There is a cohort of collectors with deep pockets willing to throw fistfuls of money to acquire top pop or near top pop CACed coins. Many are building CAC only sets and when there is a low number available, many of these individuals will aggressively engage in bidding wars. The CAC effect is very real and in a fair number of cases cannot be explained by the quality of the coin itself.
How is this any different from registry sets in general? Replace "cac" in your post with "tpg" and it is the same. Yes----people will pay more for top pop coins whether it be pcgs or cac.
Yes that's me !
And, again, I don't really care what you collect or how you collect it. I don't care if you spend $10,000 for $100 worth of coins. That is my "it's a hobby, not an investment" mantra in a nutshell. Do whatever you enjoy and damn the costs.
Yes that's me too!
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
@keets said: why take the time to learn when I can just pay someone else to do it for me??
oops, I said it again.
Work wise I’m pretty good at what I do. Some say I’m an expert. I’m certainly experienced. To this day I still have people I have respect for for double check my work on the technical side. I’m anything but lazy and I pay these people well.
CAC makes so much sense to me. I still can’t believe it gets so much press. Don’t like it? Don’t use it or ignore it by all means but the CAC Genie has escaped the bottle long ago. No amount of bitching, whining and moaning is going to stuff it back in. It is what it is.
I think some seasoned veterans are butt hurt as CAC somewhat leveled the playing field on properly graded and PQ coins. Now more less experienced collectors learning curve isn’t as steep. It’s actually a net plus for the hobby as more can participate in their selected tier.
At the end of the day it’s an individual pursuit and I could care less how others do their thing.
m
I can't speak for others but I'm not experiencing any swelling or soreness as a result of CAC.
I think discourse over stickers has become more rational and less of a pure religious war than it had been. As you point out, CAC is now an established fact of life in the numismatic marketplace, and one fails to acknowledge and adapt to that at their own peril.
@Justacommeman said:
I think some seasoned veterans are butt hurt as CAC somewhat leveled the playing field on properly graded and PQ coins. Now more less experienced collectors learning curve isn’t as steep. It’s actually a net plus for the hobby as more can participate in their selected tier.
I think you're right. I also don't think you'll hear from many of them that this is so.
@Justacommeman said:
I think some seasoned veterans are butt hurt as CAC somewhat leveled the playing field on properly graded and PQ coins. Now more less experienced collectors learning curve isn’t as steep. It’s actually a net plus for the hobby as more can participate in their selected tier.
I think you're right. I also don't think you'll hear from many of them that this is so.
What you're both conveniently ignoring is that there is a vast range of quality among stickered coins and that "veterans" still have a significant advantage in terms of knowing what sort of price premium is justified for any given coin. Newbies who adopt the mindset that any and all beaned material is PQ (and pay accordingly) are in for a rude awakening somewhere down the line.
@CoinJunkie said:
What you're both conveniently ignoring is that there is a vast range of quality among stickered coins and that "veterans" still have a significant advantage in terms of knowing what sort of price premium is justified for any given coin.
@Justacommeman said:
CAC somewhat leveled the playing field on properly graded and PQ coins.
@Justacommeman said:
I think some seasoned veterans are butt hurt as CAC somewhat leveled the playing field on properly graded and PQ coins. Now more less experienced collectors learning curve isn’t as steep. It’s actually a net plus for the hobby as more can participate in their selected tier.
I think you're right. I also don't think you'll hear from many of them that this is so.
What you're both conveniently ignoring is that there is a vast range of quality among stickered coins and that "veterans" still have a significant advantage in terms of knowing what sort of price premium is justified for any given coin. Newbies who adopt the mindset that any and all beaned material is PQ (and pay accordingly) are in for a rude awakening somewhere down the line.
I kind of made that my niche. Due diligence is still required. It’s just one piece of the puzzle.
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
as I said earlier, we will know better and more when coins with the CAC sticker, after being held for a period of time, cycle back through. will the premium hold, will it grow or will the coin sell closer to where others of its rank sell??
@keets said: Who cares what random basement dealer John Doe thinks of his raw coins? There aren’t enough people drinking Doe’s Kool Aid to have widespread market effects.
we are discussing John Albanese and CAC. by posting what I highlighted, did you mean to suggest that there are enough people drinking HIS Kool Aid to have widespread effects?? that sort of how it reads.
Someone else brought up the random dealer with 2x2s. The analogy was out of left field; thus, my response to it appeared that way as well. I didn’t intend charged language to be directed at CAC which would only blow this thread up.
Just because you miss the metaphor doesn't place it in left field. Doesn't have to be random dealer with 2x2s. It could be stacks or legends with 2x2s, back in the day. The whole industry is driven by hype. B. Max Mehl turned 1913 Liberty nickels into a thing. 1956 FLYING EAGLE cents should be inconsequential overproduced patterns, but they got turned into something. SVDB cents and 16D dimes are not rare yet have a key date premium attached to them that is barely deserved. Look at what the low ball registry has done to push the price of POOR coins; people pay more for P01 in some series than Gem Uncs. It's all hype created by someone.
JA and CAC have reach, but he doesn't mean more to certain copper- than Rick Snow who also has stickers. Individual dealers in niches matter more than TPGS or CAC, even for raw coins.
Yet only CAC (and maybe the TV hypesters) get the complaints.
@Justacommeman said:
I think some seasoned veterans are butt hurt as CAC somewhat leveled the playing field on properly graded and PQ coins. Now more less experienced collectors learning curve isn’t as steep. It’s actually a net plus for the hobby as more can participate in their selected tier.
I think you're right. I also don't think you'll hear from many of them that this is so.
I know a dealer who resented the internet because it decreased the advantage he had enjoyed fron years of experience and hundreds of auction. It was too much information, to- easily obtained to his thinking.
You're telling me that it's stupid to call someone lazy for relying on expertise he doesn't have time to glean for himself?
You're being kind of hard on yourself, aren't you?
There's a certain elitism that demands that only the worthy can collect. If I like coins as art or historical artifacts, why can't I not care to be an expert but still be allowed to collect?
beat the horse, lanzaf, you no good and well that I was saying it's lazy not to study and improve your knowledge base. now go ahead and have the last word, it seems to be your style. have a nice night.
@keets said: Who cares what random basement dealer John Doe thinks of his raw coins? There aren’t enough people drinking Doe’s Kool Aid to have widespread market effects.
we are discussing John Albanese and CAC. by posting what I highlighted, did you mean to suggest that there are enough people drinking HIS Kool Aid to have widespread effects?? that sort of how it reads.
Someone else brought up the random dealer with 2x2s. The analogy was out of left field; thus, my response to it appeared that way as well. I didn’t intend charged language to be directed at CAC which would only blow this thread up.
Just because you miss the metaphor doesn't place it in left field. Doesn't have to be random dealer with 2x2s. It could be stacks or legends with 2x2s, back in the day. The whole industry is driven by hype. B. Max Mehl turned 1913 Liberty nickels into a thing. 1956 FLYING EAGLE cents should be inconsequential overproduced patterns, but they got turned into something. SVDB cents and 16D dimes are not rare yet have a key date premium attached to them that is barely deserved. Look at what the low ball registry has done to push the price of POOR coins; people pay more for P01 in some series than Gem Uncs. It's all hype created by someone.
JA and CAC have reach, but he doesn't mean more to certain copper- than Rick Snow who also has stickers. Individual dealers in niches matter more than TPGS or CAC, even for raw coins.
Yet only CAC (and maybe the TV hypesters) get the complaints.
It’s nice to know that you put anyone with adhesive labels and stickers you could find at Walmart or any dollar store on the same playing field as Hall, Albanese, Mehl, and Snow.
@keets said: Who cares what random basement dealer John Doe thinks of his raw coins? There aren’t enough people drinking Doe’s Kool Aid to have widespread market effects.
we are discussing John Albanese and CAC. by posting what I highlighted, did you mean to suggest that there are enough people drinking HIS Kool Aid to have widespread effects?? that sort of how it reads.
Someone else brought up the random dealer with 2x2s. The analogy was out of left field; thus, my response to it appeared that way as well. I didn’t intend charged language to be directed at CAC which would only blow this thread up.
Just because you miss the metaphor doesn't place it in left field. Doesn't have to be random dealer with 2x2s. It could be stacks or legends with 2x2s, back in the day. The whole industry is driven by hype. B. Max Mehl turned 1913 Liberty nickels into a thing. 1956 FLYING EAGLE cents should be inconsequential overproduced patterns, but they got turned into something. SVDB cents and 16D dimes are not rare yet have a key date premium attached to them that is barely deserved. Look at what the low ball registry has done to push the price of POOR coins; people pay more for P01 in some series than Gem Uncs. It's all hype created by someone.
JA and CAC have reach, but he doesn't mean more to certain copper- than Rick Snow who also has stickers. Individual dealers in niches matter more than TPGS or CAC, even for raw coins.
Yet only CAC (and maybe the TV hypesters) get the complaints.
It’s nice to know that you put anyone with adhesive labels and stickers you could find at Walmart or any dollar store on the same playing field as Hall, Albanese, Mehl, and Snow.
Actually, I didn't, you did.
While they are on different levels, they are doing the same thing.
The point - I'll type slowly - is that in an entire hobby built on creating the appearance of rarity and desirability, JA somehow gets the most vitriol leveled at him. When everyone from "anyone with adhesive labels and stickers" to Hall, Albanese, Mehl, and Snow have all done some version of the same thing, why single out Albanese?
TPGS did more to create an artificial sense of rarity and desirability than CAC. TPGS's created a sense of conditional rarity for modern clad series. TPGS's created registry sets to encourage competition and encourage people to slab entire collections that they otherwise would have left mostly raw.
Long before slabs and stickers, the hype machine created provenance. Because who wouldn't want a piece of dreck that Colonel Green owned rather than a better coin owned by a no name.
But we waste 10,000 words on arguing that CAC is distorting the market. CAC didn't buy a giant hoard of excess Mint products and label them West Point Mint Hoard. Don't forget the San Francisco Hoard before it. Piles of silver from COMEX recovered from a buried vault under the World Trade Center that had a flag and Ground Zero Recovery slapped on it. When a real provenance fails, we create a fake one. Yet CAC is distorting the market?
CAC's success isn't built on hype like some of those fancy labels I mentioned above. It is based on broad-based marketplace respect for JA's opinion. That is far more real than the "West Point Mint Hoard" or the "Hansen Collection".
@keets said:
beat the horse, lanzaf, you no good and well that I was saying it's lazy not to study and improve your knowledge base. now go ahead and have the last word, it seems to be your style. have a nice night.
He did add 49 comments to your thread here so you need to take the good with the bad I guess!
@keets said:
beat the horse, lanzaf, you no good and well that I was saying it's lazy not to study and improve your knowledge base. now go ahead and have the last word, it seems to be your style. have a nice night.
and this point highlights the laziness of Americans and Hobbyists --- why take the time to learn when I can just pay someone else to do it for me?? when I started to collect by "Type" I took it upon myself to actually study the type of coin I was going to buy with the overriding conclusion that it was going to make me a better collector. I posted as much here in different threads over the years.
Yes, you are saying it is lazy not to study and improve your knowledge. I'm not sure what that changes about my objection to your characterization. In the context of the CAC thread, I see no problem with anyone collecting coins based on their personal preference and someone else's expert opinion. You seem to be arguing - repeatedly - that laziness leads to CAC or CAC leads to laziness. Not sure which.
You could also argue that it is lazy to hire an electrician rather than doing it yourself. But would you?
It's funny everyone jumps in to throw in their last words and then accuse me of having to have the last word.
You've doubled and tripled down on the same point several times.
"why take the time to learn when I can just pay someone else to do it for me??
oops, I said it again."
Isn't that you trying to have the last word? I guess we share that style. We should form a club with coinjunkie.
@keets said:
beat the horse, lanzaf, you no good and well that I was saying it's lazy not to study and improve your knowledge base. now go ahead and have the last word, it seems to be your style. have a nice night.
He did add 49 comments to your thread here so you need to take the good with the bad I guess!
@bolivarshagnasty said:
On a lighter note, I don't see a single red box reading BANNED in this thread.
Yet.
I’m thinking about taking two Ambien tonight
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Justacommeman said:
I think some seasoned veterans are butt hurt as CAC somewhat leveled the playing field on properly graded and PQ coins. Now more less experienced collectors learning curve isn’t as steep. It’s actually a net plus for the hobby as more can participate in their selected tier.
I think you're right. I also don't think you'll hear from many of them that this is so.
What you're both conveniently ignoring is that there is a vast range of quality among stickered coins and that "veterans" still have a significant advantage in terms of knowing what sort of price premium is justified for any given coin. Newbies who adopt the mindset that any and all beaned material is PQ (and pay accordingly) are in for a rude awakening somewhere down the line.
Sounds like you weren't ignoring anything, conveniently or otherwise.
There is a lot to glean from the CAC data base. Of course you could take the lazy way out
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Gazes said:
My main point is this is not a cac specific phenomenon
No, it isn’t unique to CAC. CAC is merely an extra layer further restricting supply and further creating potential artificial rarity plastic/sticker rarity.
Why single them out? The entire coin market attempts to create artificial rarity. If I put PQ on a 2x2, it is attempting to create artificial interest.
@cameonut2011 said: Who cares what random basement dealer John Doe thinks of his raw coins? There aren’t enough people drinking Doe’s Kool Aid to have widespread market effects.
Just because you miss the metaphor doesn't place it in left field. Doesn't have to be random dealer with 2x2s. It could be...
It’s nice to know that you put anyone with adhesive labels and stickers you could find at Walmart or any dollar store on the same playing field as Hall, Albanese, Mehl, and Snow.
Actually, I didn't, you did.
While they are on different levels, they are doing the same thing.
The point - I'll type slowly - is that in an entire hobby built on creating the appearance of rarity and desirability, JA somehow gets the most vitriol leveled at him. When everyone from "anyone with adhesive labels and stickers" to Hall, Albanese, Mehl, and Snow have all done some version of the same thing, why single out Albanese?../.
But we waste 10,000 words on arguing that CAC is distorting the market. CAC didn't buy a giant hoard of excess Mint products and label them West Point Mint Hoard. Don't forget the San Francisco Hoard before it.... CAC's success isn't built on hype like some of those fancy labels I mentioned above. It is based on broad-based marketplace respect for JA's opinion. That is far more real than the "West Point Mint Hoard" or the "Hansen Collection".
You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. You started your comparison with the entire coin market and then mention yourself with a 2x2 in response to my claim that CAC further creates artificial rarity. There is no meaningful comparison to the average Joe with a sharpie and a 2x2 and CAC or a mainstream grading service. No one cares what you, I, or the vast majority of collectors/dealers (except for an elite few) think regarding the grade. You then deny the comparison in your first sentence of your last post and then proceed to contradict yourself in next sentence.
Your comparisons are not apt. Hoard labels are an entirely different animal. Unlike grade, it has nothing do with an intrinsic trait as fundamental as level of preservation. And even if we were to give consideration to extremely specialized niches or fringe sticker services/labels, none has the market share that CAC has to cause widespread market distortions/effects to the level that CAC has a across such a vast swath of the U.S. market. When people start chanting Hansen only or Legend only, etc., and those entities exert the same level of influence over the market, then those entities would be similarly discussed.
@amwldcoin said: Are you suggesting there needs to be another sticker on top of a sticker?
If each successive sticker gets the newbie another 50% of the way to being on equal footing with an expert, math tells us that with another five qualifying stickers, they'd be 98% of the way there. I speculate that this will become a reality by the year 2038. FWIW.
@topstuf said:
I want one of those 1956 Flying Eagle cents.
I think you mean 1856.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@topstuf said:
I want one of those 1956 Flying Eagle cents.
I think you mean 1856.
No, those are boring, overhyped, common patterns. Or so I read recently.
Look at mintages relative to 19th century patterns.
From PCGS Coinfacts - since I figure you're too lazy to do your own research:
Snowden didn’t choose this mix at random. He was being lobbied heavily by Joseph Wharton (and his monopoly of nickel mines) to use an alloy including this Nickel. The flying eagle design appearing on the reverse of the Gobrecht Silver Dollars of 1836 to 1839 was adopted by Snowden for the new Small Cent. The wreath on the reverse of the new Small Cents was borrowed from the reverse design on the Gold Dollar and the $3 coin denominations designed by James B. Longacre. It is interesting to note that initially, the Secretary of the Treasury (rather than Wharton) had the decision -making power regarding the coin design and that there was no Act passed by Congress in 1856 authorizing a Small Cent.
Snowden ordered about 1,000 1856 Flying Eagle Cents struck without official authorization. Therefore, from a legal standpoint, all 1856 Flying Eagle Cents may be considered to have been illegally struck and issued (as with the 1804 Silver Dollar and the 1913 Liberty Head Nickel). However, the Secret Service probably never will, but would have the legal right to, seize these coins.
It is difficult to determine how many 1856-dated Flying Eagle Cents were struck. At least 634 were given to politicians and other well connected people. During 1858 and 1859, more were restruck using the original dies. Not all restrikes can be differentiated from the original strikes. It is known that collector George W. Rice at one time owned 756 of the 1856 Flying Eagle Cent. Considering that many of the Rice specimens came from circulation, there were undoubtedly more struck. Collector John Beck accumulated 531 coins of the same date.
@Gazes said:
My main point is this is not a cac specific phenomenon
No, it isn’t unique to CAC. CAC is merely an extra layer further restricting supply and further creating potential artificial rarity plastic/sticker rarity.
Why single them out? The entire coin market attempts to create artificial rarity. If I put PQ on a 2x2, it is attempting to create artificial interest.
@cameonut2011 said: Who cares what random basement dealer John Doe thinks of his raw coins? There aren’t enough people drinking Doe’s Kool Aid to have widespread market effects.
Just because you miss the metaphor doesn't place it in left field. Doesn't have to be random dealer with 2x2s. It could be...
It’s nice to know that you put anyone with adhesive labels and stickers you could find at Walmart or any dollar store on the same playing field as Hall, Albanese, Mehl, and Snow.
Actually, I didn't, you did.
While they are on different levels, they are doing the same thing.
The point - I'll type slowly - is that in an entire hobby built on creating the appearance of rarity and desirability, JA somehow gets the most vitriol leveled at him. When everyone from "anyone with adhesive labels and stickers" to Hall, Albanese, Mehl, and Snow have all done some version of the same thing, why single out Albanese?../.
But we waste 10,000 words on arguing that CAC is distorting the market. CAC didn't buy a giant hoard of excess Mint products and label them West Point Mint Hoard. Don't forget the San Francisco Hoard before it.... CAC's success isn't built on hype like some of those fancy labels I mentioned above. It is based on broad-based marketplace respect for JA's opinion. That is far more real than the "West Point Mint Hoard" or the "Hansen Collection".
You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. You started your comparison with the entire coin market and then mention yourself with a 2x2 in response to my claim that CAC further creates artificial rarity. There is no meaningful comparison to the average Joe with a sharpie and a 2x2 and CAC or a mainstream grading service. No one cares what you, I, or the vast majority of collectors/dealers (except for an elite few) think regarding the grade. You then deny the comparison in your first sentence of your last post and then proceed to contradict yourself in next sentence.
Your comparisons are not apt. Hoard labels are an entirely different animal. Unlike grade, it has nothing do with an intrinsic trait as fundamental as level of preservation. And even if we were to give consideration to extremely specialized niches or fringe sticker services/labels, none has the market share that CAC has to cause widespread market distortions/effects to the level that CAC has a across such a vast swath of the U.S. market. When people start chanting Hansen only or Legend only, etc., and those entities exert the same level of influence over the market, then those entities would be similarly discussed.
Actually, my point has been the same from the beginning - EVERYONE hypes in this market INCLUDING the dealer with a 2x2 and a Sharpie yet only CAC gets grief for supposedly creating the illusion of rarity. That was my original point and every subsequent attempt to explain it to you.
You may disagree with the point.
Hoard labels are NOT an entirely different animal in the sense that they create the illusion of rarity. See several discussions recently on this board about the emergency ASE issue that isn't even rare but people are wondering if a couple hundred thousand are low enough to support future price appreciation.
Yes, CAC's success garners it more attention. But it still doesn't, to my mind, explain the vitriol associated with it. There is also a PCGS premium and PCGS has slabbed far more coins than CAC has ever stickered. There are people who chant PCGS only. Yet you do NOT hear the same animus leveled at PCGS.
@bolivarshagnasty said:
On a lighter note, I don't see a single red box reading BANNED in this thread.
Yet.
I’m thinking about taking two Ambien tonight
m
I think we could all use some “downers” after a 7 page CAC thread.
For a lot of people, a 7 page CAC thread IS a downer...
Yet you're still reading.
This thread is like a bad train wreck. You don't want to look but you can't help yourself.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@jmlanzaf said:
Yes, CAC's success garners it more attention. But it still doesn't, to my mind, explain the vitriol associated with it.
Over the years, there have been a number of posts here noting that CAC has increased the price of coins the commenter collects. Some of the vitriol might be found here.
@jmlanzaf said:
There is also a PCGS premium and PCGS has slabbed far more coins than CAC has ever stickered. There are people who chant PCGS only. Yet you do NOT hear the same animus leveled at PCGS.
PCGS doesn't publicly identify the person(s) who graded the coins they holder. If they did, I suspect the animus level might be a little different.
@jmlanzaf said:
Yes, CAC's success garners it more attention. But it still doesn't, to my mind, explain the vitriol associated with it.
Over the years, there have been a number of posts here noting that CAC has increased the price of coins the commenter collects. Some of the vitriol might be found here.
@jmlanzaf said:
There is also a PCGS premium and PCGS has slabbed far more coins than CAC has ever stickered. There are people who chant PCGS only. Yet you do NOT hear the same animus leveled at PCGS.
PCGS doesn't publicly identify the person(s) who graded the coins they holder. If they did, I suspect the animus level might be a little different.
Maybe, but it still seems different. After all, look at what changing grade pops have done to coin values for people playing the top pop game, especially among moderns. Even when people complain about gradeflation, it never seems to garner the intensity of the anti-CACers.
Although if vitriol leveled against you is proof of success, I'm suddenly feeling pretty good about myself in these here parts.
@Gazes said:
My main point is this is not a cac specific phenomenon
No, it isn’t unique to CAC. CAC is merely an extra layer further restricting supply and further creating potential artificial rarity plastic/sticker rarity.
Why single them out? The entire coin market attempts to create artificial rarity. If I put PQ on a 2x2, it is attempting to create artificial interest.
@cameonut2011 said: Who cares what random basement dealer John Doe thinks of his raw coins? There aren’t enough people drinking Doe’s Kool Aid to have widespread market effects.
Just because you miss the metaphor doesn't place it in left field. Doesn't have to be random dealer with 2x2s. It could be...
It’s nice to know that you put anyone with adhesive labels and stickers you could find at Walmart or any dollar store on the same playing field as Hall, Albanese, Mehl, and Snow.
Actually, I didn't, you did.
While they are on different levels, they are doing the same thing.
The point - I'll type slowly - is that in an entire hobby built on creating the appearance of rarity and desirability, JA somehow gets the most vitriol leveled at him. When everyone from "anyone with adhesive labels and stickers" to Hall, Albanese, Mehl, and Snow have all done some version of the same thing, why single out Albanese?../.
But we waste 10,000 words on arguing that CAC is distorting the market. CAC didn't buy a giant hoard of excess Mint products and label them West Point Mint Hoard. Don't forget the San Francisco Hoard before it.... CAC's success isn't built on hype like some of those fancy labels I mentioned above. It is based on broad-based marketplace respect for JA's opinion. That is far more real than the "West Point Mint Hoard" or the "Hansen Collection".
You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. You started your comparison with the entire coin market and then mention yourself with a 2x2 in response to my claim that CAC further creates artificial rarity. There is no meaningful comparison to the average Joe with a sharpie and a 2x2 and CAC or a mainstream grading service. No one cares what you, I, or the vast majority of collectors/dealers (except for an elite few) think regarding the grade. You then deny the comparison in your first sentence of your last post and then proceed to contradict yourself in next sentence.
Your comparisons are not apt. Hoard labels are an entirely different animal. Unlike grade, it has nothing do with an intrinsic trait as fundamental as level of preservation. And even if we were to give consideration to extremely specialized niches or fringe sticker services/labels, none has the market share that CAC has to cause widespread market distortions/effects to the level that CAC has a across such a vast swath of the U.S. market. When people start chanting Hansen only or Legend only, etc., and those entities exert the same level of influence over the market, then those entities would be similarly discussed.
Actually, my point has been the same from the beginning - EVERYONE hypes in this market INCLUDING the dealer with a 2x2 and a Sharpie yet only CAC gets grief for supposedly creating the illusion of rarity. That was my original point and every subsequent attempt to explain it to you.
You may disagree with the point.
Hoard labels are NOT an entirely different animal in the sense that they create the illusion of rarity. See several discussions recently on this board about the emergency ASE issue that isn't even rare but people are wondering if a couple hundred thousand are low enough to support future price appreciation.
Yes, CAC's success garners it more attention. But it still doesn't, to my mind, explain the vitriol associated with it. There is also a PCGS premium and PCGS has slabbed far more coins than CAC has ever stickered. There are people who chant PCGS only. Yet you do NOT hear the same animus leveled at PCGS.
I think part of the the vitriol can be explained by the insecurity and/or pride of some individuals, who insist that they don't need any help. Of course, in many cases, they're getting a good amount of help from PCGS and/or NGC, regardless of whether CAC enters into the equation.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Gazes said:
My main point is this is not a cac specific phenomenon
No, it isn’t unique to CAC. CAC is merely an extra layer further restricting supply and further creating potential artificial rarity plastic/sticker rarity.
Why single them out? The entire coin market attempts to create artificial rarity. If I put PQ on a 2x2, it is attempting to create artificial interest.
@cameonut2011 said: Who cares what random basement dealer John Doe thinks of his raw coins? There aren’t enough people drinking Doe’s Kool Aid to have widespread market effects.
Just because you miss the metaphor doesn't place it in left field. Doesn't have to be random dealer with 2x2s. It could be...
It’s nice to know that you put anyone with adhesive labels and stickers you could find at Walmart or any dollar store on the same playing field as Hall, Albanese, Mehl, and Snow.
Actually, I didn't, you did.
While they are on different levels, they are doing the same thing.
The point - I'll type slowly - is that in an entire hobby built on creating the appearance of rarity and desirability, JA somehow gets the most vitriol leveled at him. When everyone from "anyone with adhesive labels and stickers" to Hall, Albanese, Mehl, and Snow have all done some version of the same thing, why single out Albanese?../.
But we waste 10,000 words on arguing that CAC is distorting the market. CAC didn't buy a giant hoard of excess Mint products and label them West Point Mint Hoard. Don't forget the San Francisco Hoard before it.... CAC's success isn't built on hype like some of those fancy labels I mentioned above. It is based on broad-based marketplace respect for JA's opinion. That is far more real than the "West Point Mint Hoard" or the "Hansen Collection".
You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. You started your comparison with the entire coin market and then mention yourself with a 2x2 in response to my claim that CAC further creates artificial rarity. There is no meaningful comparison to the average Joe with a sharpie and a 2x2 and CAC or a mainstream grading service. No one cares what you, I, or the vast majority of collectors/dealers (except for an elite few) think regarding the grade. You then deny the comparison in your first sentence of your last post and then proceed to contradict yourself in next sentence.
Your comparisons are not apt. Hoard labels are an entirely different animal. Unlike grade, it has nothing do with an intrinsic trait as fundamental as level of preservation. And even if we were to give consideration to extremely specialized niches or fringe sticker services/labels, none has the market share that CAC has to cause widespread market distortions/effects to the level that CAC has a across such a vast swath of the U.S. market. When people start chanting Hansen only or Legend only, etc., and those entities exert the same level of influence over the market, then those entities would be similarly discussed.
Actually, my point has been the same from the beginning - EVERYONE hypes in this market INCLUDING the dealer with a 2x2 and a Sharpie yet only CAC gets grief for supposedly creating the illusion of rarity. That was my original point and every subsequent attempt to explain it to you.
You may disagree with the point.
Hoard labels are NOT an entirely different animal in the sense that they create the illusion of rarity. See several discussions recently on this board about the emergency ASE issue that isn't even rare but people are wondering if a couple hundred thousand are low enough to support future price appreciation.
Yes, CAC's success garners it more attention. But it still doesn't, to my mind, explain the vitriol associated with it. There is also a PCGS premium and PCGS has slabbed far more coins than CAC has ever stickered. There are people who chant PCGS only. Yet you do NOT hear the same animus leveled at PCGS.
I think part of the the vitriol can be explained by the insecurity and/or pride of some individuals, who insist that they don't need any help. Of course, in many cases, they're getting a good amount of help from PCGS and/or NGC, regardless of whether CAC enters into the equation.
Again, I'm not feeling (or sensing from others) a lot of vitriol in this thread. There's really no shame in wanting or needing "help" from CAC or PCGS, but I still maintain the hobby is more rewarding (and often, less expensive) when the collector has a good handle on discerning (in some measure) quality by themself.
Again, I'm not feeling (or sensing from others) a lot of vitriol in this thread. There's really no shame in wanting or needing "help" from CAC or PCGS, but I still maintain the hobby is more rewarding (and often, less expensive) when the collector has a good handle on discerning (in some measure) quality by themself.
I agree that this thread is largely free of vitriol, but many other threads have been “full of it”. 😉
I also agree that the hobby can be more rewarding and less expensive if collectors are able to discern quality on their own. One of the problems is that many aren’t nearly as able to do so as they think. And by the time they find out, they’ve endured a very painful and costly lesson.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Comments
Yes that's me !
And, again, I don't really care what you collect or how you collect it. I don't care if you spend $10,000 for $100 worth of coins. That is my "it's a hobby, not an investment" mantra in a nutshell. Do whatever you enjoy and damn the costs.
Yes that's me too!
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
D'oh! Missed it! Post 302
..> @Justacommeman said:
I can't speak for others but I'm not experiencing any swelling or soreness as a result of CAC.
I think discourse over stickers has become more rational and less of a pure religious war than it had been. As you point out, CAC is now an established fact of life in the numismatic marketplace, and one fails to acknowledge and adapt to that at their own peril.
I think you're right. I also don't think you'll hear from many of them that this is so.
What you're both conveniently ignoring is that there is a vast range of quality among stickered coins and that "veterans" still have a significant advantage in terms of knowing what sort of price premium is justified for any given coin. Newbies who adopt the mindset that any and all beaned material is PQ (and pay accordingly) are in for a rude awakening somewhere down the line.
"Somewhat leveled". Nothing ignored.
I kind of made that my niche. Due diligence is still required. It’s just one piece of the puzzle.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
as I said earlier, we will know better and more when coins with the CAC sticker, after being held for a period of time, cycle back through. will the premium hold, will it grow or will the coin sell closer to where others of its rank sell??
Sounds like you weren't ignoring anything, conveniently or otherwise.
Just because you miss the metaphor doesn't place it in left field. Doesn't have to be random dealer with 2x2s. It could be stacks or legends with 2x2s, back in the day. The whole industry is driven by hype. B. Max Mehl turned 1913 Liberty nickels into a thing. 1956 FLYING EAGLE cents should be inconsequential overproduced patterns, but they got turned into something. SVDB cents and 16D dimes are not rare yet have a key date premium attached to them that is barely deserved. Look at what the low ball registry has done to push the price of POOR coins; people pay more for P01 in some series than Gem Uncs. It's all hype created by someone.
JA and CAC have reach, but he doesn't mean more to certain copper- than Rick Snow who also has stickers. Individual dealers in niches matter more than TPGS or CAC, even for raw coins.
Yet only CAC (and maybe the TV hypesters) get the complaints.
Yes, my father needs heart surgery. I was going to hire someone, but I figured that was the lazy way.
now you're just talking stupid.
I know a dealer who resented the internet because it decreased the advantage he had enjoyed fron years of experience and hundreds of auction. It was too much information, to- easily obtained to his thinking.
Oh my! Why does CAC have to be such a dominant discussion item on these boards? I mean, why? What's the big deal?
You're telling me that it's stupid to call someone lazy for relying on expertise he doesn't have time to glean for himself?
You're being kind of hard on yourself, aren't you?
There's a certain elitism that demands that only the worthy can collect. If I like coins as art or historical artifacts, why can't I not care to be an expert but still be allowed to collect?
On a lighter note, I don't see a single red box reading BANNED in this thread.
beat the horse, lanzaf, you no good and well that I was saying it's lazy not to study and improve your knowledge base. now go ahead and have the last word, it seems to be your style. have a nice night.
It’s nice to know that you put anyone with adhesive labels and stickers you could find at Walmart or any dollar store on the same playing field as Hall, Albanese, Mehl, and Snow.
YET
please clear things up if I missed anything, only don't wait another three days.
It just seemed to me you talking out of both sides of your mouth but maybe I was just not understanding what you were saying.
The end
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Actually, I didn't, you did.
While they are on different levels, they are doing the same thing.
The point - I'll type slowly - is that in an entire hobby built on creating the appearance of rarity and desirability, JA somehow gets the most vitriol leveled at him. When everyone from "anyone with adhesive labels and stickers" to Hall, Albanese, Mehl, and Snow have all done some version of the same thing, why single out Albanese?
TPGS did more to create an artificial sense of rarity and desirability than CAC. TPGS's created a sense of conditional rarity for modern clad series. TPGS's created registry sets to encourage competition and encourage people to slab entire collections that they otherwise would have left mostly raw.
Long before slabs and stickers, the hype machine created provenance. Because who wouldn't want a piece of dreck that Colonel Green owned rather than a better coin owned by a no name.
But we waste 10,000 words on arguing that CAC is distorting the market. CAC didn't buy a giant hoard of excess Mint products and label them West Point Mint Hoard. Don't forget the San Francisco Hoard before it. Piles of silver from COMEX recovered from a buried vault under the World Trade Center that had a flag and Ground Zero Recovery slapped on it. When a real provenance fails, we create a fake one. Yet CAC is distorting the market?
CAC's success isn't built on hype like some of those fancy labels I mentioned above. It is based on broad-based marketplace respect for JA's opinion. That is far more real than the "West Point Mint Hoard" or the "Hansen Collection".
He did add 49 comments to your thread here so you need to take the good with the bad I guess!
Yes, you are saying it is lazy not to study and improve your knowledge. I'm not sure what that changes about my objection to your characterization. In the context of the CAC thread, I see no problem with anyone collecting coins based on their personal preference and someone else's expert opinion. You seem to be arguing - repeatedly - that laziness leads to CAC or CAC leads to laziness. Not sure which.
You could also argue that it is lazy to hire an electrician rather than doing it yourself. But would you?
It's funny everyone jumps in to throw in their last words and then accuse me of having to have the last word.
You've doubled and tripled down on the same point several times.
"why take the time to learn when I can just pay someone else to do it for me??
oops, I said it again."
Isn't that you trying to have the last word? I guess we share that style. We should form a club with coinjunkie.
Only 49...I must be slipping.
Yet.
I’m thinking about taking two Ambien tonight
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Are you suggesting there needs to be another sticker on top of a sticker?
There is a lot to glean from the CAC data base. Of course you could take the lazy way out
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I'm taking a breather
You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. You started your comparison with the entire coin market and then mention yourself with a 2x2 in response to my claim that CAC further creates artificial rarity. There is no meaningful comparison to the average Joe with a sharpie and a 2x2 and CAC or a mainstream grading service. No one cares what you, I, or the vast majority of collectors/dealers (except for an elite few) think regarding the grade. You then deny the comparison in your first sentence of your last post and then proceed to contradict yourself in next sentence.
Your comparisons are not apt. Hoard labels are an entirely different animal. Unlike grade, it has nothing do with an intrinsic trait as fundamental as level of preservation. And even if we were to give consideration to extremely specialized niches or fringe sticker services/labels, none has the market share that CAC has to cause widespread market distortions/effects to the level that CAC has a across such a vast swath of the U.S. market. When people start chanting Hansen only or Legend only, etc., and those entities exert the same level of influence over the market, then those entities would be similarly discussed.
If each successive sticker gets the newbie another 50% of the way to being on equal footing with an expert, math tells us that with another five qualifying stickers, they'd be 98% of the way there. I speculate that this will become a reality by the year 2038. FWIW.
I think we could all use some “downers” after a 7 page CAC thread.
For a lot of people, a 7 page CAC thread IS a downer...
That would be money, chesterb.
It's a good way to get your post count up, for those that care about that
I want one of those 1956 Flying Eagle cents.
Can we just let this thread die?
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
I think you mean 1856.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
No, those are boring, overhyped, common patterns. Or so I read recently.
Yet you're still reading.
Look at mintages relative to 19th century patterns.
From PCGS Coinfacts - since I figure you're too lazy to do your own research:
Snowden didn’t choose this mix at random. He was being lobbied heavily by Joseph Wharton (and his monopoly of nickel mines) to use an alloy including this Nickel. The flying eagle design appearing on the reverse of the Gobrecht Silver Dollars of 1836 to 1839 was adopted by Snowden for the new Small Cent. The wreath on the reverse of the new Small Cents was borrowed from the reverse design on the Gold Dollar and the $3 coin denominations designed by James B. Longacre. It is interesting to note that initially, the Secretary of the Treasury (rather than Wharton) had the decision -making power regarding the coin design and that there was no Act passed by Congress in 1856 authorizing a Small Cent.
Snowden ordered about 1,000 1856 Flying Eagle Cents struck without official authorization. Therefore, from a legal standpoint, all 1856 Flying Eagle Cents may be considered to have been illegally struck and issued (as with the 1804 Silver Dollar and the 1913 Liberty Head Nickel). However, the Secret Service probably never will, but would have the legal right to, seize these coins.
It is difficult to determine how many 1856-dated Flying Eagle Cents were struck. At least 634 were given to politicians and other well connected people. During 1858 and 1859, more were restruck using the original dies. Not all restrikes can be differentiated from the original strikes. It is known that collector George W. Rice at one time owned 756 of the 1856 Flying Eagle Cent. Considering that many of the Rice specimens came from circulation, there were undoubtedly more struck. Collector John Beck accumulated 531 coins of the same date.
Actually, my point has been the same from the beginning - EVERYONE hypes in this market INCLUDING the dealer with a 2x2 and a Sharpie yet only CAC gets grief for supposedly creating the illusion of rarity. That was my original point and every subsequent attempt to explain it to you.
You may disagree with the point.
Hoard labels are NOT an entirely different animal in the sense that they create the illusion of rarity. See several discussions recently on this board about the emergency ASE issue that isn't even rare but people are wondering if a couple hundred thousand are low enough to support future price appreciation.
Yes, CAC's success garners it more attention. But it still doesn't, to my mind, explain the vitriol associated with it. There is also a PCGS premium and PCGS has slabbed far more coins than CAC has ever stickered. There are people who chant PCGS only. Yet you do NOT hear the same animus leveled at PCGS.
This thread is like a bad train wreck. You don't want to look but you can't help yourself.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Over the years, there have been a number of posts here noting that CAC has increased the price of coins the commenter collects. Some of the vitriol might be found here.
PCGS doesn't publicly identify the person(s) who graded the coins they holder. If they did, I suspect the animus level might be a little different.
Maybe, but it still seems different. After all, look at what changing grade pops have done to coin values for people playing the top pop game, especially among moderns. Even when people complain about gradeflation, it never seems to garner the intensity of the anti-CACers.
Although if vitriol leveled against you is proof of success, I'm suddenly feeling pretty good about myself in these here parts.
I didn't say it was a downer for me. Typical jmloserf non sequitur.
Not until everyone has posted what THEY think CAC does.
My YouTube Channel
I think part of the the vitriol can be explained by the insecurity and/or pride of some individuals, who insist that they don't need any help. Of course, in many cases, they're getting a good amount of help from PCGS and/or NGC, regardless of whether CAC enters into the equation.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Again, I'm not feeling (or sensing from others) a lot of vitriol in this thread. There's really no shame in wanting or needing "help" from CAC or PCGS, but I still maintain the hobby is more rewarding (and often, less expensive) when the collector has a good handle on discerning (in some measure) quality by themself.
I agree that this thread is largely free of vitriol, but many other threads have been “full of it”. 😉
I also agree that the hobby can be more rewarding and less expensive if collectors are able to discern quality on their own. One of the problems is that many aren’t nearly as able to do so as they think. And by the time they find out, they’ve endured a very painful and costly lesson.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.