So once CAC slabs are in the market how will the market value of MS65 graded coins be ranked.
Here is my guess.
I’m just looking at PCGS slabs that have a CAC sticker and CAC slabs in this example. I would have needed access to a super computer to include PCGS slabs without CAC stickers or NGC slabs with or without CAC stickers into the ranking
1) PCGS slab graded MS65 or MS65+ with a Gold CAC sticker (At this level, an old holder MS65 would outrank a newer holder MS65 or MS65+)
2) CAC slab graded MS65+ with embedded CAC sticker
3) CAC slab graded MS65+ without embedded CAC sticker (Maybe this is higher ranked than #2 because it could have been a previous PCGS MS66?)
4) PCGS slab (Old holder prior to plus grading) graded MS65 with CAC sticker
5) PCGS slab graded MS65+ with CAC sticker (The sticker on a PCGS slab doesn’t take into account the + grade)
6) PCGS slab (Newer holder after plus grading) graded MS65 with CAC sticker
7) CAC slab graded MS65 with embedded CAC sticker
8) CAC slab graded MS65 without CAC embedded sticker
@BryceM said:
Y'all remember that the grading companies don't manufacture the coins we collect, right? They are what they are. These kinds of threads simultaneously amuse and annoy me a little. To be clear, I'm not saying grading isn't important. It clearly is, but I think people have unrealistic expectations.
Just because a coin with a few issues "accidentally" gets into a particular slab doesn't mean it will sell for "all the money." Usually, it doesn't. Likewise, a coin that gets a numerical "upgrade" on a crackout or resubmission doesn't always sell for more. Superb 64+ coins often sell for the same price as a weak 65. The market is pretty good at sorting this stuff out, on average. Finding exceptions is remarkably easy. These are called anecdotes.
Grading is (and always will be) subjective in nature. If you did an actual scientific analysis (nobody is willing to pay the money or take the time), you'd see poor inter-observer reliability, even among the best. There isn't even very good reliability of the same observer on different days. In comparison, diamonds are graded reasonably consistently. That industry established and uses measurable, well-defined standards.
There is a common theme in threads like this that somehow the best graders are expert at divining a coin's "actual" grade. Memo.... coins don't have grades. There are no standards. There is no defined line beyond which a coin is "improperly" cleaned. Worn or not worn? That particular line has wandered off a tremendous amount in just a decade. It used to be difficult to see why a coin got an AU58. Now, visible wear is seen all the way up to MS63.
This doesn't mean JA doesn't have an expert eye. He does. Is he the best? How would you even begin to define that? He certainly knows coins, understands coin chicanery, has a great feel for the market, and has exceptional business acumen. Shifting "standards" seem to annoy him quite a bit. He's a great advocate for regular hobbyists too.
C coins? What is that even? There's no reason to fuss about it if we can't even define it. The days of MS60, 63, 65, and 67 were probably good enough for most practical purposes. Anyone with eyes can see that some "gems" are better than others. BTW, that's still true if you use a 70 or 100 or 1000 point scale.
If they can grade coins reasonably consistently, reasonably quickly, and the broader market accepts them (good bet, IMO), they'll gain acceptance. Like I said earlier in this thread, there's a huge zone of gray space between PQ and "details" that they'll have to navigate. The other TPGs deal with it, more or less, and the market eventually speaks for itself.
If you read my post, you are missing the point. It is about the surfaces not the grade, the CAC bean is about being insured that the surfaces are largely not messed with. If they now slab and have to put grades on coins with messed surfaces to pay their bills, the whole concept of what CAC is now, is, well, violated. Collectors who appreciate unmessed with surfaces have to start all over again and one can't buy anything online with assurances that the coin won't show up at your doorstep and have surface issues that images online don't show...............
So I like what CAC does now and likely won't like what it does with their slab service and how it detracts from what it does not in order to pay their bills for a slab company. So in fact I do know that grading companies don't manufacture the coin and I am not sure what that sarcasm in your post is hoping to achieve in this discussion.
I think if it doesn’t have a sticker and it’s been there it won’t make it into a holder.
If it hasn’t been there it might be a good test. My feeling is if you can tell it was lightly cleaned so will JA.
Sure, but how are they going to pay the bills for a slab service if they reject 60% of the coins coming in as they have with the beaning buis? They can do that with a bean service bc they are making a market in those coins with a wholesale buisness and it is in their interest to put a sticker on something if some day down the line they want to buy it and to reject the ones with issues that they don't want to buy. Very efficient way to know which coins to flip in their buisness down the line. That won't work for a slab buisness, that has more costs built in. >90% of the classic US coins worthy of being slabbed probably are, so what they will get is coins they already largely rejected for the bean, around 60% if stats are correctly reported. That is a losing venture unless they put a grade on these and charge the submitter for it. OTH they do say they will expand to moderns so maybe that will be their profit maker, we will see.
@spacehayduke , my understanding is that CAC will NOT holder coins with a straight grade whose surfaces they feel have been messed with. I agree with you that if they did that, that would not be good. But in this game, reputation means everything, so I’d be shocked if CAC will knowingly holder (and straight grade) any coin that has had its surfaces messed with.
Steve
Edit - To be clear, CAC WILL holder and straight grade coins in holders that failed CAC due to the coin being a C coin, lower end for the grade, but problem free (surfaces that have not been messed with). My sense is this group makes up a good portion of the 60% CAC reject rate of coins in other holders.
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
I’m not following your point. I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that you were suggesting a 66 with no CAC sticker, if crossed to the new CAC holder as a 65 or 65+, would have an embedded sticker in that new holder. It will not.
That is not what I was suggesting. As short as possible, it's this:
Last month, CAC says that a coin (even though it's a "C" and doesn't get a sticker) is accurately graded MS66.
Next month, CAC says that coin is accurately graded MS65.
My point is that, with the change in the grade they're arriving at (MS66 vs. MS65, as above), they're moving to a different grading system than the one they are currently, by reviewing PCGS & NGC slabs, offering opinions on. I'm not talking about their preference for "solid for the grade" coins.
You are exactly correct. CAC Grading company will not be changing their standards and will be details grading a lot of coins that PCGS and NGC will straight grade. In the short run, this may cost them money because might not submit as many questionable coins to CAC Grading but in the long run CAC hollered coins will trade for significantly higher premiums (like CAC sticker coins do now). Most of the really nice coins for the grade will be in CAC holders because they will be worth more in the CAC holder.
JA has said the CAC Grading company is not all about maximizing revenues and profits. It is about cleaning up the coin business by eliminating the profitability of coin doctoring. If revenues suffer a bit because CAC holds the line on coin doctoring and certifying problem coins, so be it. However, holding the line may actually be more profitable in the long run since a great coin should be worth more in the CAC holder and serious collectors will want to see their coins in CAC holders. I'm not taking about legacy CAC stickered coins in PCGS/NGC holders.
I hope you are correct and they will stick to their current standards in the slab buisness and not slab those coins with light surfaces problems and give them grades if they would not bean, that would alleviate all of my concerns.
@10000lakes said:
So once CAC slabs are in the market how will the market value of MS65 graded coins be ranked.
Here is my guess.
I’m just looking at PCGS slabs that have a CAC sticker and CAC slabs in this example. I would have needed access to a super computer to include PCGS slabs without CAC stickers or NGC slabs with or without CAC stickers into the ranking
1) PCGS slab graded MS65 or MS65+ with a Gold CAC sticker (At this level, an old holder MS65 would outrank a newer holder MS65 or MS65+)
2) CAC slab graded MS65+ with embedded CAC sticker
3) CAC slab graded MS65+ without embedded CAC sticker (Maybe this is higher ranked than #2 because it could have been a previous PCGS MS66?)
4) PCGS slab (Old holder prior to plus grading) graded MS65 with CAC sticker
5) PCGS slab graded MS65+ with CAC sticker (The sticker on a PCGS slab doesn’t take into account the + grade)
6) PCGS slab (Newer holder after plus grading) graded MS65 with CAC sticker
7) CAC slab graded MS65 with embedded CAC sticker
8) CAC slab graded MS65 without CAC embedded sticker
And show this to a new collector just trying to understand value of a coin they wish to collect..........
@winesteven said: @spacehayduke , my understanding is that CAC will NOT holder coins with a straight grade whose surfaces they feel have been messed with. I agree with you that if they did that, that would not be good. But in this game, reputation means everything, so I’d be shocked if CAC will knowingly holder (and straight grade) any coin that has had its surfaces messed with.
Steve
Edit - To be clear, CAC WILL holder and straight grade coins in holders that failed CAC due to the coin being a C coin, lower end for the grade, but problem free (surfaces that have not been messed with). My sense is this group makes up a good portion of the 60% CAC reject rate of coins in other holders.
Hi Steve,
I hope you are right, but for alot of bust series coins that don't bean, and for seated dollars, many or most that don't bean is because of the surfaces. But that might not be their major market so they might not have to lower their standards for these. If so, my concerns are alleviated.
This reminds me of the utube video on parallel universes where all this speculation about possibilities. So many sticker, holder, type of cleaning combos.
Then shipping stuff all over the country - risk of loss would drive me nuts.
I think if it doesn’t have a sticker and it’s been there it won’t make it into a holder.
If it hasn’t been there it might be a good test. My feeling is if you can tell it was lightly cleaned so will JA.
Sure, but how are they going to pay the bills for a slab service if they reject 60% of the coins coming in as they have with the beaning buis? They can do that with a bean service bc they are making a market in those coins with a wholesale buisness and it is in their interest to put a sticker on something if some day down the line they want to buy it and to reject the ones with issues that they don't want to buy. Very efficient way to know which coins to flip in their buisness down the line. That won't work for a slab buisness, that has more costs built in. >90% of the classic US coins worthy of being slabbed probably are, so what they will get is coins they already largely rejected for the bean, around 60% if stats are correctly reported. That is a losing venture unless they put a grade on these and charge the submitter for it. OTH they do say they will expand to moderns so maybe that will be their profit maker, we will see.
Best, SH
For coins not getting a bean they don’t charge, so are they doing the same with grading? To me it sounds like they are charging if they are putting cleaned coins in detail holders. That will help pay some of the bills. I don’t know, I’m asking if that is what they are going to do.
Don't get your panties in a wad. This is all going to work out fine.
A new grading service run by CAC will breathe new life into numismatics. It's been a long time since anything close to this big has occurred. Don't worry. Be happy!
@winesteven said:
I’m not following your point. I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that you were suggesting a 66 with no CAC sticker, if crossed to the new CAC holder as a 65 or 65+, would have an embedded sticker in that new holder. It will not.
That is not what I was suggesting. As short as possible, it's this:
Last month, CAC says that a coin (even though it's a "C" and doesn't get a sticker) is accurately graded MS66.
Next month, CAC says that coin is accurately graded MS65.
My point is that, with the change in the grade they're arriving at (MS66 vs. MS65, as above), they're moving to a different grading system than the one they are currently, by reviewing PCGS & NGC slabs, offering opinions on. I'm not talking about their preference for "solid for the grade" coins.
This is all speculative, but I agree. This idea of automatic downgrades doesn't make sense.
And the idea of having a different standard than PCGS/NGC doesn't make sense either. People like the numbers. No one wants to downgrade their 66 to a 65. The CAC 65 would have to be worth more money than the 66 and you'd have to be selling or have 100% CAC collection. Will the market accommodate that?
My sense is the embedded stickers are MAINLY an “accommodation” for those with existing CAC stickers who want to cross, so this way their new holder will “prove” that not only it meets current CAC standards by being in the new CAC holder, but also PREVIOUSLY met CAC standards by having had a CAC sticker.
To me, it’s redundant. A coin in a new CAC holder graded MS65 obviously meets CAC standards for that grade. Having that same coin in a new CAC holder graded MS 65 with an embedded CAC sticker means it met those standards previously too.
As you point out, for those looking to cross coins with no sticker and want an embedded sticker in their new CAC holder, yes, first attempt to get the CAC sticker on the other slab, and if successful, then cross. I think it’s silly, but every collector decides for themselves what they want for their coins. I know for a fact there are MANY things I do with my coins that many knowledgeable collectors think are silly.
Steve
You're describing marketing. In this scenario, the coin presumably doesn't change, only perception.
From reading responses, seems some folks are concerned about the stricter grading standards that CAC grading might apply and some downgrading or details grading that might occur. I welcome such as change. Maybe this illustration will help.
Here is an 1884P MS63 Rattler I bot 15 years ago. I paid less than 63 money at the time since it was banged up. Excluding the Rattler, I would have passed and gotten a nicer 63 coin. I do not think it would ever sticker. It is a C coin but no issues other than very baggy for grade.
I would not care if CAC graded it an MS62 'A' coin. I might actually prefer that to the 63, excluding the Rattler's inherent value. I would pay the same for either grade, non-stickered 63 or the new more conservative 62 since I'm buying the coin. The market basically pays more for better coins in any grade and less for those that are not high quality, and always will. CAC's valued opinion and transparency of these lesser quality items will help.
Now I do not participate in the Registry space so maybe folks are concerned about downgrading or grading becoming more conservative. I enjoy my coins and do not have the resources to be competitive. Even though I have complete sets, wouldn't care if my set was #300 or XXX in the Registry.
I don’t disagree your $ may be seen as a low end 63 due to the cheek but IMO that is for people coming in the bourse room to decide and if in my inventory my decision to discount not some outsider. Perhaps your $ is very lustrous and flashy in hand vs some dull tarnished spotted dog.
Everybody has their particular preference. There is nothing new or more conservative about somebody trying force theirs.
I like coins that are brilliant, wellstruck, with nice luster. Breaking coins down to ABC can be very subjective and can vary between individuals. I reject the idea that one person is the God of this process.
The future will tell. CAC may discount the grade but the market may appreciate their lower grade more than the other TPGs. I believe the existing TGS have relaxed and restricted their grading over the last 25 years already, so this is just something else that will be absorbed into pricing. Can be confusing to folks, but there is pricing for PCGS, NGC, ANACs and ICG already, nothing fits perfectly into a pricing guide. The market will dictate pricing for CAC's grading, not the other way around.
@ironmanl63 said:
One benefit I see is crossing NGC stickered coins. The market rates them differently but CAC does not. The new CAC holder will solve that problem!
How do you know that will solve the “problem”? If the market prefers PCGS/CAC stickered coins to NGC/CAC ones, I wouldn’t take it as a given that the market will value CAC holdered coins the same as PCGS ones.
No. But it will value a CAC 65 that used to be in an NGC 65 holder with a green sticker the same as a CAC 65 that used to be in a PCGS 65 holder with a green sticker. To that extent it solves the problem.
@lermish said:
I just hope the slab size is the same as the current PCGS size. My OCD already has issues squaring the PCGS/NGC size difference not to mention rattlers.
@coinJP said:
Interesting and does make sense. I wonder what the holder will look like.
JA has said previously that they’ll likely entomb the coins in amber. Here’s an early prototype.
"We've spared no expense... and passed it on to the submittor"
I price the coin not the holder, raw or slabbed. I am the one who decides my markup, pricing. Certainly items may be discounted based on cost favorability, negotiation, business sales goal, or market conditions. Not a player in the sticker game. Seller of coins and currency from a $1 and up. Both raw and graded. All 4 TPG (although bigger ticket material over $200 PCGS / NGC). US, World, and Currency.
When his graded slabs come out I want to pickup a few see how well they perform in the biz for me / sales demand, cost, profit, procurement.
Has JA been explicit regarding the fate of C coins? Has he differentiated between C coins that he believes have been messed with and C coins that didn't pass for some other reason?
No idea. I would think the cost of that research / detailed database would be prohibitive. But yea we gotta root out those C bad guys.
I am more interested in what ones markup factor above CDN bid would be for A B C coins. 100 pct for A, 50 pct for B, 25 pct for C lol? So B $20 Lib $5000 bid would be $7500 retail? Or is that a little aggressive.
I am working on 2 projects in the world arena for graded coins & currency where pricing only a raw Unc number - MS60 is available. Grade premium markup factor and low pop premium markup factor (vs MS60 for example) I can see these 2 combined for an overall muf on an item but what weighting? Even developed model of Sheldon scale with graduated markup factors. Proper retail pricing and realistic valuation the goal.
@Cougar1978 said:
Whether online or from my table on the bourse /
I price
When his graded slabs come out I want to pickup a few see how well they perform in the biz for me / sales demand, cost, profit, procurement.
Don't mind me speculating but I think you'll be in for a nice surprise. Pick a random collector at any level and he wouldn't even have to favor CAC to understand the demand and QA. I think it'll be a Cadillac hopefully attractive, for your customers sake.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
The future will tell. CAC may discount the grade but the market may appreciate their lower grade more than the other TPGs. I believe the existing TGS have relaxed and restricted their grading over the last 25 years already, so this is just something else that will be absorbed into pricing. Can be confusing to folks, but there is pricing for PCGS, NGC, ANACs and ICG already, nothing fits perfectly into a pricing guide. The market will dictate pricing for CAC's grading, not the other way around.
But would you choose to pay someone to downgrade your coin? That is part of why grade inflation exists.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
The future will tell. CAC may discount the grade but the market may appreciate their lower grade more than the other TPGs. I believe the existing TGS have relaxed and restricted their grading over the last 25 years already, so this is just something else that will be absorbed into pricing. Can be confusing to folks, but there is pricing for PCGS, NGC, ANACs and ICG already, nothing fits perfectly into a pricing guide. The market will dictate pricing for CAC's grading, not the other way around.
But would you choose to pay someone to downgrade your coin? That is part of why grade inflation exists.
Happens all the time with people crossing over NGC to pcgs, accepting lower grades.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
The future will tell. CAC may discount the grade but the market may appreciate their lower grade more than the other TPGs. I believe the existing TGS have relaxed and restricted their grading over the last 25 years already, so this is just something else that will be absorbed into pricing. Can be confusing to folks, but there is pricing for PCGS, NGC, ANACs and ICG already, nothing fits perfectly into a pricing guide. The market will dictate pricing for CAC's grading, not the other way around.
But would you choose to pay someone to downgrade your coin? That is part of why grade inflation exists.
Happens all the time with people crossing over NGC to pcgs, accepting lower grades.
Yes, but they don't do it thinking it will downgrade - in most cases.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
The future will tell. CAC may discount the grade but the market may appreciate their lower grade more than the other TPGs. I believe the existing TGS have relaxed and restricted their grading over the last 25 years already, so this is just something else that will be absorbed into pricing. Can be confusing to folks, but there is pricing for PCGS, NGC, ANACs and ICG already, nothing fits perfectly into a pricing guide. The market will dictate pricing for CAC's grading, not the other way around.
But would you choose to pay someone to downgrade your coin? That is part of why grade inflation exists.
Happens all the time with people crossing over NGC to pcgs, accepting lower grades.
Yes, but they don't do it thinking it will downgrade - in most cases.
Enough such results have been reported, that any informed (crossover) submitter knows that a downgrade is a distinct possibility, unless he lists a matching minimum grade.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
The future will tell. CAC may discount the grade but the market may appreciate their lower grade more than the other TPGs. I believe the existing TGS have relaxed and restricted their grading over the last 25 years already, so this is just something else that will be absorbed into pricing. Can be confusing to folks, but there is pricing for PCGS, NGC, ANACs and ICG already, nothing fits perfectly into a pricing guide. The market will dictate pricing for CAC's grading, not the other way around.
But would you choose to pay someone to downgrade your coin? That is part of why grade inflation exists.
Happens all the time with people crossing over NGC to pcgs, accepting lower grades.
Yes, but they don't do it thinking it will downgrade - in most cases.
Enough such results have been reported, that any informed (crossover) submitter knows that a downgrade is a distinct possibility, unless he lists a matching minimum grade.
Of course...but they still show up here and complain.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
The future will tell. CAC may discount the grade but the market may appreciate their lower grade more than the other TPGs. I believe the existing TGS have relaxed and restricted their grading over the last 25 years already, so this is just something else that will be absorbed into pricing. Can be confusing to folks, but there is pricing for PCGS, NGC, ANACs and ICG already, nothing fits perfectly into a pricing guide. The market will dictate pricing for CAC's grading, not the other way around.
But would you choose to pay someone to downgrade your coin? That is part of why grade inflation exists.
Happens all the time with people crossing over NGC to pcgs, accepting lower grades.
Yes, but they don't do it thinking it will downgrade - in most cases.
Enough such results have been reported, that any informed (crossover) submitter knows that a downgrade is a distinct possibility, unless he lists a matching minimum grade.
Of course...but they still show up here and complain.
Over the years, I’ve seen far fewer complaints about that than I’d expected.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The interesting thing is to see how many green sticker coins get plus grades when crossed over to the new CAC service. Perhaps that will give us a clue to how many green sticker coins are actually A quality
@coastaljerseyguy said:
The future will tell. CAC may discount the grade but the market may appreciate their lower grade more than the other TPGs. I believe the existing TGS have relaxed and restricted their grading over the last 25 years already, so this is just something else that will be absorbed into pricing. Can be confusing to folks, but there is pricing for PCGS, NGC, ANACs and ICG already, nothing fits perfectly into a pricing guide. The market will dictate pricing for CAC's grading, not the other way around.
But would you choose to pay someone to downgrade your coin? That is part of why grade inflation exists.
Happens all the time with people crossing over NGC to pcgs, accepting lower grades.
Yes, but they don't do it thinking it will downgrade - in most cases.
Enough such results have been reported, that any informed (crossover) submitter knows that a downgrade is a distinct possibility, unless he lists a matching minimum grade.
Of course...but they still show up here and complain.
Over the years, I’ve seen far fewer complaints about that than I’d expected.
I know a guy who thinks that every grading disappointment is part of an NGC or PCGS conspiracy against the "little guys".
If you read my post, you are missing the point. It is about the surfaces not the grade, the CAC bean is about being insured that the surfaces are largely not messed with. If they now slab and have to put grades on coins with messed surfaces to pay their bills, the whole concept of what CAC is now, is, well, violated. Collectors who appreciate unmessed with surfaces have to start all over again and one can't buy anything online with assurances that the coin won't show up at your doorstep and have surface issues that images online don't show...............
So I like what CAC does now and likely won't like what it does with their slab service and how it detracts from what it does not in order to pay their bills for a slab company. So in fact I do know that grading companies don't manufacture the coin and I am not sure what that sarcasm in your post is hoping to achieve in this discussion.
@spacehayduke, perhaps you took something personally that wasn't intended. I was addressing my comments broadly at 5 or 6 pages of discussion (some of which was patently ridiculous), not to anything you said. I happen to think you're a wonderful collector with a great eye for quality. I'm actually not trying to be argumentative or sarcastic. Here's my take on your comments.
You're making assumptions that I'm not sure are entirely true:
Where did CAC or JA ever state that a sticker means the surfaces haven't been messed with? I'm quite certain there are plenty of dipped coins are out there with CAC stickers on them. A sticker just means the coin meets their own grading standards. In some cases their current standards are obviously different than the TPGs (early gold, for one example). Many of us have come to understand that a sticker implies a certain level of originality, intact surfaces, etc, but I don't think that has ever been implicitly stated.
Why would you have to "start all over again?" I don't foresee a logical need to run all your NGC/CAC and PCGS/CAC coins through the new grading service. They've already seen them and they already like them.
When did CAC announce that they would be grading and slabbing coins that don't meet their current standards? What incentive would there be to do so? They've carefully established a brand and a level of quality. I see no incentive for them to change that.
Some people are equating the lack of a sticker to a coin with problems. That's clearly ridiculous. Sometimes JA just feels the coin is overgraded. Said another way, CAC has rejected a huge number of coins out there with perfectly acceptable and original surfaces. Once they get going, they'll probably grade and slab those one or two grades lower (per their own standards) and have no problem with it - just like they would have stickered it if it showed up at a lower grade.
They might "bodybag" or "details" grade more coins than the other TPGs. I suppose you're concerned they'll do this so frequently that people will stop sending them coins and they'll change their standards. I think it's more likely people will become more selective about what they send them. I guess we'll see. I am actually quite curious to see how they deal with the 80% of the gold they don't currently sticker.
I am working on 2 projects in the world arena for graded coins & currency where pricing only a raw Unc number - MS60 is available. Grade premium markup factor and low pop premium markup factor (vs MS60 for example) I can see these 2 combined for an overall muf on an item but what weighting? Even developed model of Sheldon scale with graduated markup factors. Proper retail pricing and realistic valuation the goal.
>
Don't use the premiums between grades from US coinage as a benchmark. It's not a relevant comparison. Also, if Krause is your reference point for MS-60, that's an unreliable source. The prices are mostly (if not entirely) just "made-up".
Paying a big premium for these coins is generically a high-risk proposition because the TPG data almost never reflects the actual scarcity. Knowledgeable collectors know it.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
The future will tell. CAC may discount the grade but the market may appreciate their lower grade more than the other TPGs. I believe the existing TGS have relaxed and restricted their grading over the last 25 years already, so this is just something else that will be absorbed into pricing. Can be confusing to folks, but there is pricing for PCGS, NGC, ANACs and ICG already, nothing fits perfectly into a pricing guide. The market will dictate pricing for CAC's grading, not the other way around.
But would you choose to pay someone to downgrade your coin? That is part of why grade inflation exists.
Happens all the time with people crossing over NGC to pcgs, accepting lower grades.
Yes, but they don't do it thinking it will downgrade - in most cases.
Enough such results have been reported, that any informed (crossover) submitter knows that a downgrade is a distinct possibility, unless he lists a matching minimum grade.
Of course...but they still show up here and complain.
Let’s not forget two things - MOST collectors don’t even know about this forum, and of those that do, there are multitudes more that just read the various posts than actually participate.
On the PCGS Crossover Submission Form, there’s clearly an area where one specifies exactly the worst case grade scenario they’re willing to have the coin crossed at. While some submissions will require a cross at only the same grade (or higher), I think we can agree with @MFeld ’s point that there are plenty of NGC coins crossing to PCGS at a grade lower, that was indicated on the form would be acceptable to the owner. Naturally, those owners want and hope it’ll cross at the same grade or higher, but they’re willing to accept less!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@coastaljerseyguy said:
The future will tell. CAC may discount the grade but the market may appreciate their lower grade more than the other TPGs. I believe the existing TGS have relaxed and restricted their grading over the last 25 years already, so this is just something else that will be absorbed into pricing. Can be confusing to folks, but there is pricing for PCGS, NGC, ANACs and ICG already, nothing fits perfectly into a pricing guide. The market will dictate pricing for CAC's grading, not the other way around.
But would you choose to pay someone to downgrade your coin? That is part of why grade inflation exists.
If the market values the new CAC holders the highest & gets the best prices, maybe, I am not into having all coins in 1 holder or trying to upgrade what's already slabbed, I actually prefer albums for my coins.
I was more referring to the example that if I had that coin raw and wanted it slabbed, I would have no problem getting the CAC MS62 lower grade, but now being an 'A' coin, than the other TPGs MS63 grade, esp if the market perceives the CAC grades are more conservative and spot on. Looking at the coin, I don't think it is a good example of 63, and would not have a problem with the 62 grade, being top end for that grade. That is what it is, and think it would get sold at the same relative price in either graded holder. If CAC delivers on its rigorous grading standards in the future, the market would know it is an A example for that grade. CAC slabs might be a benefit to the sight-unseen market since there should be very few dogs. I would never pay strong 63 money for the coin.
I'm not going to read through everything here, but I'm in the camp that believes this venture will not be as profitable or popular as folks think.
Will cac run specials like send us your already graded pcgs and ngc coins for so and so discount? A lot of collectors are somewhat ocd about matching sets and keeping everything in same type holders. This in my opinion is another way to put more money into coins the collector already owns which probably will not increase the value of the coin.
How many truly knowledgeable numismatics here would invest a substantial amount of money in another grading service like this if given the opportunity?
There's nothing wrong with competition though.
Coins that are accurately graded (not overgraded) but don't get a sticker are C coins. These coins may be straight graded by PCGS but CAC sees problems with them and won't give them a sticker even if they are downgraded into a lower graded PCGS holder. CAC Grading company will not straight grade these coins because their standards as to what is a "problem" coin is different (and more exacting) than PCGS's. If your (and Mark F's) use of the term "problem free" is CACs definiation of problem free, then I agree with you that C coins that are problem free will be holdered by CAC Grading (but at a lower technical grade than what's on the PCGS holder) because these coins meet the "quality" standards for CAC but not the technical grade standards.
However, if you use the term "problem free" (but accurately graded) to refer to a coin that might be straight graded by PCGS or NGC but that CAC sees as C coins, then these coins will not be holdered by CAC Grading even at a lower grade.
@beboplawyer said:
Actually, you are confusing the issues.
Conversely, CAC sticker company may consider a coin in a PCGS holder a "C" coin because it has problems (which PCGS might not deem severe enough to details grade). This coin would not be given a sticker by CAC even if it were downgraded to a lower grade holder because it is a "C" coin no matter what grade is assigned by PCGS. To say it another way, the C quality of the coin does not change by downgrading the coin. CAC sticker company has higher standards as to what is a problem than does PCGS or NGC which is why the quality of the coins sticker by CAC is higher than coins that fail to receive a sticker which is proven by the higher prices garnered for CAC sticker coins. CAC Grading company will not be lowering their standards for what a problem coin is and will not net grade these coins (by straight grading but with a lower grade on the holder).
CAC sticker company does not consider "problem coins" C coins. They are problem coins, that you and I agree regardless of the grade of the TPG holder, CAC sticker company will not sticker, and CAC holder company will not holder.
"C" coins refers only to problem free coins that for the most part are lower end for the current grade, and in some cases, overgraded.
As I stated above, C coins and problem coins are two different things!
Steve
I'll give this a shot as my betters don't seem to be able to crack your shell.
Not all C coins are problem coins.
Some C coins have surface/manmade issues and will not be straight graded at CAC. These are also referred to as problem coins.
Some C coins are NOT problem coins. These C coins will be straight graded a grade lower, often with a plus (PCGS 65 C becomes a CAC 64 or 64+).
This is not that complicated and also straight from JA.
You shouldn't fret. CAC grading will not straight grade coins with messed with surfaces. They will receive details grades. In analyzing surfaces, CAC grading will be using the same standards as CAC sticking.
@BryceM said:
Y'all remember that the grading companies don't manufacture the coins we collect, right? They are what they are. These kinds of threads simultaneously amuse and annoy me a little. To be clear, I'm not saying grading isn't important. It clearly is, but I think people have unrealistic expectations.
Just because a coin with a few issues "accidentally" gets into a particular slab doesn't mean it will sell for "all the money." Usually, it doesn't. Likewise, a coin that gets a numerical "upgrade" on a crackout or resubmission doesn't always sell for more. Superb 64+ coins often sell for the same price as a weak 65. The market is pretty good at sorting this stuff out, on average. Finding exceptions is remarkably easy. These are called anecdotes.
Grading is (and always will be) subjective in nature. If you did an actual scientific analysis (nobody is willing to pay the money or take the time), you'd see poor inter-observer reliability, even among the best. There isn't even very good reliability of the same observer on different days. In comparison, diamonds are graded reasonably consistently. That industry established and uses measurable, well-defined standards.
There is a common theme in threads like this that somehow the best graders are expert at divining a coin's "actual" grade. Memo.... coins don't have grades. There are no standards. There is no defined line beyond which a coin is "improperly" cleaned. Worn or not worn? That particular line has wandered off a tremendous amount in just a decade. It used to be difficult to see why a coin got an AU58. Now, visible wear is seen all the way up to MS63.
This doesn't mean JA doesn't have an expert eye. He does. Is he the best? How would you even begin to define that? He certainly knows coins, understands coin chicanery, has a great feel for the market, and has exceptional business acumen. Shifting "standards" seem to annoy him quite a bit. He's a great advocate for regular hobbyists too.
C coins? What is that even? There's no reason to fuss about it if we can't even define it. The days of MS60, 63, 65, and 67 were probably good enough for most practical purposes. Anyone with eyes can see that some "gems" are better than others. BTW, that's still true if you use a 70 or 100 or 1000 point scale.
If they can grade coins reasonably consistently, reasonably quickly, and the broader market accepts them (good bet, IMO), they'll gain acceptance. Like I said earlier in this thread, there's a huge zone of gray space between PQ and "details" that they'll have to navigate. The other TPGs deal with it, more or less, and the market eventually speaks for itself.
If you read my post, you are missing the point. It is about the surfaces not the grade, the CAC bean is about being insured that the surfaces are largely not messed with. If they now slab and have to put grades on coins with messed surfaces to pay their bills, the whole concept of what CAC is now, is, well, violated. Collectors who appreciate unmessed with surfaces have to start all over again and one can't buy anything online with assurances that the coin won't show up at your doorstep and have surface issues that images online don't show...............
So I like what CAC does now and likely won't like what it does with their slab service and how it detracts from what it does not in order to pay their bills for a slab company. So in fact I do know that grading companies don't manufacture the coin and I am not sure what that sarcasm in your post is hoping to achieve in this discussion.
Will be interesting when they up and running what dealers / Auction Houses will have the new CAC TPG slabs. Will bidding be fierce, into the stratosphere? How do you see their pricing?
There are too many unknowns right now to make an intelligent informed decision about what to do with the coins you currently have. The market at some point down the road will become efficient and we’ll be able to decide. If CAC grading company coins are valued higher I suspect most folks will attemp to cross if the premium is high enough after grading fees. If a CAC grading company 63 sells for the same amount as a PCGS 64 there really is no financial incentive to cross the PCGS 64 if it was previously sent to CAC and didn’t sticker. Bottom line, there are too many scenarios with too little information that it’s very difficult to speculate now.
@Cougar1978 said:
Will be interesting when they up and running what dealers / Auction Houses will have the new CAC TPG slabs. Will bidding be fierce, into the stratosphere? How do you see their pricing?
The first few hundred CAC Grading Company slabs will be closely tracked and bid to the moon.
I only need three coins for my type set, and have been looking for each of them for quite some time. I'm in no hurry, and I'm not submitting anything to anyone until this thing sorts itself out.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
Why roll the dice with the cross game just sell the TPG coins you don’t want to a dealer off the bourse at say 20 pct behind CDN bid or something close can be negotiated. Then U can take that money and go buy CAC slabs.
The dealer that you sell to can then retail your nice PCGS or NGC coin (people walking in bourse room) you blew out who are oblivious to CAC or could care less about CAC nor want pay their price. I would be a buyer (of the PCGS / NGC material) as I have sold out (retailed) all my Classic US coins from the Pandemic till now.
As far as what the CAC slabs will trade for it’s all speculation right now. If we are entering a recesssion in 1st Qtr. Bids could be going down…..Think how certain top college highly touted football teams in preseason went down in flames.
As one of the 3000 members I imagine I can submit my PCGS/CAC $2.50's to be slabbed by CAC. That is unlikely as I am pleased to slowly assemble a PCGS/CAC only set.
You shouldn't fret. CAC grading will not straight grade coins with messed with surfaces. They will receive details grades. In analyzing surfaces, CAC grading will be using the same standards as CAC sticking.
Hmm... We are not really talking about 'messed with surfaces'. What I mean is 'lightly cleaned long ago' that makes it into a gradable holder with other TPG's that would not make it to being bean worthy. I am in a wait and see after reading the CAC email, announcement, and interpretation here, I can't imagine that CAC as a slabbing company is going to hold the same standards they do as a stickering company. Those here that think they will, I hope you are right, but..............................
HST, I fully plan to test this hypothesis on the standards, I will be first in line to send in CAC rejected coins to CAC for crossover just to see.
Comments
So once CAC slabs are in the market how will the market value of MS65 graded coins be ranked.
Here is my guess.
I’m just looking at PCGS slabs that have a CAC sticker and CAC slabs in this example. I would have needed access to a super computer to include PCGS slabs without CAC stickers or NGC slabs with or without CAC stickers into the ranking
1) PCGS slab graded MS65 or MS65+ with a Gold CAC sticker (At this level, an old holder MS65 would outrank a newer holder MS65 or MS65+)
2) CAC slab graded MS65+ with embedded CAC sticker
3) CAC slab graded MS65+ without embedded CAC sticker (Maybe this is higher ranked than #2 because it could have been a previous PCGS MS66?)
4) PCGS slab (Old holder prior to plus grading) graded MS65 with CAC sticker
5) PCGS slab graded MS65+ with CAC sticker (The sticker on a PCGS slab doesn’t take into account the + grade)
6) PCGS slab (Newer holder after plus grading) graded MS65 with CAC sticker
7) CAC slab graded MS65 with embedded CAC sticker
8) CAC slab graded MS65 without CAC embedded sticker
If you read my post, you are missing the point. It is about the surfaces not the grade, the CAC bean is about being insured that the surfaces are largely not messed with. If they now slab and have to put grades on coins with messed surfaces to pay their bills, the whole concept of what CAC is now, is, well, violated. Collectors who appreciate unmessed with surfaces have to start all over again and one can't buy anything online with assurances that the coin won't show up at your doorstep and have surface issues that images online don't show...............
So I like what CAC does now and likely won't like what it does with their slab service and how it detracts from what it does not in order to pay their bills for a slab company. So in fact I do know that grading companies don't manufacture the coin and I am not sure what that sarcasm in your post is hoping to achieve in this discussion.
Sure, but how are they going to pay the bills for a slab service if they reject 60% of the coins coming in as they have with the beaning buis? They can do that with a bean service bc they are making a market in those coins with a wholesale buisness and it is in their interest to put a sticker on something if some day down the line they want to buy it and to reject the ones with issues that they don't want to buy. Very efficient way to know which coins to flip in their buisness down the line. That won't work for a slab buisness, that has more costs built in. >90% of the classic US coins worthy of being slabbed probably are, so what they will get is coins they already largely rejected for the bean, around 60% if stats are correctly reported. That is a losing venture unless they put a grade on these and charge the submitter for it. OTH they do say they will expand to moderns so maybe that will be their profit maker, we will see.
Best, SH
@spacehayduke , my understanding is that CAC will NOT holder coins with a straight grade whose surfaces they feel have been messed with. I agree with you that if they did that, that would not be good. But in this game, reputation means everything, so I’d be shocked if CAC will knowingly holder (and straight grade) any coin that has had its surfaces messed with.
Steve
Edit - To be clear, CAC WILL holder and straight grade coins in holders that failed CAC due to the coin being a C coin, lower end for the grade, but problem free (surfaces that have not been messed with). My sense is this group makes up a good portion of the 60% CAC reject rate of coins in other holders.
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
That is not what I was suggesting. As short as possible, it's this:
Last month, CAC says that a coin (even though it's a "C" and doesn't get a sticker) is accurately graded MS66.
Next month, CAC says that coin is accurately graded MS65.
My point is that, with the change in the grade they're arriving at (MS66 vs. MS65, as above), they're moving to a different grading system than the one they are currently, by reviewing PCGS & NGC slabs, offering opinions on. I'm not talking about their preference for "solid for the grade" coins.
I hope you are correct and they will stick to their current standards in the slab buisness and not slab those coins with light surfaces problems and give them grades if they would not bean, that would alleviate all of my concerns.
Best, SH
And show this to a new collector just trying to understand value of a coin they wish to collect..........
Hi Steve,
I hope you are right, but for alot of bust series coins that don't bean, and for seated dollars, many or most that don't bean is because of the surfaces. But that might not be their major market so they might not have to lower their standards for these. If so, my concerns are alleviated.
Best, SH
We’ll both keep our fingers crossed, but I do have solid faith in JA.
Steve
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
This reminds me of the utube video on parallel universes where all this speculation about possibilities. So many sticker, holder, type of cleaning combos.
Then shipping stuff all over the country - risk of loss would drive me nuts.
For coins not getting a bean they don’t charge, so are they doing the same with grading? To me it sounds like they are charging if they are putting cleaned coins in detail holders. That will help pay some of the bills. I don’t know, I’m asking if that is what they are going to do.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
Don't get your panties in a wad. This is all going to work out fine.
A new grading service run by CAC will breathe new life into numismatics. It's been a long time since anything close to this big has occurred. Don't worry. Be happy!
This is all speculative, but I agree. This idea of automatic downgrades doesn't make sense.
And the idea of having a different standard than PCGS/NGC doesn't make sense either. People like the numbers. No one wants to downgrade their 66 to a 65. The CAC 65 would have to be worth more money than the 66 and you'd have to be selling or have 100% CAC collection. Will the market accommodate that?
You're describing marketing. In this scenario, the coin presumably doesn't change, only perception.
Yes - I am against automatic downgrades and change in the PCGS / NGC standard.
I don’t believe the market would accommodate that kind of a change. Too many people have too much invested.
I would not take a downgrade from 66 to 65. Have other things spend my money on.
There are always going to be coins buyers off the bourse will not like. Learn how to grade and look at coins.
From reading responses, seems some folks are concerned about the stricter grading standards that CAC grading might apply and some downgrading or details grading that might occur. I welcome such as change. Maybe this illustration will help.
Here is an 1884P MS63 Rattler I bot 15 years ago. I paid less than 63 money at the time since it was banged up. Excluding the Rattler, I would have passed and gotten a nicer 63 coin. I do not think it would ever sticker. It is a C coin but no issues other than very baggy for grade.
I would not care if CAC graded it an MS62 'A' coin. I might actually prefer that to the 63, excluding the Rattler's inherent value. I would pay the same for either grade, non-stickered 63 or the new more conservative 62 since I'm buying the coin. The market basically pays more for better coins in any grade and less for those that are not high quality, and always will. CAC's valued opinion and transparency of these lesser quality items will help.
Now I do not participate in the Registry space so maybe folks are concerned about downgrading or grading becoming more conservative. I enjoy my coins and do not have the resources to be competitive. Even though I have complete sets, wouldn't care if my set was #300 or XXX in the Registry.
I don’t disagree your $ may be seen as a low end 63 due to the cheek but IMO that is for people coming in the bourse room to decide and if in my inventory my decision to discount not some outsider. Perhaps your $ is very lustrous and flashy in hand vs some dull tarnished spotted dog.
Everybody has their particular preference. There is nothing new or more conservative about somebody trying force theirs.
I like coins that are brilliant, wellstruck, with nice luster. Breaking coins down to ABC can be very subjective and can vary between individuals. I reject the idea that one person is the God of this process.
The future will tell. CAC may discount the grade but the market may appreciate their lower grade more than the other TPGs. I believe the existing TGS have relaxed and restricted their grading over the last 25 years already, so this is just something else that will be absorbed into pricing. Can be confusing to folks, but there is pricing for PCGS, NGC, ANACs and ICG already, nothing fits perfectly into a pricing guide. The market will dictate pricing for CAC's grading, not the other way around.
No. But it will value a CAC 65 that used to be in an NGC 65 holder with a green sticker the same as a CAC 65 that used to be in a PCGS 65 holder with a green sticker. To that extent it solves the problem.
"We've spared no expense... and passed it on to the submittor"
Whether online or from my table on the bourse /
I price the coin not the holder, raw or slabbed. I am the one who decides my markup, pricing. Certainly items may be discounted based on cost favorability, negotiation, business sales goal, or market conditions. Not a player in the sticker game. Seller of coins and currency from a $1 and up. Both raw and graded. All 4 TPG (although bigger ticket material over $200 PCGS / NGC). US, World, and Currency.
When his graded slabs come out I want to pickup a few see how well they perform in the biz for me / sales demand, cost, profit, procurement.
Has JA been explicit regarding the fate of C coins? Has he differentiated between C coins that he believes have been messed with and C coins that didn't pass for some other reason?
Further, do we know if CAC will look up coins that are crossed to see if they didn't pass, or will these all have a fresh, unbiased evaluation?
No idea. I would think the cost of that research / detailed database would be prohibitive. But yea we gotta root out those C bad guys.
I am more interested in what ones markup factor above CDN bid would be for A B C coins. 100 pct for A, 50 pct for B, 25 pct for C lol? So B $20 Lib $5000 bid would be $7500 retail? Or is that a little aggressive.
I am working on 2 projects in the world arena for graded coins & currency where pricing only a raw Unc number - MS60 is available. Grade premium markup factor and low pop premium markup factor (vs MS60 for example) I can see these 2 combined for an overall muf on an item but what weighting? Even developed model of Sheldon scale with graduated markup factors. Proper retail pricing and realistic valuation the goal.
Don't mind me speculating but I think you'll be in for a nice surprise. Pick a random collector at any level and he wouldn't even have to favor CAC to understand the demand and QA. I think it'll be a Cadillac hopefully attractive, for your customers sake.
But would you choose to pay someone to downgrade your coin? That is part of why grade inflation exists.
How often do you see a post here from someone who just got their coins back from grading who's unhappy because the grades are too high?
Happens all the time with people crossing over NGC to pcgs, accepting lower grades.
Yes, but they don't do it thinking it will downgrade - in most cases.
Enough such results have been reported, that any informed (crossover) submitter knows that a downgrade is a distinct possibility, unless he lists a matching minimum grade.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Of course...but they still show up here and complain.
y will not sticker, and CAC holder company will not holder.
Over the years, I’ve seen far fewer complaints about that than I’d expected.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The interesting thing is to see how many green sticker coins get plus grades when crossed over to the new CAC service. Perhaps that will give us a clue to how many green sticker coins are actually A quality
I know a guy who thinks that every grading disappointment is part of an NGC or PCGS conspiracy against the "little guys".
I've read more than one "It's who you know" posts here when it comes to the grades assigned.
Just sayin'.
@spacehayduke, perhaps you took something personally that wasn't intended. I was addressing my comments broadly at 5 or 6 pages of discussion (some of which was patently ridiculous), not to anything you said. I happen to think you're a wonderful collector with a great eye for quality. I'm actually not trying to be argumentative or sarcastic. Here's my take on your comments.
You're making assumptions that I'm not sure are entirely true:
>
Don't use the premiums between grades from US coinage as a benchmark. It's not a relevant comparison. Also, if Krause is your reference point for MS-60, that's an unreliable source. The prices are mostly (if not entirely) just "made-up".
Paying a big premium for these coins is generically a high-risk proposition because the TPG data almost never reflects the actual scarcity. Knowledgeable collectors know it.
Let’s not forget two things - MOST collectors don’t even know about this forum, and of those that do, there are multitudes more that just read the various posts than actually participate.
On the PCGS Crossover Submission Form, there’s clearly an area where one specifies exactly the worst case grade scenario they’re willing to have the coin crossed at. While some submissions will require a cross at only the same grade (or higher), I think we can agree with @MFeld ’s point that there are plenty of NGC coins crossing to PCGS at a grade lower, that was indicated on the form would be acceptable to the owner. Naturally, those owners want and hope it’ll cross at the same grade or higher, but they’re willing to accept less!
Steve
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
If the market values the new CAC holders the highest & gets the best prices, maybe, I am not into having all coins in 1 holder or trying to upgrade what's already slabbed, I actually prefer albums for my coins.
I was more referring to the example that if I had that coin raw and wanted it slabbed, I would have no problem getting the CAC MS62 lower grade, but now being an 'A' coin, than the other TPGs MS63 grade, esp if the market perceives the CAC grades are more conservative and spot on. Looking at the coin, I don't think it is a good example of 63, and would not have a problem with the 62 grade, being top end for that grade. That is what it is, and think it would get sold at the same relative price in either graded holder. If CAC delivers on its rigorous grading standards in the future, the market would know it is an A example for that grade. CAC slabs might be a benefit to the sight-unseen market since there should be very few dogs. I would never pay strong 63 money for the coin.
I'm not going to read through everything here, but I'm in the camp that believes this venture will not be as profitable or popular as folks think.
Will cac run specials like send us your already graded pcgs and ngc coins for so and so discount? A lot of collectors are somewhat ocd about matching sets and keeping everything in same type holders. This in my opinion is another way to put more money into coins the collector already owns which probably will not increase the value of the coin.
How many truly knowledgeable numismatics here would invest a substantial amount of money in another grading service like this if given the opportunity?
There's nothing wrong with competition though.
I agree. But I'll add what CAC thinks is a problem coin may not be a problem coin for PCGS or NGC.
You shouldn't fret. CAC grading will not straight grade coins with messed with surfaces. They will receive details grades. In analyzing surfaces, CAC grading will be using the same standards as CAC sticking.
Will be interesting when they up and running what dealers / Auction Houses will have the new CAC TPG slabs. Will bidding be fierce, into the stratosphere? How do you see their pricing?
There are too many unknowns right now to make an intelligent informed decision about what to do with the coins you currently have. The market at some point down the road will become efficient and we’ll be able to decide. If CAC grading company coins are valued higher I suspect most folks will attemp to cross if the premium is high enough after grading fees. If a CAC grading company 63 sells for the same amount as a PCGS 64 there really is no financial incentive to cross the PCGS 64 if it was previously sent to CAC and didn’t sticker. Bottom line, there are too many scenarios with too little information that it’s very difficult to speculate now.
The first few hundred CAC Grading Company slabs will be closely tracked and bid to the moon.
I only need three coins for my type set, and have been looking for each of them for quite some time. I'm in no hurry, and I'm not submitting anything to anyone until this thing sorts itself out.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Why roll the dice with the cross game just sell the TPG coins you don’t want to a dealer off the bourse at say 20 pct behind CDN bid or something close can be negotiated. Then U can take that money and go buy CAC slabs.
The dealer that you sell to can then retail your nice PCGS or NGC coin (people walking in bourse room) you blew out who are oblivious to CAC or could care less about CAC nor want pay their price. I would be a buyer (of the PCGS / NGC material) as I have sold out (retailed) all my Classic US coins from the Pandemic till now.
As far as what the CAC slabs will trade for it’s all speculation right now. If we are entering a recesssion in 1st Qtr. Bids could be going down…..Think how certain top college highly touted football teams in preseason went down in flames.
My head hurts,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I wish CAC well with this grading venture.
As one of the 3000 members I imagine I can submit my PCGS/CAC $2.50's to be slabbed by CAC. That is unlikely as I am pleased to slowly assemble a PCGS/CAC only set.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
.> @beboplawyer said:
Hmm... We are not really talking about 'messed with surfaces'. What I mean is 'lightly cleaned long ago' that makes it into a gradable holder with other TPG's that would not make it to being bean worthy. I am in a wait and see after reading the CAC email, announcement, and interpretation here, I can't imagine that CAC as a slabbing company is going to hold the same standards they do as a stickering company. Those here that think they will, I hope you are right, but..............................
HST, I fully plan to test this hypothesis on the standards, I will be first in line to send in CAC rejected coins to CAC for crossover just to see.
Best, SH