NGC Vs CACG Vs ANACS Or PCGS Grading Comparisons

Grading company basics vs. marketing.
https://www.coincommunity.com/colle...t-graded.asp

Hypothetical scenario:
5 people are to measure the length of a short wooden stick.

Each person draws a picture of a ruler using their own opinion as to how long a 12" ruler should be.

Each uses their own ruler to measure the beam.

The reality is there is no way to tell which person has done the better job unless some universal standard is used to measure the beam.

This is the same reality of saying one grading company is better at grading coins than another. Yes, there are some companies that are so inconsistent they can be weeded out, and this is why we have the main ones the hobby accepts as being legit.

But since there is no actual standardized way of knowing the "right" grade of a coin, we see things like a coerced membership fee being used to psychologically create loyalty. No one likes to think they spent that much money and made a mistake. So we have something like an "elite country club" created by membership fees. ANACS is proof those membership fees are not a necessity for a company to stay in business.

I also do not see it as a coincidence that the highest paid prices for slabs in the market are PCGS and then NGC. Why no surprise? PCGS has the highest membership fees so (many of) their members just "know" PCGA is best. NGC is next and next lowest with membership fees and with money paid for the slabs.

CAC created a problem a couple years ago when they started slabbing. People sent in coins cracked out of high grade PCGA and NGC slabs and were shocked b/c CAC slabbed the as cleaned etc. and created a lot of problems. Those people who had full faith in the companies they had originally paid to slab their coins wanted the company they usually paid and trusted for a sticker. The people sending those coins in found out either they wasted their money on the initial slabbing and faith in the original company, or else they had been marketing-duped into having faith in CAC opinions.

When nothing standardized is used, then nothing in the system is based on anything but marketing and hope. The companies know modern people live n a society where everything is categorized and quantified to the nth degree. But they refuse to adopt something like this for coins b/c then they only would not be aid more than once to grade the same coin. In the 90s they had a system that would give what they called the correct grade consistently. They soon abandoned it b/c they realized the profit loss.

This is a most interesting topic.

Cleaned as a commercial death sentence for a coin has been very good for me. It is reaching Europe and allowed me to pick some missing coins cheap. It is also very very stupid.
It appears that ANACS system was more rational.

From what I've seen, CACG is often unreasonably high/low on grading, and immediately assume a weak strike is wear. Although grading is subjective, some aspects of grading are objective and can be incorrectly analyzed. They strive to be artificially conservative to a fault in my opinion. CACG auction comps don't bring much premium compared to PCGS (no CAC) holders.

NGC is universally known for loosely grading coins. That is demonstrated by the consistently low auction results across all types relative to PCGS and CACG (except perhaps FBL franklins as they are judged differently than PCGS).

ANACS has the least reputation from the three companies. Their slabs can be seen containing problem coins in a straight grade holder. Overall loose. On the other hand, I have seen and picked many undergraded coins from ANACS. With some items, they can be more conservative than CACG!

These findings go directly in line with my analysis.