Well thought out comments and excellent presentation. I am in the authorized CAC collector group. Have been submitting for green bean for 5 years. Tried cacg on 3 coins and disappointed on each for various reasons. I don’t submit to cacg any longer.
Fully agree. Computers are the best option for consistency. As for CAC, I don't look or buy their slabs. PCGS and NGC are good enough for me in my opinion.
I was going to start a company (STAR) that would put a * on CAC stickered coins that were exceptional for the sticker ! (LOL) . A GREAT video Daniel , well put....
Thanks Daniel. At this point, I'll only look at CACG graded coins and see the grading results. I have no intentions of sending coins to them. AI has got to be involved soon somehow. I dont know how the hobby can support grading standards with so many opinions.
Excellent video very well prepared Daniel there is no doubt it creates controversy and makes people wonder is my NGC OR PCGS coin graded correctly enjoyed video thank you
I'm not sure what CACG is going for at the moment. I have a few type coins with the green bean sticker. I'd say those coins are premium quality for the grade on the slab. So, hearing what they're doing now is surprising as well as disappointing. My opinion is if they continue as they are, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot and out of business. I am in agreement that computers can be programmed to give accurate grades and grade using the same standard every time. Somehow, I hate to see grading companies become nothing more than people loading coins into a computer and packaging them for shipping. I think after the computer looks at a coin, the final determination should be made by a person, as imperfect as we are, there's just certain qualities about a coins overall appearance or eye appeal a computer just can't do. I'm old-fashioned, I know it. Before slabbed coins, you could look at a dealers coins and compare his eye with yours, have some discussion, and haggling on the price. I don't want to lose that from the hobby.
What we need are collectors who actually have a clue how to grade. Then they can look at a slab and decide for themselves if they agree with the grade before purchasing. The "wet dream" set forth by PCGS and NGC at their inceptions for "sight unseen" purchasing of coins has gone away in this age of high resolution digital imaging. And unfortunately many collectors take the "teletubbie" approach b looking at the "toning" at coins without much regard to preservation or strike. I've seen so many coins with mush details in MS67+ holders because they have rainbow ring toning or whatever. And we have "collectors" who are not necessarily educated in the aspects of coin grading and look at a high number and toning.
@@louieatienza8762 True. Buy the book first, learn how to grade. but if you can't see the coin in hand it would be great if you could trust a gradeing company to do their job right.
In my opinion, the only coins that should be allowed to cross over to CACG “as is” are NGC or PCGS coins that already have a CAC sticker. They could just re-slab them in the new CACG holder and apply the grade that was already assigned to the coin. The only issue I see with this is that CACG does not recognize the “+” or star designations. Only raw coins should be graded by CACG unless you’re willing to crack out a PCGS or NGC coin that doesn’t have a CAC sticker and take your chances with that.
@@CoinHELPu let’s see how long it is before the Chinese start floating fake CAC graded coins into the marketplace. I hope that John Albanese has considered that possibility 😊
Thank you Daniel, I would love to see a standard deviation on numerical grades. She blinded me with science! Good heavens Miss Liberty that coin is beautiful. I would think computer grading would be easier on MS designated coins. And I could easily be wrong. Given the problems with our two-party politics, it will be interesting to see four grading companies coming out with a solution.
I have been dealing with a coin dealer who is new to me. He makes some very provocative statements. Recently he said that grading is a science and not an art, and anyone who disagrees doesn't know how to grade. Right, grading is not a science, and this video by Dan highlights that. The best thing we collectors can do is to learn grading and understand eye appeal. Buy the coin and not the slab and learn from Daniel. And don't try a crossover to CACG, instead leave them in the pcgs or ngc holders.
i wonder if i had a pcgs coin with images on pcgs verify and let cac look at images and can tell me if it would retain same grade in their cac holders.
I have said it before you will notice CACG has a lot to do with the person sending it in be graded I told you all witter coin is not having a issue getting his cacg coins graded if your in the CACG club you good if not they are going find a reason to not grade your coin correctly it’s sad really
My major concern is the grading from PCGS and NGC coins are coming back as cleaned and now I am losing trust in my graded coins! It immediately devalues all these graded coins from NGC and PCGS, we cannot trust the grading companies anymore.
I've always thought CAC stickers were a total scam. An accepted scam, but a scam nonetheless. There's no way I would crack a PCGS coin out to send to CACG. Do you think they will moderate, or will they throw a monkey wrench into the whole system? I'm kinda hoping the novelty wears off and people realize they're better off with PCGS. I won't send 'em one single coin.
I wouldn't pay a dime more for a coin with a bean than I would for the same without one. For that matter, I'm going to be highly selective of what coins I buy slabbed in the first place... I'm working on a 2021 & 2023 set of Morgan and Peace dollars in each mint, privy, and strike, all in MS or PR70 condition, but once I've completed that, future coins in that series, if I acquire them at all, will be and stay raw.
Im amazed someone in China hasn't made fake cac stickers yet. The crap a lot of sellers pull on ebay would cause me to imagine that many sellers would put a fake sticker to get a higher price.
@@kevykevTPA It's easy to get burned when buying an older problem coin graded by PCGS or NGC that has a problem due to PCGS/NGC's mistake and they will not guarantee the grade or acknowledge the mistake. You can't always tell by a picture if a coin has a problem. Such problems will never appear on a CAC approved coin.
@@chrishoward7645 I believe it's because CAC registers all the serials that have been stickered so anyone buying a fake can go on their website and see it's not legitimate.
John albenise did an interview with Ben the coin geek before he launched the CAC grading and he didn't want people cracking out coins in Pcgs and NGC holders to put in his new holders. I was a really good interview about what he was setting out to do with his new grading company.
Great video Daniel! Playing the “crack out” game is always risky. I like CACG, but if I had any rare coin with a great grade in a PCGS holder I would never send it to be “regraded” or for crossover. I agree with you on the need of computer grade. Thank you for another great video 😎🤙🏼
CAC Coin Grading Stirring Up The Hobby Or Hurting It? Discuss with us coinauctionshelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33147 BUY COINS From Us portsmouthcoinshop.com/ Go to our help community here for coin help coinauctionshelp.com/forum/index.php More videos! www.youtube.com/@CoinHELPu/videos Join CONECA conecaonline.org/
Daniel, I agree 100% that as a society, we must leverage technological advances. If we don't and say that's the way we've always done it, then one must question why we are spending so much time and effort in trying to advance technology?!?! Thanks for the great content.
Technology can be used as a tool, but not as the final arbiter of the coin's grade. It's not a perfect thing, and must "learn" grading through hundreds of thousands of coins. For example, for each issue of each series, the computer must sample hundreds of coins for each numerical grade, at a minimum, to have enough of a database, to judge a coin's grade. And even then it's still not enough as the computer must constantly learn to get better. Some issues of some series don't even have a handful of coins graded in all grades. And you can't just use another issue in the series (except maybe for ultra-moderns) since each issue will have its nuances - which the computer must also learn. So, then, where does the computer get all these coins? Maybe a computer can tell a human that there's a 60% chance the coin's surface may have been altered, but the human must make the final decision. The human eyes have a resolution of about 10 times greater than the highest-resolution full frame cameras.
i think CAC and CACG are bad for the hobby, their coin grading is just their "opinion" and it should be taken as such, people should stick with PCGS,NGC and ANACS imo, CACG are playing hard to get just to get people's attention, I would like to see their reaction if PCGS or other coin grading companies grade their CACG slabbed coins i bet they're not going to agree one bit,and an CACG exaggerated opinion shouldn't be what determines the price of the coin in the coin market, the most expensive coins are in PCGS and NGC slabs period, CACG needs to stop playing their silly coin grading game and stick to their green beans beanie babies deal.🤣
I agree 100 percent Daniel!!! In addition to that, people are asking huge premiums for CAC graded coins. I've seen morgan dollars with identical grades from CAC, PCGS NGC and the asking price for the CAC was 40 to 90 percent more. I think that is ridiculous! My opinion.
I always thought that the inconsistent grading standards have held this hobby/industry back from its full potential and this latest grading company will just add to it
In my opinion CACG really missed the mark with their new service. If they really wanted to make a splash and disrupt the market they should have gone to computer grading and introduced a new grading scale 0-100 with a grade for obverse and reverse and an average score.
If you are making money by getting coins stickered and selling them for profit I can understand. That is no different than guys that play the crackout game. As a collector I don't need the extra validation that my coin is solid for the grade and I don't want to pay extra for a sticker. I know what a solid coin looks like. As a collector I just buy slabbed coins as assurance that the coin is probably genuine, problem free (or close enough to be considered as such) and generally the assigned grade. If I buy an AU55 coin I could care less if it is more of a 53 or 58. People are forgetting that collecting coins is to enjoy the beauty of the coin and the historical significance. I can't see splitting hairs over stickers and if a coin is a + or a * as adding any true value to the beauty and history of the coin.
I have never really understood the idea of having some person behind the curtain "grade" a collectable, I started in sports cads and now have moved to coins, and I see the same issues in both. Grading is an opinion, when I buy something, I buy it raw because if I like the condition and I think the price is fair, I will buy it, also, I don't want my coins or cards encapsulated in plastic, takes some of the fun out of it in my opinion. Anyway, in Sports cards there is a new Computer based grading company that does not use humans to grade, and they give you super detailed report with each card. This is a company called TAG grading. Not only is the process more transparent, it also should be fool proof. BUT the hobby seems to be rejecting it. Why? Who knows, not the big name company, maybe it is too detailed? I don't know, but at least in one hobby, the community seems to be rejecting computerized grading.
Ive seen a few results from cac n ive goto say they are more strict on grading i wouldn't say its a bad thing. In my opinion alot of American coins are biased and over graded . I think cac are overly harsh sometimes but they are setting a standard wich is giving the old companys a shake up . We will have to see how the market reacts . I still dont think pcgs or ngc have to worrie . I cant wait for cac to take uk coins ill submitt some for trial. Ive exsperinced bad results from ngc on British but if they were American they would definitely get a straight grade and be worth a fortune . I dont think this is as bad as it sounds aslong as it set to a standard thats acceptable.
My morning isn't complete until I pull a stool up to the counter, grab a cup of coffee and listen to Daniel preach! I'm not exactly sure where I personally stand on these issues. But then again I was against slabs when they came out in the 1980's - now I'm definitely in favor of them. Better consistency needs to happen somehow. And CACG isn't helping this! Anyhow, I hope that the powers to be watch your videos - I suspect if they aren't subscribers, they at least have buddies that forward your videos to them! Cheers!
I can see how this would help grade modern coins but how do you account for the coin die's wear especially when you're talking about an early American issue? I happen to collect Early & Capped Bust Halves which were minted with a number of die anomalies due to the expense and laborious process of making the dies in those days.
Earle's post was great, fun read. As for CACG... why do we need this? One clock, you're sure of the time. Two clocks showing different times, you're confused. CAC is the third quantum clock that sometimes aligns with one of the other two, sometimes shows it's own time, and sometimes disagrees with it's own time. Yet they're supposed to be the supreme authority on grading now? I don't know. Not to me and my money they aren't. They're the same parasites as the other big names. I'll become a customer when computer grading is a thing. Have agreat day and thanks for the video.
I've seen PCGS upgrade and downgrade their own coins when cracked out and resubmitted. NGC was just as bad. Both can be inconsistent by 2 grades. ANACS is trying. It has all become a crap-shoot. Pick one and roll the dice. In my opinion there was more consistency 30 years ago.
CACG is raising awareness to problems that have been going on with the big 2 for the past decade and a half. Only fools send problem coins to CACG expecting straight grades, then cry when they come back "details." Look at the coins in the last video. In fact, look up the certs, and you'll see high resolution pics at CACG, and you may agree with them more than not.
I would trust a grading company that you created. Your passion, honesty and computer tolerances would be wonderful. You are the Yoda of coins. Thanks for your info and videos. Keep numismatics strong, healthy and most importantly honest. Bravo keep up the excellent work.
The problem isn't CACG grading too tough. The problem is people who are cracking out coins graded by PCGS and NGC with a grade they are happy with and submitting them to CACG. If you are happy with the current grade THEN DON'T CRACK THEM OUT!
This is how it goes on grading for sports cards. Breaking a bgs card out to get a PSA 10. Be careful on a computer. A human can grade with leniency. For example: a Card can grade on the front perfect in spec. But the back has a small percentage of not being perfect for the Top Grade. If you use AI or a computer it will be catastrophically accurate. Meaning once that's Done Your Coin You got on another video the Morgan with the 67 your best grade in 20 years. In my opinion wouldn't grade MS-67 would of been a MS-65 or MS-66. Ponder this in Comparison. Also what you mean on Slabs is "Cracking" and Resubmitting.
CAC is just another coin con in my opinion. I will never use them or buy them. Period! Nothing about CAC is helping the coin world beyond helping CAC! PATHETIC!
I think it's stirring up the Hobby, but I'm certainly not going to crack out my coins from PCGS to submit to CACG. I'm in a position with my Buffalo Nickel collection, that I could choose which company I wish to collect. Thanks for sharing, Daniel. 👍👍
The few CAC stickered coins that I have look better than the average for the grade. So for the most part a slight premium is warranted. I don't agree with people asking 50%+ for a coin just because it has a sticker. CACG grading still has some kinks they have to work out. I personally wouldn't cross anything to CACG.
I agree there needs to be a standardized grading system. One thing you didn't touch on is grading 1-10 instead of 1-70, which throws another wrench in the grading kerfluffle. Even then I will never buy a coin just for the slab. I buy a coin which I feel is the best.
Everyone says "buy the coin, not the case", but then grade a graded coin?? Why do I need to pay someone to tell me it's a good looking MS65 when I already paid someone to tell me its an MS65.
Having a coin graded is a form of investment. Why take a chance sending an investment off to somewhere that will cash in on something you will lose? CAC will never get my services especially after their opions are in question. What we really need is an instruction video on how CAC grades and what they look for just as PCGS and NGC has done.
I've seen many documentaries where computers were used on works of art and other things so why not coins. Seems like it would be far more uniform than the human eye. With everyone suing nowadays, makes me wonder if grading companies aren't opening themselves up to lawsuits. What if a person pays thousands or even millions of dollars for a graded coin based on the grade the coin has. Then he decides, for whatever reason, to send it out for a CAC grade and gets a lower grade which would probably lower the value of the coin. Could he then sue the first grading company for their grading because it over valued the coin? Seems like it could become a big legal battle.
I've been collecting for over 60 years. In my collection I have four coins that I purchased graded. I don't play the grading game. Buy a book on how to grade or take a course on grading and learn how to do it yourself. I have seen so many videos where coins come back from grading and the person is not happy with the results and decides to crack it out and send it to another grading company hoping for the grade they want. The money they spend on playing this game could go towards the purchase of another coin that they want. This is not coin collecting, it's flipping. All it does is drive up prices. There needs to be a separation between flipping, which really doesn't require any research of a coin as it has already been done, and collecting, which requires a person to study the coin. To all those out there that want to grade ancients, please stop doing that. Ancients are to be held and studied. Not sandwiched between plastic!
Coins graded by humans are always subject to human error or bias. Computer grading will eventually lead to a system where you can just dump a bucket of coins into a computer grading system then it separates the valuable ones from the common ones- at least regarding error coins. So obviously there is no perfect system.
Thank you for injecting some intelligent common sense into this important issue, Daniel. Computerized algorithms are definitely the path to better consistency.
Good post, Daniel. I would only cross to CACG at the same grade (or higher). On the 1794, I believe CACG will honor the other TPG grade if it was previously stickered. But CAC never considered the + when stickering a coin.
Exactly, that these so-called "dealers" are not setting conditionals on crossovers are mind-blowing. CAC will honor the grade on any previously stickered coin. And if they don't agree with the sticker for some reason, they pay out.
cacg already made mistakes when i see a massive dent on a coin and they label it ms63 problem free i have issues cacg is a company i would avoid and i can only image how much it cost and how much people lost in grading coins by them
WOW; Dan you need to get some deep pocket investors and develope your computer grading standards. It's a time whose come. Plus, they would issue a detailed report why a coin gets that particular grade. Keep up the great work. I've learned so much from you over the last 2 years. You're terrific! Stay awesome!
So the guy who founded PCGS & sold it, then founded NGC & sold it, founds CACG to grade the grades given by PCGS, NGC, etc…..P.T. Barnum was right…”There’s a sucker born every minute.”
What I dislike the most from CACG is how they are grading Toned Coins. To CACG All Real Toned Coins, are Detail Graded with “Environmental Damage.” This will not change with a CACG AI, since it is a programmed variable. I choose not to purchase a CACG coin for that reason.
That's the thing people keep missing, AI 2 layer deep learning is programmed with just opinions, it builds and learns as the data base grows. AI would figure out a baseline for all grades, and detect the light reflections and refraction and proper translucency that is natural toning. You're thinking in terms of programing a computer, AI is much different.
I know it's the world we live in, but I need to feel that coin in hand. Certainly see the value in grading, encapsulation, standards, etc, but the focus is no longer the coin, but something locked up you can't touch. NGC, all of them go away, it won't effect me at all. I'm just a simple country bumpkin who likes coins in their intended environment.
YES! Let them breathe. I want to hold them. I love the sharp teeth of the reeded edge gripping my fingers. I love the light reflecting off of the surface without any screen in the way. That unbroken line of preservation as the coin has been exposed is nice. People will pay extra for some old holders. The coin has been impossible to damage for 30 years. That subtracts from the coin in my eyes. I want the one that's been treasured and protected longer.
Once AGAIN, you CAN submit to CACG and place a minimum grade on your submission. Like ANY grading company you take a risk when “cracking-out”a coin and submitting it raw. So you’ve ALWAYS agreed with the grades you got back from NGC and PCGS? Anyway, thanks again for a thought provoking video!
Yes, you can, but if CACG keeps gaining momentum and premium, the it brings all PCGS and NGC grades into doubt. Doesn't matter if a coin makes the grade and stays in a holder or not, if it's not in a CACG holder it can potentially and eventually be worth less.
That might be the case BUT that has nothing to do with CACG, it’s the market and customers that drive demand. In short, IF you have any doubt that the NGC or PCGS coin won’t make the grade, keep it in its holder….
My biggest "uh" on the grading companies writ large is not accepting that a coin CAN and WILL get damage AT THE MINT so that IS Mint State...yet they will ding the coin as being "damaged" which is blaming THE MINT for the damage without blaming the Mint.
Clearly there's a divide with those at CAC who are stickering and those who are grading. Mr. Albanese is going to have drill his standards & guidelines into both parties. Either way there's still going to be the human error factor.......so I agree with AI being necessary going forward.
Maybe the grading companies should use AI in addition to document the coins prior to grading. This will create a database for the grading company that can identify resubmissions. It's not 100% accurate but if there is a high chance it will catch many resubmissions and show a history of previous grades given by the graders (as a baseline).
On the 1905-S Allen Rowe owner of Northern Nevada Coin (Reno location) was asked for his valuation of my NGC MS65 coin. He said $14.5K max was the coin's purchase value while his Carson City store had just recently sold a 1905-S LIberty D.E. graded MS64+ with CAC green bean for $19.9K. My MS65 was only worth $14.5K. 2 things I realized. Northern Nevada Coin will happily demand way more for something they have than it is reasonably worth. You are a fool to do any business with them as they will all fleece you of your coin's value.
There is a problem with the grading industry. EX: I recently sold a 1905-S NGC MS65 easy view Liberty double eagle worth around $17.5K. PCGS would not cross it for me and CAC would not green bean it. I sold the coin for $15K to a dealer in Reno. The dealer cracked it out and sent it raw to PCGS where it came back MS65. It is now likely to get a green bean when CAC views it again soon. I lost $2K on this coin. I will not submit any coins for grading anymore. CAC will not be sent anything for a bean sticker. PCGS values this coin @$33K.
In 2012, I bought a 1911 NGC MS65 Saint for $17K. I sent the coin to PCGS for crossover where it was rejected. I then sent it to CAC where it got a green bean sticker. I tried unsuccessfully for 9 years to sell the coin (worth about $19K) for $17.5K on ebay. The coin had no bag handling marks but the circulation wear on the reverse told me the coin was a good NGC MS64 but not an MS65. I finally sold it to a dealer in Virginia for $17.5K after another exact coin graded MS65 with CAC bean sold in an auction for about $27K. I was coming to the realization that grading companies and CAC were inconsistent and not worth paying the hefty premiums for in the future.
When someone is buying coins such as the 1913 Liberty , the 1794 & 1804 $1 or any other ultra rarity it wont matter if its Pcgs , CACG , or NGC as no one is buying the holder at that level. Only a fool would crack one of those out and re submit it . Most of crack out game seems to be in the plus $1000 sub $5K level .Anyone wanting a CACG sticker and cracks out a coin is asking for trouble as their grading is just way to strict IMO. Just submit as a cross for a minimum grade. If the coin already has a CAC sticker then I believe it would automatically cross. I liked CAC and have many stickered coins , however as for CACG there is one coin I may send in for a cross . CAC had rejected giving my 1817 MS 62 Bust Half a green bean however at a show a couple of very experienced graders one on which was Bill Shamhart agreed that the coin should have been stickered.
With the amount of knowledge you have, Daniel, I believe that you should start your own grading company. From what I've seen and heard in your videos, you would be an ideal representative for the Numismatic community. Integrity and honesty are things lacking not only in Numismatics but in the business world at large. You seem to have both. That's just my "two cents."
I'd like to preface my points by saying I'm a collector of over 40 years, and own coins from PCGS, NGC, CACG, ICG, SEGS and ANACS. I also own a top 10 and top5 Registry set at NGC (specializing in Jefferson nickels), where I have been a member of 10 years. Your argument about the rarest of coins getting downgraded is somewhat misleading. Virtually all of the rarest coins have already been CAC stickered - one reason Albanese is shifting to the grading business IN THE FIRST PLACE. Even the 1933 St. Gaudens is stickered, even though it's a unique coin. And only a complete fool would submit a non-stickered ultra-rarity to CACG. All their stickered coins are guaranteed for the grade and will cross at listed grade on the slab. Again, NO ONE is going to send an unstickered ultra-rarity to CACG for crossing, so that whole point is moot. If you're rich enough to buy an ultra-rarity, you're likely going to buy a stickered example or going to get the coin stickered. And if it doesn't sticker, it likely ends up at auction down the road. Also, while PCGS is the "senior" company (even though Accugrade had them beat by a couple years) that doesn't mean their coins are always graded well. Or NGC for that matter. And when Albanese started both of those companies, they were very strict with grading. The whole reason Albanese started CAC was probably more self-serving - to identify quality coins for his clients, where he once used a tiered system. "A" coins being exceptional for the grade and likely to cross at the next highest grade, "B" coins which were solid for the grade, and "C" coins which were marginal though graded correctly (or at least correctly according to the TPG's standards.) The whole "plus" grades at NGC and PCGS were created IN RESPONSE to CAC stickering. Reflective qualities alone are not an indicator of luster. You can have two MS67 coins, graded correctly. One can be EDS, with a matte frosty surface, and toned. The other can be MDS with radial flow lines, blast white, and a luster bomb. And there are an infinite quantity of reflectiveness in between. Technology could even potentially laser-scan the topography of an AI-graded coin, and said topography could be laser-etched onto another coin of lesser quality. This would be patently obvious to the naked eye, but not a computer. I don't think AI (or any computer for that matter) could differentiate any of the "Omega" counterfeit gold - even some of the best experts got fooled - and those coins were counterfeited in the 1930s. Q. David Bowers once spoke in an interview that many rare early copper were dipped so many times, that they ended up in "proof" holders at NGC and PCGS. Then you have the whole story of the 1913 Buffalo nickel struck on a $5 gold planchet, that has a file mark on the rim, and Fred Weinberg campaigned to have the coin in a straight-graded AU53 holder when it was originally in an AU details holder. How does a computer resolve THAT? A computer can possibly assist with analyzing surface and such, but it cannot be the sole or final arbiter of a coin's grade. Maybe if computers collected coins, but they don't. Humans collect coins. The vast majority of the coins I've seen sent to CACG are really not that good, so I'm really not surprised with the grades. The previous video proves that - low grade LWCs with questionable color regardless what the other two TPGs say, and scratched Morgans and Peace dollars. That anyone would send that junk to a grading company who is known for their strictness is beyond me. It's very simple - if the coin didn't sticker, don't cross it over. If you want better grades, send better coins. If folks want the TPGs to improve, I suggest: - Ridding "bulk subs" which really don't produce high-quality coins, especially "pre-screening" to prevent roll "seeding" - Better training at the TPGs, and possibly the rejection of coins that do not meet certain standards (i.e. the coin's value is less than the cost of grading) - Specific delineation of grading standards at the TPGs (CACG has calibration sets which I don't think the other two have) including strike designations - Transparency with TPGs and consumers (I propose a "report card" system similar to sports card grading, where surface preservation, luster, strike, and toning are weighted and displayed on-slab), as well as explanations why certain coins get details grades - Raising of grading fees - this should thwart all the junk-senders who think their "environmentally damaged" coin is a "toner", and play grading "lotto" in case it straight-grades. One reason there were quality coins in the early days of the TPGs is that the grading fees were prohibitive for lesser coins. I also don't think coins sent in "economy" get the same grading treatment as those sent in higher tiers. But raising the fees would lower the amount of coins that need to be graded, while allowing better training for hires. Look at all the junk slabs for sale. Most all have coins that are worth a fraction of what the grading fees are. A lot of this comes from the hype from certain YT bloggers, and a lot comes from the human quality of greed that makes people think they have something that's worth more than what it really is. I can't tell you how many times some newbie in a group says automatically "I'm getting it graded" or "Send it in", and when we discourage that for obvious reasons, they say "I have a voucher for "free" subs". Maybe there are some dealers that disagree with these points. And the truth of the matter is, they don't have to send coins in to CACG. Again I'm a member of NGC for 10 years now. And while I have my gripes about them, they've been pretty fair for the most part, and I tend to agree with their grading. I do have a few PCGS coins, but to be honest I don't think their coins are necessarily graded "better" nor are the quality of coins in the holders "better." They are not "worse" however, though I do question their application of the FS designation on some of their coins - some which are on the top tier Registry sets (which by the way, NGC is generally stricter on as quite a few of those coins wouldn't cross, even those in my own collection). They are part of the "old boys' club" of collectors who are now Registry set owners, which drives the prices up since there are simply more PCGS Registry set owners than NGC, so the competition is more fierce. Instead of the constant bashing of CACG, I think a more thorough analysis of some of these "unfairly" graded coins are in order. The problem is, they should have done this 10 years ago. So many folks have "adjusted" to current "market grading" standards that there may be no turning back, and it's unfortunate because I've seen the hobby I love get destroyed by folks that think their "MS63" Jefferson nickel is highly collectible because it has some "wild" toning - and really that's a shitty grade for any Jefferson nickel. Same thing with those "toned" MS65 1950s LWCs. Those coins exist in the thousands in higher grades since they were hoarded like crazy, and in some instances MS67 is relatively common. Yet complete fools are led to believe there's value in a MS65 coin because it's "toned" and that is the biggest cash grab scam in the hobby and industry today. I hate to say this, but I think the whole Registry game is partially to blame for the grading woes of today. Rich people playing rich people games, wanting the best of the best, and the TPGs looking to create product to fill that demand (and keep said rich people at the top of the lists.) I'm nowhere near rich, but was able to use the NGC "points" system to move up the ranks. Even then, I'm particular of what's in my set as far as appearance, and when I'm not particularly thrilled with a coin, I say so in the comments section. And when said coin gets upgraded, I sell it at the lower grade I believe it is, because that's who I am. And that's the right thing to do.
I like most of your comments, but you don't understand out current technology thinking it can't figure out an OMEGA, and they where minted in the 60's not 30's. Also, if CACG coins sell for more then there will be some rare coins submitted to them, some already have been. I am in the dealer networks with the top dogs in the industry, so I do know what's being talked about.
My mistake on the Omegas, hit the wrong key on the keypad. Current tech can't figure out a matte 67 from a brilliant 67, or smooth EDS surfaces from surfaces that are MDS with radial flow lines. Current tech only knows what it's taught, and for some coins, there are just not enough examples in each grade to create a comprehensive database. You'd need AI to "learn" from each coin that is scanned or graded, and it can take hundreds if not thousands of coins for each grade - and you'd be lucky if some grade levels have 2 or 3 examples. Virtually all the big rarities have already been stickered, so there's really not much issues there crossing - for example at least two out of the three 1913 Liberty Head nickels that are in private hands. They will sell for more because of what they are, regardless of the slab they're in. Albanese has stated in many interviews that CACG is mainly more of a one-stop source for customers for less rare coins - those in the sub-$5000 category, as he sees the market for stickering slowing down. I think if one peruses photos of straight graded CACG coins they would see that they are more right than the big 2 on a lot of points. I do appreciate your response and you bringing light to this issues. But I hope you understand that this shakeup in the industry was a long time coming. And I think in the end everything will actually be better - for the market as well as the consumer, as they can again put trust in the grading industry that has slowly been earning the distrust of many.
@@louieatienza8762 current technology can figure out what finish a coin is, you don't even need AI for that. I highly recommend you steer from the ignorant public opinion on tech and coin grading. We already have the tech. Also, it only takes a few hundred of each grade and we're not talking about rarities. However, don't think AI or current technology can't graded a rare 1861 D $1 gold by using a less rare date of the same design. A shake up is coming, but CACG isn't going to be the catalyst for it.
@@CoinHELPu The ignorance is with folks that think that tech is the answer, and that tech will somehow make things "fair" which it won't, since the tech is still controlled by the TPGs. Not even talking about rarities, many coins have total pops in the hundreds FOR ALL GRADES, and many even less. Also, I'm not convinced with using a common issue to grade a rarity. As we know, every issue will have strike characteristics, and that's especially true of pre-modern-era coins. You can't compare a 1913 Liberty nickel "proof" that was clandestinely made with a regular issue proof for example - they're technically more of a "specimen" piece. Or a 1964 specimen Jefferson nickel with a 1965 SMS Jefferson. I'm thinking the same folks that want computer grading, are the same folks that use GPS to go to and from work every day. You don't need a computer to verify if a coin is MS65. You look at it, and if you don't agree, you pass on it, not whine about the grade. Or you send problem coins to a TPG that is very strict when it comes to problem coins, and you end up with "details" slabs - you don't send slabs there anymore. If enough people don't send their slabs there, that TPG will fail and this debacle is over. A computer is only a tool, that still has to be run by humans, and the humans should still be the final control, final QC of the coin. The real test will be if humans actually buy computer-graded coins (the way they didn't back then.) If a human agrees with the computer's assessment that the coin is MS65 for example, then it's viable. If a human looks at the coin and disagrees with the grade, they'll pass. The fallacy of computer grading is that the proponents of it believe that because the computer says the grade on the slab is accurate, then you as the collector must accept it, regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong. Just like human grading, there will always be critics of the outcome of a submission. Again, instead of looking at all the problem coins that folks try to send to CACG and fail with miserably, look at all the high-resolution images of some of the straight-graded coins already graded, and then judge if you think those coins are well-graded. I personally haven't seen one where I thought it was over-graded, or the toning looked questionable, or they net-graded the coin because it had a scratch, or the coin was dipped (or over-dipped.)
I can show you my two toned ASE's they called Questionably toning still waiting for my full sub to come back. If every coin comes back Questionably toning with all my toners. I will just go back to using PSGS.
Based on what I've seen so far, I won't use CAC, and I won't buy anything in a CAC holder unless it's my only choice. I don't know what it is they're trying to accomplish, aside from enriching themselves, but all they are doing is demonstrating conclusively that we need an industry-wide standard grading system, not yet another grading COMPANY. There will always be a bit of "art" in the "science" of grading, but the more we can decrease art and increase science, the better. It really shouldn't matter which TPG we use, if they were all working from the same standard, they would usually tend to give the same grade to the same coin, thus ending the send it in for an upgrade game for good... Of course, that's the last thing they want, and I suspect there are a lot of coins out there that have been professionally graded (for a fee, naturally, and not a small or quick one) by multiple different graders multiple times. We need to stop buying or collecting holders, with their fancy things like first strike and this sticker is worth more than that nonsense. "Buy the coin not the holder" is something said a LOT but rarely followed even by those who say it.
What's interesting is everybody gets excited for the beans but not the company's actual slabs. The beans command a premium. But the slabs don't. Logically that doesn't make any sense. I think NGC holds its own. I have seen plenty of MS coins conservatively graded by them. They both make mistakes though. I do not agree with the incentivization of lowering grades in order to encourage resubmission with the 1% coin value tack on fee for an upgrade. That smells.
For me computers are to "antiseptic" if you know what I mean. For me what makes coin collecting fun and enjoyable and a great hobby is the human element, the interaction, give and take and the subjectivity of taking my loop out and judging a coin that I just acquired and sometimes I think hey the coin is under graded or over graded or just about right. Computer grading would take that away from me and all I would do is buy a coin I want and throw it in a pile with all the other computer graded coins. Personally I don't want that, I want the enjoyment.
Long time ago I was involved with Compugrade, today it's possible. Main problem is building a database of coins. The program needs examples to learn from, which means the submission of lots of graded coins to learn from. Hard to get even voluntary for free. I believe it could work eventually but would be expensive and take time.
And that's the crux of it. A computer would have to look at thousands of coin for each issue in a series, and in some cases there are only hundreds, dozens, or few coins graded. Thus such model would have difficulty grading "unique" or "rare" coins.
Great Info I was getting back into coin collecting after raising a family & now have extra $ but with all these grading issues and so many fakes 😢 This helps me make the decision to stay away until they fix these issues 👍🏻
coin graders are scammers, i'm willing to beet they don't give high ms quality, and then give their own coins those high-grade coins, maybe switcheroo.
If a coin is in a PCGS holder with a CAC I see now reason to get it into a CACG slab. It remains to be seen if the market values PCGS/CAC the same as a CACG holder.
Well thought out comments and excellent presentation.
I am in the authorized CAC collector group. Have been submitting for green bean for 5 years. Tried cacg on 3 coins and disappointed on each for various reasons. I don’t submit to cacg any longer.
I couldn't agree more Daniel, I really get a lot from your vids
Hey, I just have to know what is the "authorized cac collector group"?
Fully agree. Computers are the best option for consistency. As for CAC, I don't look or buy their slabs. PCGS and NGC are good enough for me in my opinion.
CAC slabs go far above the others on auctions in my experience. I avoid those.
Agree. No big time high value collector is using CACG that I have seen. There grading is all over the place.
I was going to start a company (STAR) that would put a * on CAC stickered coins that were exceptional for the sticker ! (LOL) . A GREAT video Daniel , well put....
Yeah that's a nice racket. You should put the star sticker right over top of the coin so people can't miss that it's a good one. 👌
Thanks Daniel. At this point, I'll only look at CACG graded coins and see the grading results. I have no intentions of sending coins to them. AI has got to be involved soon somehow. I dont know how the hobby can support grading standards with so many opinions.
Excellent video very well prepared Daniel there is no doubt it creates controversy and makes people wonder is my NGC OR PCGS coin graded correctly enjoyed video thank you
I'm not sure what CACG is going for at the moment. I have a few type coins with the green bean sticker. I'd say those coins are premium quality for the grade on the slab. So, hearing what they're doing now is surprising as well as disappointing. My opinion is if they continue as they are, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot and out of business.
I am in agreement that computers can be programmed to give accurate grades and grade using the same standard every time. Somehow, I hate to see grading companies become nothing more than people loading coins into a computer and packaging them for shipping. I think after the computer looks at a coin, the final determination should be made by a person, as imperfect as we are, there's just certain qualities about a coins overall appearance or eye appeal a computer just can't do.
I'm old-fashioned, I know it. Before slabbed coins, you could look at a dealers coins and compare his eye with yours, have some discussion, and haggling on the price. I don't want to lose that from the hobby.
I wonder what percentage of slabbed coins are submitted for a CAC sticker?
Yes I agree, We need something, the graders are all over the board. It was ngc pcgs and now cac, with sub graders, anacs igc segs etc.
What we need are collectors who actually have a clue how to grade. Then they can look at a slab and decide for themselves if they agree with the grade before purchasing. The "wet dream" set forth by PCGS and NGC at their inceptions for "sight unseen" purchasing of coins has gone away in this age of high resolution digital imaging. And unfortunately many collectors take the "teletubbie" approach b looking at the "toning" at coins without much regard to preservation or strike. I've seen so many coins with mush details in MS67+ holders because they have rainbow ring toning or whatever. And we have "collectors" who are not necessarily educated in the aspects of coin grading and look at a high number and toning.
@@louieatienza8762 True. Buy the book first, learn how to grade. but if you can't see the coin in hand it would be great if you could trust a gradeing company to do their job right.
In my opinion, the only coins that should be allowed to cross over to CACG “as is” are NGC or PCGS coins that already have a CAC sticker. They could just re-slab them in the new CACG holder and apply the grade that was already assigned to the coin. The only issue I see with this is that CACG does not recognize the “+” or star designations. Only raw coins should be graded by CACG unless you’re willing to crack out a PCGS or NGC coin that doesn’t have a CAC sticker and take your chances with that.
They don't recognize some of their own CAC coins either.
@@CoinHELPu let’s see how long it is before the Chinese start floating fake CAC graded coins into the marketplace. I hope that John Albanese has considered that possibility 😊
CAC will not downgrade coins with a CAC sticker already. They will cross over into CACG holders. This needs to be pointed out.
Proof they do this every time? And if the coin has changed in the holder? There’s no guarantee with CACG and that’s what I am pointing out.
Thank you Daniel, I would love to see a standard deviation on numerical grades. She blinded me with science! Good heavens Miss Liberty that coin is beautiful. I would think computer grading would be easier on MS designated coins. And I could easily be wrong. Given the problems with our two-party politics, it will be interesting to see four grading companies coming out with a solution.
I have been dealing with a coin dealer who is new to me. He makes some very provocative statements. Recently he said that grading is a science and not an art, and anyone who disagrees doesn't know how to grade. Right, grading is not a science, and this video by Dan highlights that. The best thing we collectors can do is to learn grading and understand eye appeal. Buy the coin and not the slab and learn from Daniel. And don't try a crossover to CACG, instead leave them in the pcgs or ngc holders.
i wonder if i had a pcgs coin with images on pcgs verify and let cac look at images and can tell me if it would retain same grade in their cac holders.
Yes. Math and science! Always learn something. New isn’t always better, but for consistency’s sake AI would negate eye appeal
I have said it before you will notice CACG has a lot to do with the person sending it in be graded I told you all witter coin is not having a issue getting his cacg coins graded if your in the CACG club you good if not they are going find a reason to not grade your coin correctly it’s sad really
Another great vblog.
My major concern is the grading from PCGS and NGC coins are coming back as cleaned and now I am losing trust in my graded coins! It immediately devalues all these graded coins from NGC and PCGS, we cannot trust the grading companies anymore.
I think it’s just CAC putting down everyone else’s coins to trick people into thinking only CAC know how to grade coins , don’t take the bait .
I've always thought CAC stickers were a total scam. An accepted scam, but a scam nonetheless. There's no way I would crack a PCGS coin out to send to CACG. Do you think they will moderate, or will they throw a monkey wrench into the whole system? I'm kinda hoping the novelty wears off and people realize they're better off with PCGS. I won't send 'em one single coin.
I refuse to play the CAC sticker game. The price increase is ridiculous
I wouldn't pay a dime more for a coin with a bean than I would for the same without one. For that matter, I'm going to be highly selective of what coins I buy slabbed in the first place... I'm working on a 2021 & 2023 set of Morgan and Peace dollars in each mint, privy, and strike, all in MS or PR70 condition, but once I've completed that, future coins in that series, if I acquire them at all, will be and stay raw.
Im amazed someone in China hasn't made fake cac stickers yet. The crap a lot of sellers pull on ebay would cause me to imagine that many sellers would put a fake sticker to get a higher price.
@@kevykevTPA It's easy to get burned when buying an older problem coin graded by PCGS or NGC that has a problem due to PCGS/NGC's mistake and they will not guarantee the grade or acknowledge the mistake. You can't always tell by a picture if a coin has a problem. Such problems will never appear on a CAC approved coin.
@@chrishoward7645 I believe it's because CAC registers all the serials that have been stickered so anyone buying a fake can go on their website and see it's not legitimate.
There just for people who want to flex for having the best or whatever.
John albenise did an interview with Ben the coin geek before he launched the CAC grading and he didn't want people cracking out coins in Pcgs and NGC holders to put in his new holders. I was a really good interview about what he was setting out to do with his new grading company.
Great video Daniel! Playing the “crack out” game is always risky. I like CACG, but if I had any rare coin with a great grade in a PCGS holder I would never send it to be “regraded” or for crossover. I agree with you on the need of computer grade. Thank you for another great video 😎🤙🏼
Also, what is up with so many people, submitting crossovers to CACG, without declaring a minimum grade??!!!?. It just boggles the mind..........
Maybe they want good youtube content idk lol
CAC Coin Grading Stirring Up The Hobby Or Hurting It?
Discuss with us coinauctionshelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33147
BUY COINS From Us portsmouthcoinshop.com/
Go to our help community here for coin help coinauctionshelp.com/forum/index.php
More videos! www.youtube.com/@CoinHELPu/videos
Join CONECA conecaonline.org/
Well they are definitely hurting peoples coin collections , there is no doubt isn’t that obvious ?
Daniel, I agree 100% that as a society, we must leverage technological advances. If we don't and say that's the way we've always done it, then one must question why we are spending so much time and effort in trying to advance technology?!?! Thanks for the great content.
Technology can be used as a tool, but not as the final arbiter of the coin's grade. It's not a perfect thing, and must "learn" grading through hundreds of thousands of coins. For example, for each issue of each series, the computer must sample hundreds of coins for each numerical grade, at a minimum, to have enough of a database, to judge a coin's grade. And even then it's still not enough as the computer must constantly learn to get better. Some issues of some series don't even have a handful of coins graded in all grades. And you can't just use another issue in the series (except maybe for ultra-moderns) since each issue will have its nuances - which the computer must also learn. So, then, where does the computer get all these coins?
Maybe a computer can tell a human that there's a 60% chance the coin's surface may have been altered, but the human must make the final decision. The human eyes have a resolution of about 10 times greater than the highest-resolution full frame cameras.
Guy with a Poor - 1 coin collection is laughing out loud right now.... thanks cacg
HAHAHA Good one!
i think CAC and CACG are bad for the hobby, their coin grading is just their "opinion" and it should be taken as such, people should stick with PCGS,NGC and ANACS imo, CACG are playing hard to get just to get people's attention, I would like to see their reaction if PCGS or other coin grading companies grade their CACG slabbed coins i bet they're not going to agree one bit,and an CACG exaggerated opinion shouldn't be what determines the price of the coin in the coin market, the most expensive coins are in PCGS and NGC slabs period, CACG needs to stop playing their silly coin grading game and stick to their green beans beanie babies deal.🤣
I agree 100 percent Daniel!!! In addition to that, people are asking huge premiums for CAC graded coins. I've seen morgan dollars with identical grades from CAC, PCGS NGC and the asking price for the CAC was 40 to 90 percent more. I think that is ridiculous! My opinion.
Brilliant, Daniel. It’s time for CAC, NGC, etc. to eliminate the weaknesses inherent in subjective grading by removing humans from the process.
There should be one more company, which will approve PCGS CAC or NGC CAC. 😂 Just business.
I always thought that the inconsistent grading standards have held this hobby/industry back from its full potential and this latest grading company will just add to it
In my opinion CACG really missed the mark with their new service. If they really wanted to make a splash and disrupt the market they should have gone to computer grading and introduced a new grading scale 0-100 with a grade for obverse and reverse and an average score.
If you are making money by getting coins stickered and selling them for profit I can understand. That is no different than guys that play the crackout game. As a collector I don't need the extra validation that my coin is solid for the grade and I don't want to pay extra for a sticker. I know what a solid coin looks like. As a collector I just buy slabbed coins as assurance that the coin is probably genuine, problem free (or close enough to be considered as such) and generally the assigned grade. If I buy an AU55 coin I could care less if it is more of a 53 or 58. People are forgetting that collecting coins is to enjoy the beauty of the coin and the historical significance. I can't see splitting hairs over stickers and if a coin is a + or a * as adding any true value to the beauty and history of the coin.
I have never really understood the idea of having some person behind the curtain "grade" a collectable, I started in sports cads and now have moved to coins, and I see the same issues in both. Grading is an opinion, when I buy something, I buy it raw because if I like the condition and I think the price is fair, I will buy it, also, I don't want my coins or cards encapsulated in plastic, takes some of the fun out of it in my opinion.
Anyway, in Sports cards there is a new Computer based grading company that does not use humans to grade, and they give you super detailed report with each card. This is a company called TAG grading. Not only is the process more transparent, it also should be fool proof. BUT the hobby seems to be rejecting it. Why? Who knows, not the big name company, maybe it is too detailed? I don't know, but at least in one hobby, the community seems to be rejecting computerized grading.
Ive seen a few results from cac n ive goto say they are more strict on grading i wouldn't say its a bad thing. In my opinion alot of American coins are biased and over graded . I think cac are overly harsh sometimes but they are setting a standard wich is giving the old companys a shake up . We will have to see how the market reacts . I still dont think pcgs or ngc have to worrie . I cant wait for cac to take uk coins ill submitt some for trial. Ive exsperinced bad results from ngc on British but if they were American they would definitely get a straight grade and be worth a fortune . I dont think this is as bad as it sounds aslong as it set to a standard thats acceptable.
My morning isn't complete until I pull a stool up to the counter, grab a cup of coffee and listen to Daniel preach! I'm not exactly sure where I personally stand on these issues. But then again I was against slabs when they came out in the 1980's - now I'm definitely in favor of them. Better consistency needs to happen somehow. And CACG isn't helping this! Anyhow, I hope that the powers to be watch your videos - I suspect if they aren't subscribers, they at least have buddies that forward your videos to them! Cheers!
I can see how this would help grade modern coins but how do you account for the coin die's wear especially when you're talking about an early American issue? I happen to collect Early & Capped Bust Halves which were minted with a number of die anomalies due to the expense and laborious process of making the dies in those days.
Earle's post was great, fun read. As for CACG... why do we need this? One clock, you're sure of the time. Two clocks showing different times, you're confused. CAC is the third quantum clock that sometimes aligns with one of the other two, sometimes shows it's own time, and sometimes disagrees with it's own time. Yet they're supposed to be the supreme authority on grading now? I don't know. Not to me and my money they aren't. They're the same parasites as the other big names. I'll become a customer when computer grading is a thing. Have agreat day and thanks for the video.
I've seen PCGS upgrade and downgrade their own coins when cracked out and resubmitted. NGC was just as bad. Both can be inconsistent by 2 grades. ANACS is trying. It has all become a crap-shoot. Pick one and roll the dice. In my opinion there was more consistency 30 years ago.
You can laser scan a perfect coin and then compare it to coins that come in for grading. IMHO....It shouldn't be that hard to implement.
LIDR. I had that idea years ago.
CACG is really causing problems, and raising alot of difficult questions to arise.Thankyou Daniel.😊
CACG is raising awareness to problems that have been going on with the big 2 for the past decade and a half. Only fools send problem coins to CACG expecting straight grades, then cry when they come back "details." Look at the coins in the last video. In fact, look up the certs, and you'll see high resolution pics at CACG, and you may agree with them more than not.
Greed will always take the fun out of anything you do.
I would trust a grading company that you created. Your passion, honesty and computer tolerances would be wonderful. You are the Yoda of coins. Thanks for your info and videos. Keep numismatics strong, healthy and most importantly honest. Bravo keep up the excellent work.
Starting April 2024, I'm starting a division at NGC that grades CAC-graded coins. LOL
The problem isn't CACG grading too tough. The problem is people who are cracking out coins graded by PCGS and NGC with a grade they are happy with and submitting them to CACG. If you are happy with the current grade THEN DON'T CRACK THEM OUT!
This is how it goes on grading for sports cards. Breaking a bgs card out to get a PSA 10. Be careful on a computer. A human can grade with leniency. For example: a Card can grade on the front perfect in spec. But the back has a small percentage of not being perfect for the Top Grade. If you use AI or a computer it will be catastrophically accurate. Meaning once that's Done Your Coin You got on another video the Morgan with the 67 your best grade in 20 years. In my opinion wouldn't grade MS-67 would of been a MS-65 or MS-66. Ponder this in Comparison. Also what you mean on Slabs is "Cracking" and Resubmitting.
CAC is just another coin con in my opinion. I will never use them or buy them. Period!
Nothing about CAC is helping the coin world beyond helping CAC! PATHETIC!
I think it's stirring up the Hobby, but I'm certainly not going to crack out my coins from PCGS to submit to CACG. I'm in a position with my Buffalo Nickel collection, that I could choose which company I wish to collect. Thanks for sharing, Daniel. 👍👍
I think ANACS should offer to sticker any other TPG for $5
I’m sure the hype will work itself out…or not
Something with the ANACS logo and a 🦄
The few CAC stickered coins that I have look better than the average for the grade. So for the most part a slight premium is warranted. I don't agree with people asking 50%+ for a coin just because it has a sticker. CACG grading still has some kinks they have to work out. I personally wouldn't cross anything to CACG.
Thank you Daniel , I learn from yer videos every time . Tom Daytona Beach FL . 1 , July 2024 .
I agree there needs to be a standardized grading system. One thing you didn't touch on is grading 1-10 instead of 1-70, which throws another wrench in the grading kerfluffle. Even then I will never buy a coin just for the slab. I buy a coin which I feel is the best.
Everyone says "buy the coin, not the case", but then grade a graded coin?? Why do I need to pay someone to tell me it's a good looking MS65 when I already paid someone to tell me its an MS65.
Having a coin graded is a form of investment. Why take a chance sending an investment off to somewhere that will cash in on something you will lose? CAC will never get my services especially after their opions are in question. What we really need is an instruction video on how CAC grades and what they look for just as PCGS and NGC has done.
I've seen many documentaries where computers were used on works of art and other things so why not coins. Seems like it would be far more uniform than the human eye. With everyone suing nowadays, makes me wonder if grading companies aren't opening themselves up to lawsuits. What if a person pays thousands or even millions of dollars for a graded coin based on the grade the coin has. Then he decides, for whatever reason, to send it out for a CAC grade and gets a lower grade which would probably lower the value of the coin. Could he then sue the first grading company for their grading because it over valued the coin? Seems like it could become a big legal battle.
This is the third company founded by John Albanese. Wonder how long until he jumps ship again and forms something new.... not a fan
I've been collecting for over 60 years. In my collection I have four coins that I purchased graded. I don't play the grading game. Buy a book on how to grade or take a course on grading and learn how to do it yourself. I have seen so many videos where coins come back from grading and the person is not happy with the results and decides to crack it out and send it to another grading company hoping for the grade they want. The money they spend on playing this game could go towards the purchase of another coin that they want. This is not coin collecting, it's flipping. All it does is drive up prices. There needs to be a separation between flipping, which really doesn't require any research of a coin as it has already been done, and collecting, which requires a person to study the coin. To all those out there that want to grade ancients, please stop doing that. Ancients are to be held and studied. Not sandwiched between plastic!
Buy the coin, not the sticker.
If you’re worried about downgrading don’t crack them out.Leave things the way they are.
Coins graded by humans are always subject to human error or bias. Computer grading will eventually lead to a system where you can just dump a bucket of coins into a computer grading system then it separates the valuable ones from the common ones- at least regarding error coins. So obviously there is no perfect system.
Great idea ! Why computers have not been used to grade coins is beyond me.
Thank you for injecting some intelligent common sense into this important issue, Daniel. Computerized algorithms are definitely the path to better consistency.
Good post, Daniel. I would only cross to CACG at the same grade (or higher). On the 1794, I believe CACG will honor the other TPG grade if it was previously stickered. But CAC never considered the + when stickering a coin.
Exactly, that these so-called "dealers" are not setting conditionals on crossovers are mind-blowing. CAC will honor the grade on any previously stickered coin. And if they don't agree with the sticker for some reason, they pay out.
CAC advertises enough on the Feb. Greysheets about how important they are and the whole apple and orange ad. Joke.
Anacs used to have and may still have many of the original planchets for Morgan's and other older coin series.
cacg already made mistakes when i see a massive dent on a coin and they label it ms63 problem free i have issues
cacg is a company i would avoid and i can only image how much it cost and how much people lost in grading coins by them
Buy the coin not the holder. I agree we need consistency in grading and using technology to help would help the hobby in my opinion
i quit coin collecting because of coin graders, they take all the money.
CAC may look at the same coin several times. Its a profitable racket.
WOW; Dan you need to get some deep pocket investors and develope your computer grading standards. It's a time whose come. Plus, they would issue a detailed report why a coin gets that particular grade.
Keep up the great work. I've learned so much from you over the last 2 years. You're terrific! Stay awesome!
So the guy who founded PCGS & sold it, then founded NGC & sold it, founds CACG to grade the grades given by PCGS, NGC, etc…..P.T. Barnum was right…”There’s a sucker born every minute.”
For the record... he was not a founder of PCGS, but was part of the group that started NGC. For some reason the claim about PCGS has been spread alot.
@@don951 CAC's own website says he was a co-founder of PCGS.
What I dislike the most from CACG is how they are grading Toned Coins. To CACG All Real Toned Coins, are Detail Graded with “Environmental Damage.” This will not change with a CACG AI, since it is a programmed variable. I choose not to purchase a CACG coin for that reason.
That's the thing people keep missing, AI 2 layer deep learning is programmed with just opinions, it builds and learns as the data base grows. AI would figure out a baseline for all grades, and detect the light reflections and refraction and proper translucency that is natural toning. You're thinking in terms of programing a computer, AI is much different.
I know it's the world we live in, but I need to feel that coin in hand. Certainly see the value in grading, encapsulation, standards, etc, but the focus is no longer the coin, but something locked up you can't touch. NGC, all of them go away, it won't effect me at all. I'm just a simple country bumpkin who likes coins in their intended environment.
I love the feel of coins as well, but some coins look so much better in a slab and they're protected.
YES! Let them breathe. I want to hold them. I love the sharp teeth of the reeded edge gripping my fingers. I love the light reflecting off of the surface without any screen in the way. That unbroken line of preservation as the coin has been exposed is nice. People will pay extra for some old holders. The coin has been impossible to damage for 30 years. That subtracts from the coin in my eyes. I want the one that's been treasured and protected longer.
Yes
Been waiting for this
Once AGAIN, you CAN submit to CACG and place a minimum grade on your submission. Like ANY grading company you take a risk when “cracking-out”a coin and submitting it raw. So you’ve ALWAYS agreed with the grades you got back from NGC and PCGS? Anyway, thanks again for a thought provoking video!
Yes, you can, but if CACG keeps gaining momentum and premium, the it brings all PCGS and NGC grades into doubt. Doesn't matter if a coin makes the grade and stays in a holder or not, if it's not in a CACG holder it can potentially and eventually be worth less.
That might be the case BUT that has nothing to do with CACG, it’s the market and customers that drive demand. In short, IF you have any doubt that the NGC or PCGS coin won’t make the grade, keep it in its holder….
My biggest "uh" on the grading companies writ large is not accepting that a coin CAN and WILL get damage AT THE MINT so that IS Mint State...yet they will ding the coin as being "damaged" which is blaming THE MINT for the damage without blaming the Mint.
I see it as a way to make money and nothing else.
I think cacg is way too conservative. Like i thought pcgs was bad but cacg took that throne. I won’t ever send my coin’s to them.
Clearly there's a divide with those at CAC who are stickering and those who are grading. Mr. Albanese is going to have drill his standards & guidelines into both parties. Either way there's still going to be the human error factor.......so I agree with AI being necessary going forward.
Daniel, you put out the best videos on CACG grading!
Maybe the grading companies should use AI in addition to document the coins prior to grading. This will create a database for the grading company that can identify resubmissions. It's not 100% accurate but if there is a high chance it will catch many resubmissions and show a history of previous grades given by the graders (as a baseline).
On the 1905-S Allen Rowe owner of Northern Nevada Coin (Reno location) was asked for his valuation of my NGC MS65 coin. He said $14.5K max was the coin's purchase value while his Carson City store had just recently sold a 1905-S LIberty D.E. graded MS64+ with CAC green bean for $19.9K. My MS65 was only worth $14.5K. 2 things I realized. Northern Nevada Coin will happily demand way more for something they have than it is reasonably worth. You are a fool to do any business with them as they will all fleece you of your coin's value.
There is a problem with the grading industry. EX: I recently sold a 1905-S NGC MS65 easy view Liberty double eagle worth around $17.5K. PCGS would not cross it for me and CAC would not green bean it. I sold the coin for $15K to a dealer in Reno. The dealer cracked it out and sent it raw to PCGS where it came back MS65. It is now likely to get a green bean when CAC views it again soon. I lost $2K on this coin. I will not submit any coins for grading anymore. CAC will not be sent anything for a bean sticker. PCGS values this coin @$33K.
In 2012, I bought a 1911 NGC MS65 Saint for $17K. I sent the coin to PCGS for crossover where it was rejected. I then sent it to CAC where it got a green bean sticker. I tried unsuccessfully for 9 years to sell the coin (worth about $19K) for $17.5K on ebay. The coin had no bag handling marks but the circulation wear on the reverse told me the coin was a good NGC MS64 but not an MS65. I finally sold it to a dealer in Virginia for $17.5K after another exact coin graded MS65 with CAC bean sold in an auction for about $27K. I was coming to the realization that grading companies and CAC were inconsistent and not worth paying the hefty premiums for in the future.
Thanks for posting Dan. Totally agree.
When someone is buying coins such as the 1913 Liberty , the 1794 & 1804 $1 or any other ultra rarity it wont matter if its Pcgs , CACG , or NGC as no one is buying the holder at that level. Only a fool would crack one of those out and re submit it . Most of crack out game seems to be in the plus $1000 sub $5K level .Anyone wanting a CACG sticker and cracks out a coin is asking for trouble as their grading is just way to strict IMO. Just submit as a cross for a minimum grade. If the coin already has a CAC sticker then I believe it would automatically cross. I liked CAC and have many stickered coins , however as for CACG there is one coin I may send in for a cross . CAC had rejected giving my 1817 MS 62 Bust Half a green bean however at a show a couple of very experienced graders one on which was Bill Shamhart agreed that the coin should have been stickered.
With the amount of knowledge you have, Daniel, I believe that you should start your own grading company. From what I've seen and heard in your videos, you would be an ideal representative for the Numismatic community. Integrity and honesty are things lacking not only in Numismatics but in the business world at large. You seem to have both. That's just my "two cents."
I'd like to preface my points by saying I'm a collector of over 40 years, and own coins from PCGS, NGC, CACG, ICG, SEGS and ANACS. I also own a top 10 and top5 Registry set at NGC (specializing in Jefferson nickels), where I have been a member of 10 years.
Your argument about the rarest of coins getting downgraded is somewhat misleading. Virtually all of the rarest coins have already been CAC stickered - one reason Albanese is shifting to the grading business IN THE FIRST PLACE. Even the 1933 St. Gaudens is stickered, even though it's a unique coin. And only a complete fool would submit a non-stickered ultra-rarity to CACG. All their stickered coins are guaranteed for the grade and will cross at listed grade on the slab. Again, NO ONE is going to send an unstickered ultra-rarity to CACG for crossing, so that whole point is moot. If you're rich enough to buy an ultra-rarity, you're likely going to buy a stickered example or going to get the coin stickered. And if it doesn't sticker, it likely ends up at auction down the road.
Also, while PCGS is the "senior" company (even though Accugrade had them beat by a couple years) that doesn't mean their coins are always graded well. Or NGC for that matter. And when Albanese started both of those companies, they were very strict with grading. The whole reason Albanese started CAC was probably more self-serving - to identify quality coins for his clients, where he once used a tiered system. "A" coins being exceptional for the grade and likely to cross at the next highest grade, "B" coins which were solid for the grade, and "C" coins which were marginal though graded correctly (or at least correctly according to the TPG's standards.) The whole "plus" grades at NGC and PCGS were created IN RESPONSE to CAC stickering.
Reflective qualities alone are not an indicator of luster. You can have two MS67 coins, graded correctly. One can be EDS, with a matte frosty surface, and toned. The other can be MDS with radial flow lines, blast white, and a luster bomb. And there are an infinite quantity of reflectiveness in between. Technology could even potentially laser-scan the topography of an AI-graded coin, and said topography could be laser-etched onto another coin of lesser quality. This would be patently obvious to the naked eye, but not a computer. I don't think AI (or any computer for that matter) could differentiate any of the "Omega" counterfeit gold - even some of the best experts got fooled - and those coins were counterfeited in the 1930s. Q. David Bowers once spoke in an interview that many rare early copper were dipped so many times, that they ended up in "proof" holders at NGC and PCGS. Then you have the whole story of the 1913 Buffalo nickel struck on a $5 gold planchet, that has a file mark on the rim, and Fred Weinberg campaigned to have the coin in a straight-graded AU53 holder when it was originally in an AU details holder. How does a computer resolve THAT? A computer can possibly assist with analyzing surface and such, but it cannot be the sole or final arbiter of a coin's grade. Maybe if computers collected coins, but they don't. Humans collect coins.
The vast majority of the coins I've seen sent to CACG are really not that good, so I'm really not surprised with the grades. The previous video proves that - low grade LWCs with questionable color regardless what the other two TPGs say, and scratched Morgans and Peace dollars. That anyone would send that junk to a grading company who is known for their strictness is beyond me. It's very simple - if the coin didn't sticker, don't cross it over. If you want better grades, send better coins.
If folks want the TPGs to improve, I suggest:
- Ridding "bulk subs" which really don't produce high-quality coins, especially "pre-screening" to prevent roll "seeding"
- Better training at the TPGs, and possibly the rejection of coins that do not meet certain standards (i.e. the coin's value is less than the cost of grading)
- Specific delineation of grading standards at the TPGs (CACG has calibration sets which I don't think the other two have) including strike designations
- Transparency with TPGs and consumers (I propose a "report card" system similar to sports card grading, where surface preservation, luster, strike, and toning are weighted and displayed on-slab), as well as explanations why certain coins get details grades
- Raising of grading fees - this should thwart all the junk-senders who think their "environmentally damaged" coin is a "toner", and play grading "lotto" in case it straight-grades. One reason there were quality coins in the early days of the TPGs is that the grading fees were prohibitive for lesser coins. I also don't think coins sent in "economy" get the same grading treatment as those sent in higher tiers. But raising the fees would lower the amount of coins that need to be graded, while allowing better training for hires. Look at all the junk slabs for sale. Most all have coins that are worth a fraction of what the grading fees are. A lot of this comes from the hype from certain YT bloggers, and a lot comes from the human quality of greed that makes people think they have something that's worth more than what it really is. I can't tell you how many times some newbie in a group says automatically "I'm getting it graded" or "Send it in", and when we discourage that for obvious reasons, they say "I have a voucher for "free" subs".
Maybe there are some dealers that disagree with these points. And the truth of the matter is, they don't have to send coins in to CACG. Again I'm a member of NGC for 10 years now. And while I have my gripes about them, they've been pretty fair for the most part, and I tend to agree with their grading. I do have a few PCGS coins, but to be honest I don't think their coins are necessarily graded "better" nor are the quality of coins in the holders "better." They are not "worse" however, though I do question their application of the FS designation on some of their coins - some which are on the top tier Registry sets (which by the way, NGC is generally stricter on as quite a few of those coins wouldn't cross, even those in my own collection). They are part of the "old boys' club" of collectors who are now Registry set owners, which drives the prices up since there are simply more PCGS Registry set owners than NGC, so the competition is more fierce. Instead of the constant bashing of CACG, I think a more thorough analysis of some of these "unfairly" graded coins are in order. The problem is, they should have done this 10 years ago. So many folks have "adjusted" to current "market grading" standards that there may be no turning back, and it's unfortunate because I've seen the hobby I love get destroyed by folks that think their "MS63" Jefferson nickel is highly collectible because it has some "wild" toning - and really that's a shitty grade for any Jefferson nickel. Same thing with those "toned" MS65 1950s LWCs. Those coins exist in the thousands in higher grades since they were hoarded like crazy, and in some instances MS67 is relatively common. Yet complete fools are led to believe there's value in a MS65 coin because it's "toned" and that is the biggest cash grab scam in the hobby and industry today.
I hate to say this, but I think the whole Registry game is partially to blame for the grading woes of today. Rich people playing rich people games, wanting the best of the best, and the TPGs looking to create product to fill that demand (and keep said rich people at the top of the lists.) I'm nowhere near rich, but was able to use the NGC "points" system to move up the ranks. Even then, I'm particular of what's in my set as far as appearance, and when I'm not particularly thrilled with a coin, I say so in the comments section. And when said coin gets upgraded, I sell it at the lower grade I believe it is, because that's who I am. And that's the right thing to do.
I like most of your comments, but you don't understand out current technology thinking it can't figure out an OMEGA, and they where minted in the 60's not 30's.
Also, if CACG coins sell for more then there will be some rare coins submitted to them, some already have been. I am in the dealer networks with the top dogs in the industry, so I do know what's being talked about.
My mistake on the Omegas, hit the wrong key on the keypad. Current tech can't figure out a matte 67 from a brilliant 67, or smooth EDS surfaces from surfaces that are MDS with radial flow lines. Current tech only knows what it's taught, and for some coins, there are just not enough examples in each grade to create a comprehensive database. You'd need AI to "learn" from each coin that is scanned or graded, and it can take hundreds if not thousands of coins for each grade - and you'd be lucky if some grade levels have 2 or 3 examples.
Virtually all the big rarities have already been stickered, so there's really not much issues there crossing - for example at least two out of the three 1913 Liberty Head nickels that are in private hands. They will sell for more because of what they are, regardless of the slab they're in. Albanese has stated in many interviews that CACG is mainly more of a one-stop source for customers for less rare coins - those in the sub-$5000 category, as he sees the market for stickering slowing down. I think if one peruses photos of straight graded CACG coins they would see that they are more right than the big 2 on a lot of points.
I do appreciate your response and you bringing light to this issues. But I hope you understand that this shakeup in the industry was a long time coming. And I think in the end everything will actually be better - for the market as well as the consumer, as they can again put trust in the grading industry that has slowly been earning the distrust of many.
@@louieatienza8762 current technology can figure out what finish a coin is, you don't even need AI for that. I highly recommend you steer from the ignorant public opinion on tech and coin grading. We already have the tech. Also, it only takes a few hundred of each grade and we're not talking about rarities. However, don't think AI or current technology can't graded a rare 1861 D $1 gold by using a less rare date of the same design.
A shake up is coming, but CACG isn't going to be the catalyst for it.
@@CoinHELPu The ignorance is with folks that think that tech is the answer, and that tech will somehow make things "fair" which it won't, since the tech is still controlled by the TPGs. Not even talking about rarities, many coins have total pops in the hundreds FOR ALL GRADES, and many even less. Also, I'm not convinced with using a common issue to grade a rarity. As we know, every issue will have strike characteristics, and that's especially true of pre-modern-era coins. You can't compare a 1913 Liberty nickel "proof" that was clandestinely made with a regular issue proof for example - they're technically more of a "specimen" piece. Or a 1964 specimen Jefferson nickel with a 1965 SMS Jefferson.
I'm thinking the same folks that want computer grading, are the same folks that use GPS to go to and from work every day. You don't need a computer to verify if a coin is MS65. You look at it, and if you don't agree, you pass on it, not whine about the grade. Or you send problem coins to a TPG that is very strict when it comes to problem coins, and you end up with "details" slabs - you don't send slabs there anymore. If enough people don't send their slabs there, that TPG will fail and this debacle is over. A computer is only a tool, that still has to be run by humans, and the humans should still be the final control, final QC of the coin.
The real test will be if humans actually buy computer-graded coins (the way they didn't back then.) If a human agrees with the computer's assessment that the coin is MS65 for example, then it's viable. If a human looks at the coin and disagrees with the grade, they'll pass. The fallacy of computer grading is that the proponents of it believe that because the computer says the grade on the slab is accurate, then you as the collector must accept it, regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong. Just like human grading, there will always be critics of the outcome of a submission.
Again, instead of looking at all the problem coins that folks try to send to CACG and fail with miserably, look at all the high-resolution images of some of the straight-graded coins already graded, and then judge if you think those coins are well-graded. I personally haven't seen one where I thought it was over-graded, or the toning looked questionable, or they net-graded the coin because it had a scratch, or the coin was dipped (or over-dipped.)
I can show you my two toned ASE's they called Questionably toning
still waiting for my full sub to come back. If every coin comes back Questionably toning with all my toners. I will just go back to using PSGS.
Based on what I've seen so far, I won't use CAC, and I won't buy anything in a CAC holder unless it's my only choice. I don't know what it is they're trying to accomplish, aside from enriching themselves, but all they are doing is demonstrating conclusively that we need an industry-wide standard grading system, not yet another grading COMPANY. There will always be a bit of "art" in the "science" of grading, but the more we can decrease art and increase science, the better. It really shouldn't matter which TPG we use, if they were all working from the same standard, they would usually tend to give the same grade to the same coin, thus ending the send it in for an upgrade game for good... Of course, that's the last thing they want, and I suspect there are a lot of coins out there that have been professionally graded (for a fee, naturally, and not a small or quick one) by multiple different graders multiple times.
We need to stop buying or collecting holders, with their fancy things like first strike and this sticker is worth more than that nonsense. "Buy the coin not the holder" is something said a LOT but rarely followed even by those who say it.
What's interesting is everybody gets excited for the beans but not the company's actual slabs. The beans command a premium. But the slabs don't. Logically that doesn't make any sense.
I think NGC holds its own. I have seen plenty of MS coins conservatively graded by them.
They both make mistakes though.
I do not agree with the incentivization of lowering grades in order to encourage resubmission with the 1% coin value tack on fee for an upgrade. That smells.
Good discussion. You raised a lot of good questions here. Thank you.
Makes anacs look better and better
For me computers are to "antiseptic" if you know what I mean. For me what makes coin collecting fun and enjoyable and a great hobby is the human element, the interaction, give and take and the subjectivity of taking my loop out and judging a coin that I just acquired and sometimes I think hey the coin is under graded or over graded or just about right. Computer grading would take that away from me and all I would do is buy a coin I want and throw it in a pile with all the other computer graded coins. Personally I don't want that, I want the enjoyment.
Population control bothers me. It’s a issue that paying customers shouldn’t honestly have to contend with.
Long time ago I was involved with Compugrade, today it's possible. Main problem is building a database of coins. The program needs examples to learn from, which means the submission of lots of graded coins to learn from. Hard to get even voluntary for free. I believe it could work eventually but would be expensive and take time.
And that's the crux of it. A computer would have to look at thousands of coin for each issue in a series, and in some cases there are only hundreds, dozens, or few coins graded. Thus such model would have difficulty grading "unique" or "rare" coins.
Great Info
I was getting back into coin collecting after raising a family & now have extra $ but with all these grading issues and so many fakes 😢
This helps me make the decision to stay away until they fix these issues 👍🏻
Excellent video. I think its all a scam for us peasants. Just like everything else. Dont pay the price and they will go anyway.
coin graders are scammers, i'm willing to beet they don't give high ms quality, and then give their own coins those high-grade coins, maybe switcheroo.
If a coin is in a PCGS holder with a CAC I see now reason to get it into a CACG slab. It remains to be seen if the market values PCGS/CAC the same as a CACG holder.
Thinking the same thing.
Always buy the coin not the grade.... or stickers.