • edited April 2023
    I don’t see why a gold bean wouldn’t get an L designation if it were sent in to be upgraded. After all, gold signifies that the coin would have stickered in the next grade up (at least), so to me it seems only fair.

    That being said, I don’t think many gold beaned coins will even be sent in to upgrade, it doesn’t make sense with most coins. 
  • Yes, I agree. Gold bean should still get an L at the next grade up.
  • The whole Legacy idea is based on a previous TPG slab that has received a sticker, right?….and you would think it would include both green and gold beans. The difference is, if the coin is upgraded to a higher grade, which is what a gold bean really means, then technically it is not the same coin. With a green bean it still would still retain the same grade, even though it would have a “+” designation, therefore being essentially the same coin as it was in the original TPG slab.
  • One thing to be clear about is that the Legacy designation is used for previously CAC stickered coin. It's not about whether it was previously PCGS or NGC. What matters is that JA has previously considered this coin solid for the grade. As we know JA will not be able to grade every single CACG coins like has has with CAC stickered coins, so CACG grading could potentially start to become less strict than CAC stickering. JA of course is doing everything he can to make sure CACG grading standards is the same as CAC stickering standards. 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.

    With that in mind, CACG should NOT put a Legacy "L" designation on a coin that has a full point upgrade from the previous TPG stickered grade. If they did that, it would defeat the whole purpose of Legacy designation IMO, because one can no longer be assured that a CACG "L" coin was previously considered solid for the grade by JA.

    Interesting take, JA vs no JA.
    I was thinking more along the lines of an additional confirmation from another grading service being important to some people. I can see your point and would tend to agree that having the "L" and knowing JA considered it worthy is a big plus.
  • Yes, I agree. Gold bean should still get an L at the next grade up.

    That is not what you stated in your previous post.

  • I suspect the value of an "L" coin may in time become more than that of a non-L coin from CACG. This leads me to wondering if future CACG-L 63s could be valued higher than CACG 64s (no L), along the lines of how sometimes PCGS 63 CACs sell for more than PCGS 64s. That got me thinking submitters to CACG could someday regret getting an upgrade but losing the "L" if that in fact will be the policy.
    Decisions, decisions...
  • Coinstein said:

    Yes, I agree. Gold bean should still get an L at the next grade up.

    That is not what you stated in your previous post.

    It wasn't clear, but my previous post is only talking about green bean crossing over to legacy.
  • Yes, I agree. Gold bean should still get an L at the next grade up.
    That is not what you stated in your previous post.
    It wasn't clear, but my previous post is only talking about green bean crossing over to legacy.
    Im in full agreement, this is the way I understood it when it was announced:

    P/NCAC 64 -> CACG 64/64+ = L
    P/NCAC 64+ -> CACG 64/64+ = L
    P/NCAC 64/64+ -> CACG 65 = NO L
    P/N GoldCAC 64 -> CACG 65 = L
    P/N GoldCAC 64 -> CACG 66 = NO L

    zer0man said:
    I suspect the value of an "L" coin may in time become more than that of a non-L coin from CACG. This leads me to wondering if future CACG-L 63s could be valued higher than CACG 64s (no L), along the lines of how sometimes PCGS 63 CACs sell for more than PCGS 64s. That got me thinking submitters to CACG could someday regret getting an upgrade but losing the "L" if that in fact will be the policy. Decisions, decisions...
    100% Agree with you. I feel like some are underestimating the potential significance of the Legacy designation. If there is any perceived variance between the standards of CAC stickering and CACG when they open, or even 10-20 years from now, I surmise that a Legacy designation will be very important.

    I know that some clarification was requested in the Q&A thread, but now that theres a dedicated discussion to this topic I would really appreciate some clarity from @CAC_Team at his convenience, so we  can put our speculative minds at ease regarding this subject.
  • I personally put more value in JA legacy coins than pcgs or ngc's opinion. zer0man said:
    Interesting take, JA vs no JA. I was thinking more along the lines of an additional confirmation from another grading service being important to some people. I can see your point and would tend to agree that having the "L" and knowing JA considered it worthy is a big plus.
    I also have faith that the new Cacg will be terrific and I believe JA will be involved to some aspect, especially solving any discrepancy amongst graders.
  • 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!
  • Coinstein said:

    Yes, I agree. Gold bean should still get an L at the next grade up.

    That is not what you stated in your previous post.

    It wasn't clear, but my previous post is only talking about green bean crossing over to legacy.
    I don't believe that Green stickered coins will cross to CACG a full point higher, only a "+" added to the previous grade if an "A" coin. Otherwise it would have received a Gold sticker to begin with.
  • Unless they decide that they made a mistake the first time, which is presumably what they would be doing by upgrading a green sticker coin. Also, there is apparently past precedent for CAC putting a green sticker on a coin that previously had a green sticker at a lower grade. Is that essentially like saying that it should have been a gold sticker before? There appear to be some particular scenarios that could be a little tricky to handle.
  • Coinstein said:
    Yes, I agree. Gold bean should still get an L at the next grade up.
    That is not what you stated in your previous post.
    It wasn't clear, but my previous post is only talking about green bean crossing over to legacy.
    I don't believe that Green stickered coins will cross to CACG a full point higher, only a "+" added to the previous grade if an "A" coin. Otherwise it would have received a Gold sticker to begin with.
    This is incorrect. A gold sticker means at least 1.5 points higher. I've heard JA say this before. And there have been many coins that have restickered green when resubmitted to CAC after PCGS upgraded a full point.

    Plus, CACG grading standards could start to differ from CAC stickering standards.
  • LarryC said:

    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.
  • Coinstein said:

    Two scenarios here. If it has a "Green" bean then it should not upgrade, but may receive a "+" if deemed to be an "A" coin, then I think it should carry the "L" designation. If it has a "Gold" bean then it should upgrade, and then I think it should not carry the "L" designation.

    I've brought this up earlier and agree, but I believe we are in the minority and that's ok, The only value the L would add for me is knowing the two major services agreed on the numeric grade. If it only means that the coin was graded previously and that a Minimum numeric grade (if that is indeed the case) is agreed upon, then I would place no value on the L. (To be honest I'm not sure I care a lot about the L anyway.) I would add that there WILL be cases where a green bean is upgraded by at least one full numeric grade - we have learned that golds are added upon reconsideration, grades are subjective, etc.
Sign In or Register to comment.