@topstuf said:
There's no reason to get a sticker on a coin unless you want people other than yourself to see it as maybe in the top third of the assigned grade.
Gosharootie. That may be one of the MOST misunderstood posts I've ever made.
Y'see, what I was referring to is that the folks who care about the top third of the grade might be the same folks who will pay substantially more to acquire it for their......uh...
The more I think about this thread, the more I feel it is backwards. If you are paying the CAC tax, you are doing it wrong. You should be collecting the CAC tax by now if you have been paying any attention.
When I started collecting, I trusted the grade on the holder. Years later, when I joined CAC, I submitted those coins and ran a 50% sticker rate and those stickers were green. Did I cry? Nope. Did I decide only to buy coins that had CAC stickers? Nope. I sat down and carefully examined the coins that came back from CAC and I educated myself. I had a recent box of 20 come back with 19 stickers including 7 gold. And I bought them all based on pictures.
The key is not to learn to buy CAC coins, but to learn to buy coins that WILL CAC.
Some people think a CAC sticker is for vanity or those who can not grade however A CAC sticker does many things:
1) it tells you that JA thinks it is solid for the grade (an opinion that should mean something)
2) it tells you that JA does not think it has been messed with (with gold maybe the most important thing)
3) it gives you a coin that CAC makes a market in
4) it allows you to particpate in pcgs registry for CAC coins
5) it gives you one more set of eyes that has reviewed your coin in person (especially important at the moment given the difficulty of buying coins in auction that you view in person)
6) CAC keeps a census that allows further study about your coin
7) it gives someone with a sharp eye the opportunity to find a coin deserving of a sticker but not yet submitted
8) it may give you confidence to buy from a TPG that you do not normally buy from and increase your chance to cross it to pcgs
9) it helps you become more knowledgable by examining coins that stickered against coins that didnt
10) CAC has helped with gradeflation
11) It may be an eye opener for someone who thought they had a good eye but maybe they dont
@CoinJunkie said:
I always tell myself not to wade into these waters (again), but here I go...
For all of the folks claiming that CAC will provide "safety", wasn't that the same argument used for putting coins in plastic in the first place? Just as there are greater and lesser coins at any assigned TPG grade, there are greater and lesser coins with stickers at any assigned grade. Those who cannot tell the difference themselves will ultimately lose money versus those who can.
CAC is a second expert opinion.
If a doctor told you that you had 2 weeks to live and there was nothing to do, might you not want a second opinion?
TPG' grading, rather than just authentication, really rose to allow for a sight unseen market to exist. CAC gives a second opinion on the coin which further assists in the sight unseen or online coin market.
TPG's and CAC are less relevant in a sight seen transaction where you can trust your eyes. You can never 100% trust photos to discern subtle differences.
Um, OK. I don't really disagree with anything you've written above. OTOH, it doesn't really address (or refute) my post.
It was to your point that "those who cannot tell the difference themselves...." CAC is NOT simply a crutch for those who can't grade, just as TPG's are not a simply a crutch. They serve a purpose beyond that by allowing someone to confidently buy without holding the coin in hand.
There are sight-unseen prices. Dealers buy coins all the time without even photos based on the slab/sticker combination. Yes, they pay more for a premium coin that they've assessed in hand. But a lot of dealer-to-dealer sales are done simply from a listing: "10x 1881-S Morgan MS-65 (PCGS)" which would fetch a slightly lower price than "10x 1881-S Morgan MS-65 (PCGS, CAC)"
@CoinJunkie said:
I always tell myself not to wade into these waters (again), but here I go...
For all of the folks claiming that CAC will provide "safety", wasn't that the same argument used for putting coins in plastic in the first place? Just as there are greater and lesser coins at any assigned TPG grade, there are greater and lesser coins with stickers at any assigned grade. Those who cannot tell the difference themselves will ultimately lose money versus those who can.
CAC is a second expert opinion.
If a doctor told you that you had 2 weeks to live and there was nothing to do, might you not want a second opinion?
TPG' grading, rather than just authentication, really rose to allow for a sight unseen market to exist. CAC gives a second opinion on the coin which further assists in the sight unseen or online coin market.
TPG's and CAC are less relevant in a sight seen transaction where you can trust your eyes. You can never 100% trust photos to discern subtle differences.
Um, OK. I don't really disagree with anything you've written above. OTOH, it doesn't really address (or refute) my post.
It was to your point that "those who cannot tell the difference themselves...." CAC is NOT simply a crutch for those who can't grade, just as TPG's are not a simply a crutch. They serve a purpose beyond that by allowing someone to confidently buy without holding the coin in hand.
There are sight-unseen prices. Dealers buy coins all the time without even photos based on the slab/sticker combination. Yes, they pay more for a premium coin that they've assessed in hand. But a lot of dealer-to-dealer sales are done simply from a listing: "10x 1881-S Morgan MS-65 (PCGS)" which would fetch a slightly lower price than "10x 1881-S Morgan MS-65 (PCGS, CAC)"
My post was made in the context of collectors' (and their heirs') being afforded an extra level of safety by purchasing stickered coins. It had nothing to do with the sight-unseen market.
@roadrunner said:
Grading by the end user collectors is weaker today than it was 25-30 yrs ago. Could be getting weaker and weaker over time.
I am not sure I can agree with this. I think grading is better now for the serious numismatists. CAC taught us the importance of surface quality as part of the grade and how to factor it in.
@roadrunner said:
Grading by the end user collectors is weaker today than it was 25-30 yrs ago. Could be getting weaker and weaker over time.
I am not sure I can agree with this. I think grading is better now for the serious numismatists. CAC taught us the importance of surface quality as part of the grade and how to factor it in.
Best, SH
I don't think it's just a CAC issue. Since the rise of TPG's (and later CAC), "serious" (oh how I hate that) collectors have been able to see hundreds or thousands of coins with "professional" grades attached. There's also been a rise of high definition images for people to compare to.
I agree with you. I think grading is better now.
People who think it is "worse" are really complaining that the standards are different than they were in the 60s and 70s.
I believe a good number of them will never get their coins slabbed. When they pass away and their heirs sell the collection, the new buyers will get them slabbed. Do you really believe most of the owners of raw coins don't have anything worth slabbing?
No, I do believe many raw coins are worth slabbing. I did not say I believed they were not worth slabbing. I said I don't believe the owners will choose to pay to slab the coins, and then pay again to have them sent to CAC.
Yup, if these early coppers people try to slab their coins, it is going to be bad. They have been brushing them and adding fluid protectants to them for years/decades. Completely covered in microhairlines. When I was in that 'club' they even had written explanations on how to brush your coins. Then I joined the Conder Society where there was an article that had images and showed the long-term damage to a copper treated that way. So many of these coppers from these great collections risk being up in details holders for this manipulation of the surfaces...... CAC? LOL.
@winesteven said:
Keep in mind two things:
1. Many of the raw coins are low in value;
Of course that's true. Who is going to spend money slabbing an inexpensive coin and then spend more to have CAC look at it?
Me, see my CAC Barber Quarter Registry Set. Heck I even crossed some of these from NGC, and many were unbeaned when bought. My set sits right behind the DL Hansen set and with just above half of his score (LOL).
@panexpoguy said:
The more I think about this thread, the more I feel it is backwards. If you are paying the CAC tax, you are doing it wrong. You should be collecting the CAC tax by now if you have been paying any attention.
When I started collecting, I trusted the grade on the holder. Years later, when I joined CAC, I submitted those coins and ran a 50% sticker rate and those stickers were green. Did I cry? Nope. Did I decide only to buy coins that had CAC stickers? Nope. I sat down and carefully examined the coins that came back from CAC and I educated myself. I had a recent box of 20 come back with 19 stickers including 7 gold. And I bought them all based on pictures.
The key is not to learn to buy CAC coins, but to learn to buy coins that WILL CAC.
Agree, but those opportunities might be shutting down in some areas. I had a similar experience with 18 of my worn barber quarters, CAC taught me the look, I went 16 for 18.
No to 1 and 2. In terms of paying a 50 pct premium or greater for CAC no interest. That money buys lots of neat stuff - see below.
I enjoy the CAC or no CAC thread on coin talk. Coins are displayed. Posters vote, comment why CAC or no CAC then it is revealed whether coin got CAC or not. It has given me an idea of their (CAC) taste and how it matches or differs from mine on certain coins.
Nowadays I look for low pop world coins many much rarer / lower pop than their US counterparts and much less expensive. The CAC coins I had retailed most of them strong profit after 6 months then rest slowly blown out minimal profit get rid of them. Come 2020 just chasing deals on slabbed 19th / early 20th century world coins with single digit / double digit pops.
@BillJones said:
One post on this, and I am done. I am done with buying U.S. coins that cost more than a couple hundred dollars because of CAC. I love the U.S. coins I have and don’t plan on selling them soon, but when one man controls the market and controls the selection of coins that should be added to your collection, it’s time to go.
I hope and pray that CAC will leave the market for hammered British and Imperial Roman coins alone. Many collectors in those areas prefer raw coins, myself included, in any case. Maybe that will discourage the spread of the virus.
One man doesn’t control the market...
Unless you couldn’t care less about losing large sums of money, his opinion absolutely controls the market.
@roadrunner said:
Grading by the end user collectors is weaker today than it was 25-30 yrs ago. Could be getting weaker and weaker over time.
I am not sure I can agree with this. I think grading is better now for the serious numismatists. CAC taught us the importance of surface quality as part of the grade and how to factor it in.
Best, SH
Perhaps. The number of serious numismatist is decreasing. I would not call the average collector a “serious” numismatist or collector in the sense that we would define it. The forum members here are an unusually capable group overall.
If buying/holding TPG coins, CAC certification will provide a very valuable second opinion as to the grade of the coin. But this mainly would apply to coins that are planned to be flipped rather than held. I have great coins that I would not consider submitting to CAC because I have no plans of selling them.
But when I decide to sell a coin, why would I not want to pay $15 / coin or EagleEye PhotoSeal to render their opinion on the coins?
I just want CAC to certify with a bean my RAW coins........
@OldIndianNutKase said:
If buying/holding TPG coins, CAC certification will provide a very valuable second opinion as to the grade of the coin. But this mainly would apply to coins that are planned to be flipped rather than held. I have great coins that I would not consider submitting to CAC because I have no plans of selling them.
But when I decide to sell a coin, why would I not want to pay $15 / coin or EagleEye PhotoSeal to render their opinion on the coins?
I just want CAC to certify with a bean my RAW coins........
OINK
I’m not sure how you would infer that any one is advocating not submitting before selling. Indeed the example in the OP would encourage it or you are leaving money on the table.
@cameonut2011
"I’m not sure how you would infer that any one is advocating not submitting before selling. Indeed the example in the OP would encourage it or you are leaving money on the table."
Your point is well taken. But many collectors have their own criteria for their collection. Their collection might be just RAW coins, or PCGS non-CAC coins or it might be PCGS-CAC coins. The collector should be able to define their own collecting experience. Hopefully we will never have to lockstep with other collectors. Not ALL collectors are in this as an investment.
@BillJones said:
One post on this, and I am done. I am done with buying U.S. coins that cost more than a couple hundred dollars because of CAC. I love the U.S. coins I have and don’t plan on selling them soon, but when one man controls the market and controls the selection of coins that should be added to your collection, it’s time to go.
I hope and pray that CAC will leave the market for hammered British and Imperial Roman coins alone. Many collectors in those areas prefer raw coins, myself included, in any case. Maybe that will discourage the spread of the virus.
One man doesn’t control the market...
Unless you couldn’t care less about losing large sums of money, his opinion absolutely controls the market.
The “market” is comprised of a great many different types, varieties, qualities and values of coins, some of them graded and others, not. No one even begins to influence all of that, much less, “control” It.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@BillJones said:
One post on this, and I am done. I am done with buying U.S. coins that cost more than a couple hundred dollars because of CAC. I love the U.S. coins I have and don’t plan on selling them soon, but when one man controls the market and controls the selection of coins that should be added to your collection, it’s time to go.
I hope and pray that CAC will leave the market for hammered British and Imperial Roman coins alone. Many collectors in those areas prefer raw coins, myself included, in any case. Maybe that will discourage the spread of the virus.
One man doesn’t control the market...
Unless you couldn’t care less about losing large sums of money, his opinion absolutely controls the market.
The “market” is comprised of a great many different types, varieties, qualities and values of coins, some of them graded and others, not. No one even begins to influence all of that, much less, “control” It.
Well sure, but the total market cap of the coins which benefit from a CAC sticker pretty much dwarfs those other segments combined. Anecdotally, anytime I've tried to sell a coin worth over, say, $1000 in the last many years, I've been asked by a prospective buyer if it's been to CAC. It's one of the reasons I rarely acquire US type anymore.
@BillJones said:
One post on this, and I am done. I am done with buying U.S. coins that cost more than a couple hundred dollars because of CAC. I love the U.S. coins I have and don’t plan on selling them soon, but when one man controls the market and controls the selection of coins that should be added to your collection, it’s time to go.
I hope and pray that CAC will leave the market for hammered British and Imperial Roman coins alone. Many collectors in those areas prefer raw coins, myself included, in any case. Maybe that will discourage the spread of the virus.
One man doesn’t control the market...
Unless you couldn’t care less about losing large sums of money, his opinion absolutely controls the market.
The “market” is comprised of a great many different types, varieties, qualities and values of coins, some of them graded and others, not. No one even begins to influence all of that, much less, “control” It.
Well sure, but the total market cap of the coins which benefit from a CAC sticker pretty much dwarfs those other segments combined. Anecdotally, anytime I've tried to sell a coin worth over, say, $1000 in the last many years, I've been asked by a prospective buyer if it's been to CAC. It's one of the reasons I rarely acquire US type anymore.
Actually I think the low end market is cumulatively bigger than the high end market. Look at US Mint sales alone.
My feeling is premiums won't last more than a year after JA & I'll be keeping my coins long after that.
This is why I don't bother to CAC the coins I intend to keep.
If CAC continues w/o JA, folks will probably take another run at a sticker by cracking or re-grading to get a new number.
If this is successful, it will be a PR catastrophe for the brand.
If CAC ceases operations all together after only 13 or so years in business w/ only 80% of coins evaluated, people will begin to suspect that many more "fresh" coins have not been seen by JA.
The premium can't be justified w/o a certain level of confidence.
One individual does not control the market nor does their particular taste. The game on coin talk CAC or not confirms this. Last time I checked CAC was only about 1.7% the graded material of coins and currency on eBay.
I was impressed by the 12 reasons one poster gave for CAC - it would make excellent Input to marketing letter for CAC dealer. Now don’t you guys go cut and paste.
What I found interesting at recent show is slab wholesalers stuff has no CAC and he does a booming business both dealers and public. I always look thru his slab boxes buy a few and have done well with them mainly because bought below bid. I try catch him at beginning of show before it gets picked over.
We are in uncertain waters - the more your buried in a coin vs liquidation value (bid / blue sheet) the harder your going to fall if there is a crash aka 1989. Certainly I have paid more for coins I consider PQ. It’s your money / your hobby focus on an area you know and educate yourself.
If CAC discontinues, anyone care to guess who might successfully replace that service? CAC has demonstrated a need and a demand. Hard to believe someone of equal stature won't at least try to fill the vacuum.
@CoinJunkie said:
I always tell myself not to wade into these waters (again), but here I go...
For all of the folks claiming that CAC will provide "safety", wasn't that the same argument used for putting coins in plastic in the first place? Just as there are greater and lesser coins at any assigned TPG grade, there are greater and lesser coins with stickers at any assigned grade. Those who cannot tell the difference themselves will ultimately lose money versus those who can.
True but why are so many sent back for regrade, reconsideration, etc, and getting a different grade?
In my opinion this has little to do with stacks/heritage and everything to do with CAC.
1914-d $2.5's in ms65 were solid $20,000 coins in 2014. look at more recent sales and you will see they they dropped to $14-15k by 2015 and 10-11k by 2016-17.
When this coin sold there had been no major trades in a solid year and the market continued to be weak- and yet the coin still sold for descent going rate money.
Now CAC has a posted bid that they would pay $22,500 for ANY ms65 1914-d $2.5 with a sticker on it.
So in the heritage sale the coin had a solid bottom on 22500 and those that play in the upper cac market found a coin that the work has all been done for them already and they can tote as the super cool and tough and OGH etc... so they paid up for it.
The REAL question I would say, is those same dealers that played the second time- why did they not recognize that same coin and go after it the first time? Perhaps they just doing care about the coin unless its already in the "right holder and with a sticker" which is of course their prerogative
One man does not control the market. Last time I checked CAC was only about 1.7% the graded material of coins and currency on eBay.
CAC doesn't concern itself with either currency or modern coins and mint products, which make up a large percentage of the certified items on eBay which you cite. To rephrase my original statement so as to avoid spurious rebuttals:
For the arena which CAC is involved in, it exerts tremendous influence (control) on pricing.
That arena would be classic US coins, which is what constitute the majority of what is posted and discussed daily on this particular forum.
One man does not control the market. Last time I checked CAC was only about 1.7% the graded material of coins and currency on eBay.
CAC doesn't concern itself with either currency or modern coins and mint products, which make up a large percentage of the certified items on eBay which you cite. To rephrase my original statement so as to avoid spurious rebuttals:
For the arena which CAC is involved in, it exerts tremendous influence (control) on pricing.
That arena would be classic US coins, which is what constitute the majority of what is posted and discussed daily on this particular forum.
Your rephrase was significant and the end result sounds reasonable. On the other hand, considering that your original statement sounded greatly exaggerated, I think it's unfair to label previous rebuttals as spurious. But I do like the word "spurious".
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
One man does not control the market. Last time I checked CAC was only about 1.7% the graded material of coins and currency on eBay.
CAC doesn't concern itself with either currency or modern coins and mint products, which make up a large percentage of the certified items on eBay which you cite. To rephrase my original statement so as to avoid spurious rebuttals:
For the arena which CAC is involved in, it exerts tremendous influence (control) on pricing.
That arena would be classic US coins, which is what constitute the majority of what is posted and discussed daily on this particular forum.
Your rephrase was significant and the end result sounds reasonable. On the other hand, considering that your original statement sounded greatly exaggerated, I think it's unfair to label previous rebuttals as spurious. But I do like the word "spurious".
I figured it was pretty obvious that CAC can't "control" markets that they don't participate in, but I guess sometimes you have to spell things out...
One man does not control the market. Last time I checked CAC was only about 1.7% the graded material of coins and currency on eBay.
CAC doesn't concern itself with either currency or modern coins and mint products, which make up a large percentage of the certified items on eBay which you cite. To rephrase my original statement so as to avoid spurious rebuttals:
For the arena which CAC is involved in, it exerts tremendous influence (control) on pricing.
That arena would be classic US coins, which is what constitute the majority of what is posted and discussed daily on this particular forum.
Your rephrase was significant and the end result sounds reasonable. On the other hand, considering that your original statement sounded greatly exaggerated, I think it's unfair to label previous rebuttals as spurious. But I do like the word "spurious".
The arena is really much smaller than "classic US coins" in which they "exert tremendous influence (control)". There are numerous classic coin categories in which CAC does not post bids. They are a major market maker in dollars. But there are other areas, 2 and 3 cent pieces for example, that they don't seem to make any effort in.
Now, that's not to say that a CAC sticker on an old copper doesn't affect pricing. But that is the market valuing CAC, that is not CAC "exerting" influence or control.
But, that's probably just me being argumentative. But it seems spurious to accuse CAC of controlling pricing or market segments. A PCGS slab is valuable also, but I wouldn't ever suggest that PCGS is exerting control. That is too active.
CAC does, on the other hand, post bids and can be seen as a market maker in certain areas. But the areas JA seems to want to make a market in are relatively small. When I was a CAC member, I had the highest posted bids in a couple areas. JA didn't have any bids there.
One man does not control the market. Last time I checked CAC was only about 1.7% the graded material of coins and currency on eBay.
CAC doesn't concern itself with either currency or modern coins and mint products, which make up a large percentage of the certified items on eBay which you cite. To rephrase my original statement so as to avoid spurious rebuttals:
For the arena which CAC is involved in, it exerts tremendous influence (control) on pricing.
That arena would be classic US coins, which is what constitute the majority of what is posted and discussed daily on this particular forum.
Your rephrase was significant and the end result sounds reasonable. On the other hand, considering that your original statement sounded greatly exaggerated, I think it's unfair to label previous rebuttals as spurious. But I do like the word "spurious".
I figured it was pretty obvious that CAC can't "control" markets that they don't participate in, but I guess sometimes you have to spell things out...
Did you also figure that they sometimes participate in various market segments in which they have very little influence, much less, control? If not, you should have. because that's reality. And "control"and "influence" typically have very different meanings.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
One man does not control the market. Last time I checked CAC was only about 1.7% the graded material of coins and currency on eBay.
CAC doesn't concern itself with either currency or modern coins and mint products, which make up a large percentage of the certified items on eBay which you cite. To rephrase my original statement so as to avoid spurious rebuttals:
For the arena which CAC is involved in, it exerts tremendous influence (control) on pricing.
That arena would be classic US coins, which is what constitute the majority of what is posted and discussed daily on this particular forum.
Your rephrase was significant and the end result sounds reasonable. On the other hand, considering that your original statement sounded greatly exaggerated, I think it's unfair to label previous rebuttals as spurious. But I do like the word "spurious".
The arena is really much smaller than "classic US coins" in which they "exert tremendous influence (control)". There are numerous classic coin categories in which CAC does not post bids. They are a major market maker in dollars. But there are other areas, 2 and 3 cent pieces for example, that they don't seem to make any effort in.
Now, that's not to say that a CAC sticker on an old copper doesn't affect pricing. But that is the market valuing CAC, that is not CAC "exerting" influence or control.
But, that's probably just me being argumentative. But it seems spurious to accuse CAC of controlling pricing or market segments. A PCGS slab is valuable also, but I wouldn't ever suggest that PCGS is exerting control. That is too active.
CAC does, on the other hand, post bids and can be seen as a market maker in certain areas. But the areas JA seems to want to make a market in are relatively small. When I was a CAC member, I had the highest posted bids in a couple areas. JA didn't have any bids there.
Just to be clear, I'm not accusing CAC of anything. They offered a service and the market found it valuable. Basic capitalism. CAC controls pricing in the sense that they've won significant mindshare (for lack of a better term) among market participants. As you mention above, they also set bids directly in many cases. Their network of dealers set bids on many other series.
In the case where there are sight unseen bids on a particular issue, then yes, CAC directly controls pricing on that issue. For the rest, the control is more indirect. We can argue all day about semantics and degrees of control, but I think we all know it's generally true that CAC is a major influence on the pricing of US classic coins. For better or for worse.
One man does not control the market. Last time I checked CAC was only about 1.7% the graded material of coins and currency on eBay.
CAC doesn't concern itself with either currency or modern coins and mint products, which make up a large percentage of the certified items on eBay which you cite. To rephrase my original statement so as to avoid spurious rebuttals:
For the arena which CAC is involved in, it exerts tremendous influence (control) on pricing.
That arena would be classic US coins, which is what constitute the majority of what is posted and discussed daily on this particular forum.
Your rephrase was significant and the end result sounds reasonable. On the other hand, considering that your original statement sounded greatly exaggerated, I think it's unfair to label previous rebuttals as spurious. But I do like the word "spurious".
I figured it was pretty obvious that CAC can't "control" markets that they don't participate in, but I guess sometimes you have to spell things out...
Did you also figure that they sometimes participate in various market segments in which they have very little influence, much less, control? If not, you should have. because that's reality. And "control"and "influence" typically have very different meanings.
No, I don't have enough hair left to be able to afford splitting any. YMMV.
But feel free to "enlighten" me with any specifics. Or is simply that they're not "major" players in the 2-cent market?
One man does not control the market. Last time I checked CAC was only about 1.7% the graded material of coins and currency on eBay.
CAC doesn't concern itself with either currency or modern coins and mint products, which make up a large percentage of the certified items on eBay which you cite. To rephrase my original statement so as to avoid spurious rebuttals:
For the arena which CAC is involved in, it exerts tremendous influence (control) on pricing.
That arena would be classic US coins, which is what constitute the majority of what is posted and discussed daily on this particular forum.
Your rephrase was significant and the end result sounds reasonable. On the other hand, considering that your original statement sounded greatly exaggerated, I think it's unfair to label previous rebuttals as spurious. But I do like the word "spurious".
I figured it was pretty obvious that CAC can't "control" markets that they don't participate in, but I guess sometimes you have to spell things out...
Did you also figure that they sometimes participate in various market segments in which they have very little influence, much less, control? If not, you should have. because that's reality. And "control"and "influence" typically have very different meanings.
No, I don't have enough hair left to be able to afford splitting any. YMMV.
But feel free to "enlighten" me with any specifics. Or is simply that they're not "major" players in the 2-cent market?
I think you'd be surprised how FEW markets in which they are "major players".
One man does not control the market. Last time I checked CAC was only about 1.7% the graded material of coins and currency on eBay.
CAC doesn't concern itself with either currency or modern coins and mint products, which make up a large percentage of the certified items on eBay which you cite. To rephrase my original statement so as to avoid spurious rebuttals:
For the arena which CAC is involved in, it exerts tremendous influence (control) on pricing.
That arena would be classic US coins, which is what constitute the majority of what is posted and discussed daily on this particular forum.
Your rephrase was significant and the end result sounds reasonable. On the other hand, considering that your original statement sounded greatly exaggerated, I think it's unfair to label previous rebuttals as spurious. But I do like the word "spurious".
I figured it was pretty obvious that CAC can't "control" markets that they don't participate in, but I guess sometimes you have to spell things out...
Did you also figure that they sometimes participate in various market segments in which they have very little influence, much less, control? If not, you should have. because that's reality. And "control"and "influence" typically have very different meanings.
No, I don't have enough hair left to be able to afford splitting any. YMMV.
But feel free to "enlighten" me with any specifics. Or is simply that they're not "major" players in the 2-cent market?
I think you'd be surprised how FEW markets in which they are "major players".
I agree. And please don't disagree with me for the sake of being argumentative!
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
These discussions are always some combination of fun and interesting. Somehow there's a particular point that always seems to be forgotten.
Ever since coins were first assigned grades there has always been a subset of coins that are particularly nice or desirable compared to the others. Long before the arrival of CAC or even TPGs these coins sold for more than the others due to properties the potential buying pool recognized and desired. A large part of the supposed “CAC tax” is nothing more than paying up to acquire the best coins. How you identify and stratify those has changed over time and will continue to do so.
The CAC premium will endure for no other reason than they tend, on average, to sticker nicer coins.
@BryceM said:
These discussions are always some combination of fun and interesting. Somehow there's a particular point that always seems to be forgotten.
Ever since coins were first assigned grades there has always been a subset of coins that are particularly nice or desirable compared to the others. Long before the arrival of CAC or even TPGs these coins sold for more than the others due to properties the potential buying pool recognized and desired. A large part of the supposed “CAC tax” is nothing more than paying up to acquire the best coins. How you identify and stratify those has changed over time and will continue to do so.
The CAC premium will endure for no other reason than they tend, on average, to sticker nicer coins.
Your "point that always seems to be forgotten" has actually been made numerous times over the years here, including by me on several occasions.
I don't really feel like going down the rabbit hole yet again on the pros and cons of having a fourth party be the widely-accepted arbiter of "nice coins".
I will agree that if they weren't doing a quality job, the market would lose faith and the premium would disappear (eventually).
The point has been made many times, yes. Despite that, there are many who seem to believe that the entire reason CAC’d coins cost more is that they have a green sticker, not that they were already nicer coins to start with. On average mind you - it’s pretty easy to find mistakes and weird pricing occurrences.
I didn’t say anything about who should be the arbiter of nice coins. Collectively, over time, the market decides what’s nice. Individuals influence the collective consciousness of course, but that’s a whole lot bigger than even the most revered thought leaders.
JA seems to have a pretty good finger on what the market likes and his ability to leverage that knowledge gives him credibility and widespread (but not universal) acceptance. Others are pretty darn good at it too but lack the same ability to project their perceptions to such a large audience.
If what the market “liked” suddenly shifted (it is always shifting), JA would either shift with it or eventually become irrelevant. If gradeflation progressed to the point that he would only sticker one in ten thousand coins, people would stop paying attention.
@CoinJunkie said:
CAC as a brand will be sold before it would simply close up shop. IMHO, of course.
It might get sold...but that's the same as closing up shop. The CAC premium is John Albanese's eyes.
CAC will have to evolve and probably change the sticker to prevent collectors simply rejecting them wholesale.
I'd be curious to know how often JA and his graders disagree.
Interesting question. But I'm 99.9999% sure that JA always wins the argument. LOL.
Well I'd posit that there would have to be a high level of agreement between JA and his graders before he would turn it over to someone else and let them continue to use his name.
Comments
Gosharootie. That may be one of the MOST misunderstood posts I've ever made.
Y'see, what I was referring to is that the folks who care about the top third of the grade might be the same folks who will pay substantially more to acquire it for their......uh...
.......oh forget it.
I'm on lockdown here.
The more I think about this thread, the more I feel it is backwards. If you are paying the CAC tax, you are doing it wrong. You should be collecting the CAC tax by now if you have been paying any attention.
When I started collecting, I trusted the grade on the holder. Years later, when I joined CAC, I submitted those coins and ran a 50% sticker rate and those stickers were green. Did I cry? Nope. Did I decide only to buy coins that had CAC stickers? Nope. I sat down and carefully examined the coins that came back from CAC and I educated myself. I had a recent box of 20 come back with 19 stickers including 7 gold. And I bought them all based on pictures.
The key is not to learn to buy CAC coins, but to learn to buy coins that WILL CAC.
Some people think a CAC sticker is for vanity or those who can not grade however A CAC sticker does many things:
1) it tells you that JA thinks it is solid for the grade (an opinion that should mean something)
2) it tells you that JA does not think it has been messed with (with gold maybe the most important thing)
3) it gives you a coin that CAC makes a market in
4) it allows you to particpate in pcgs registry for CAC coins
5) it gives you one more set of eyes that has reviewed your coin in person (especially important at the moment given the difficulty of buying coins in auction that you view in person)
6) CAC keeps a census that allows further study about your coin
7) it gives someone with a sharp eye the opportunity to find a coin deserving of a sticker but not yet submitted
8) it may give you confidence to buy from a TPG that you do not normally buy from and increase your chance to cross it to pcgs
9) it helps you become more knowledgable by examining coins that stickered against coins that didnt
10) CAC has helped with gradeflation
11) It may be an eye opener for someone who thought they had a good eye but maybe they dont
It was to your point that "those who cannot tell the difference themselves...." CAC is NOT simply a crutch for those who can't grade, just as TPG's are not a simply a crutch. They serve a purpose beyond that by allowing someone to confidently buy without holding the coin in hand.
There are sight-unseen prices. Dealers buy coins all the time without even photos based on the slab/sticker combination. Yes, they pay more for a premium coin that they've assessed in hand. But a lot of dealer-to-dealer sales are done simply from a listing: "10x 1881-S Morgan MS-65 (PCGS)" which would fetch a slightly lower price than "10x 1881-S Morgan MS-65 (PCGS, CAC)"
My post was made in the context of collectors' (and their heirs') being afforded an extra level of safety by purchasing stickered coins. It had nothing to do with the sight-unseen market.
I am not sure I can agree with this. I think grading is better now for the serious numismatists. CAC taught us the importance of surface quality as part of the grade and how to factor it in.
Best, SH
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
I don't think it's just a CAC issue. Since the rise of TPG's (and later CAC), "serious" (oh how I hate that) collectors have been able to see hundreds or thousands of coins with "professional" grades attached. There's also been a rise of high definition images for people to compare to.
I agree with you. I think grading is better now.
People who think it is "worse" are really complaining that the standards are different than they were in the 60s and 70s.
Yup, if these early coppers people try to slab their coins, it is going to be bad. They have been brushing them and adding fluid protectants to them for years/decades. Completely covered in microhairlines. When I was in that 'club' they even had written explanations on how to brush your coins. Then I joined the Conder Society where there was an article that had images and showed the long-term damage to a copper treated that way. So many of these coppers from these great collections risk being up in details holders for this manipulation of the surfaces...... CAC? LOL.
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
Me, see my CAC Barber Quarter Registry Set. Heck I even crossed some of these from NGC, and many were unbeaned when bought. My set sits right behind the DL Hansen set and with just above half of his score (LOL).
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/composite/7576
Best, SH
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
Agree, but those opportunities might be shutting down in some areas. I had a similar experience with 18 of my worn barber quarters, CAC taught me the look, I went 16 for 18.
Best, SH
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
No to 1 and 2. In terms of paying a 50 pct premium or greater for CAC no interest. That money buys lots of neat stuff - see below.
I enjoy the CAC or no CAC thread on coin talk. Coins are displayed. Posters vote, comment why CAC or no CAC then it is revealed whether coin got CAC or not. It has given me an idea of their (CAC) taste and how it matches or differs from mine on certain coins.
Nowadays I look for low pop world coins many much rarer / lower pop than their US counterparts and much less expensive. The CAC coins I had retailed most of them strong profit after 6 months then rest slowly blown out minimal profit get rid of them. Come 2020 just chasing deals on slabbed 19th / early 20th century world coins with single digit / double digit pops.
Unless you couldn’t care less about losing large sums of money, his opinion absolutely controls the market.
Perhaps. The number of serious numismatist is decreasing. I would not call the average collector a “serious” numismatist or collector in the sense that we would define it. The forum members here are an unusually capable group overall.
If buying/holding TPG coins, CAC certification will provide a very valuable second opinion as to the grade of the coin. But this mainly would apply to coins that are planned to be flipped rather than held. I have great coins that I would not consider submitting to CAC because I have no plans of selling them.
But when I decide to sell a coin, why would I not want to pay $15 / coin or EagleEye PhotoSeal to render their opinion on the coins?
I just want CAC to certify with a bean my RAW coins........
OINK
I agree. I can think of a dealer with access to the requisite capital Who would absolutely relish the opportunity to play coin god.
I’m not sure how you would infer that any one is advocating not submitting before selling. Indeed the example in the OP would encourage it or you are leaving money on the table.
@cameonut2011
"I’m not sure how you would infer that any one is advocating not submitting before selling. Indeed the example in the OP would encourage it or you are leaving money on the table."
Your point is well taken. But many collectors have their own criteria for their collection. Their collection might be just RAW coins, or PCGS non-CAC coins or it might be PCGS-CAC coins. The collector should be able to define their own collecting experience. Hopefully we will never have to lockstep with other collectors. Not ALL collectors are in this as an investment.
OINK
It doesn't matter if someone wants it. It has to be someone who has as much cachet in the community as JA. The list is very short.
The “market” is comprised of a great many different types, varieties, qualities and values of coins, some of them graded and others, not. No one even begins to influence all of that, much less, “control” It.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Well sure, but the total market cap of the coins which benefit from a CAC sticker pretty much dwarfs those other segments combined. Anecdotally, anytime I've tried to sell a coin worth over, say, $1000 in the last many years, I've been asked by a prospective buyer if it's been to CAC. It's one of the reasons I rarely acquire US type anymore.
Actually I think the low end market is cumulatively bigger than the high end market. Look at US Mint sales alone.
I CAC before I sell.
My feeling is premiums won't last more than a year after JA & I'll be keeping my coins long after that.
This is why I don't bother to CAC the coins I intend to keep.
If CAC continues w/o JA, folks will probably take another run at a sticker by cracking or re-grading to get a new number.
If this is successful, it will be a PR catastrophe for the brand.
If CAC ceases operations all together after only 13 or so years in business w/ only 80% of coins evaluated, people will begin to suspect that many more "fresh" coins have not been seen by JA.
The premium can't be justified w/o a certain level of confidence.
My Saint Set
"My cac's better than your cac.". Isn't that what this hobby has always been about ?
Interesting thread.
One individual does not control the market nor does their particular taste. The game on coin talk CAC or not confirms this. Last time I checked CAC was only about 1.7% the graded material of coins and currency on eBay.
I was impressed by the 12 reasons one poster gave for CAC - it would make excellent Input to marketing letter for CAC dealer. Now don’t you guys go cut and paste.
What I found interesting at recent show is slab wholesalers stuff has no CAC and he does a booming business both dealers and public. I always look thru his slab boxes buy a few and have done well with them mainly because bought below bid. I try catch him at beginning of show before it gets picked over.
We are in uncertain waters - the more your buried in a coin vs liquidation value (bid / blue sheet) the harder your going to fall if there is a crash aka 1989. Certainly I have paid more for coins I consider PQ. It’s your money / your hobby focus on an area you know and educate yourself.
If CAC discontinues, anyone care to guess who might successfully replace that service? CAC has demonstrated a need and a demand. Hard to believe someone of equal stature won't at least try to fill the vacuum.
True but why are so many sent back for regrade, reconsideration, etc, and getting a different grade?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
I'd be curious to know how often JA and his graders disagree.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
In my opinion this has little to do with stacks/heritage and everything to do with CAC.
1914-d $2.5's in ms65 were solid $20,000 coins in 2014. look at more recent sales and you will see they they dropped to $14-15k by 2015 and 10-11k by 2016-17.
When this coin sold there had been no major trades in a solid year and the market continued to be weak- and yet the coin still sold for descent going rate money.
Now CAC has a posted bid that they would pay $22,500 for ANY ms65 1914-d $2.5 with a sticker on it.
So in the heritage sale the coin had a solid bottom on 22500 and those that play in the upper cac market found a coin that the work has all been done for them already and they can tote as the super cool and tough and OGH etc... so they paid up for it.
The REAL question I would say, is those same dealers that played the second time- why did they not recognize that same coin and go after it the first time? Perhaps they just doing care about the coin unless its already in the "right holder and with a sticker" which is of course their prerogative
CAC doesn't concern itself with either currency or modern coins and mint products, which make up a large percentage of the certified items on eBay which you cite. To rephrase my original statement so as to avoid spurious rebuttals:
For the arena which CAC is involved in, it exerts tremendous influence (control) on pricing.
That arena would be classic US coins, which is what constitute the majority of what is posted and discussed daily on this particular forum.
Your rephrase was significant and the end result sounds reasonable. On the other hand, considering that your original statement sounded greatly exaggerated, I think it's unfair to label previous rebuttals as spurious. But I do like the word "spurious".
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I figured it was pretty obvious that CAC can't "control" markets that they don't participate in, but I guess sometimes you have to spell things out...
Interesting question. But I'm 99.9999% sure that JA always wins the argument. LOL.
Wow, he loses the argument even that many times?
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
The arena is really much smaller than "classic US coins" in which they "exert tremendous influence (control)". There are numerous classic coin categories in which CAC does not post bids. They are a major market maker in dollars. But there are other areas, 2 and 3 cent pieces for example, that they don't seem to make any effort in.
Now, that's not to say that a CAC sticker on an old copper doesn't affect pricing. But that is the market valuing CAC, that is not CAC "exerting" influence or control.
But, that's probably just me being argumentative. But it seems spurious to accuse CAC of controlling pricing or market segments. A PCGS slab is valuable also, but I wouldn't ever suggest that PCGS is exerting control. That is too active.
CAC does, on the other hand, post bids and can be seen as a market maker in certain areas. But the areas JA seems to want to make a market in are relatively small. When I was a CAC member, I had the highest posted bids in a couple areas. JA didn't have any bids there.
Did you also figure that they sometimes participate in various market segments in which they have very little influence, much less, control? If not, you should have. because that's reality. And "control"and "influence" typically have very different meanings.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
LOL. No, that's my 0.0001% skepticism. I believe he ALWAYS wins. But I'm only 99.9999% sure of my position
@jmlanzaf "But, that's probably just me being argumentative."
No way! Say it isn't so!
Think I'll start my own thread...
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
Just to be clear, I'm not accusing CAC of anything. They offered a service and the market found it valuable. Basic capitalism. CAC controls pricing in the sense that they've won significant mindshare (for lack of a better term) among market participants. As you mention above, they also set bids directly in many cases. Their network of dealers set bids on many other series.
In the case where there are sight unseen bids on a particular issue, then yes, CAC directly controls pricing on that issue. For the rest, the control is more indirect. We can argue all day about semantics and degrees of control, but I think we all know it's generally true that CAC is a major influence on the pricing of US classic coins. For better or for worse.
LOL. It's ironic the number of people that will openly disagree with me and then accuse me of being the argumentative one.
Does @Coinjunkie ever not disagree with a post of mine? Yet I'M the argumentative one. LMFAO
No, I don't have enough hair left to be able to afford splitting any. YMMV.
But feel free to "enlighten" me with any specifics. Or is simply that they're not "major" players in the 2-cent market?
If you are not a lawyer, I think you secretly pine to stay at a Holiday Inn. Just teasing you.
Agreed!
I think you'd be surprised how FEW markets in which they are "major players".
I agree. And please don't disagree with me for the sake of being argumentative!
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If I were most fortunate to possess Mr. JA's eyes, I would most likely insure them with Lloyds of London.
These discussions are always some combination of fun and interesting. Somehow there's a particular point that always seems to be forgotten.
Ever since coins were first assigned grades there has always been a subset of coins that are particularly nice or desirable compared to the others. Long before the arrival of CAC or even TPGs these coins sold for more than the others due to properties the potential buying pool recognized and desired. A large part of the supposed “CAC tax” is nothing more than paying up to acquire the best coins. How you identify and stratify those has changed over time and will continue to do so.
The CAC premium will endure for no other reason than they tend, on average, to sticker nicer coins.
Your "point that always seems to be forgotten" has actually been made numerous times over the years here, including by me on several occasions.
I don't really feel like going down the rabbit hole yet again on the pros and cons of having a fourth party be the widely-accepted arbiter of "nice coins".
I will agree that if they weren't doing a quality job, the market would lose faith and the premium would disappear (eventually).
The point has been made many times, yes. Despite that, there are many who seem to believe that the entire reason CAC’d coins cost more is that they have a green sticker, not that they were already nicer coins to start with. On average mind you - it’s pretty easy to find mistakes and weird pricing occurrences.
I didn’t say anything about who should be the arbiter of nice coins. Collectively, over time, the market decides what’s nice. Individuals influence the collective consciousness of course, but that’s a whole lot bigger than even the most revered thought leaders.
JA seems to have a pretty good finger on what the market likes and his ability to leverage that knowledge gives him credibility and widespread (but not universal) acceptance. Others are pretty darn good at it too but lack the same ability to project their perceptions to such a large audience.
If what the market “liked” suddenly shifted (it is always shifting), JA would either shift with it or eventually become irrelevant. If gradeflation progressed to the point that he would only sticker one in ten thousand coins, people would stop paying attention.
Just random thoughts.......
Well I'd posit that there would have to be a high level of agreement between JA and his graders before he would turn it over to someone else and let them continue to use his name.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876