Let's be clear for a moment-if that is even possible- can discussions focus on coins instead of the current plastic that coins are housed in? TPG plastic, holders and stickers are going to come and go... Special coins with the look have a look that matters. So it is not about a lively discussion about holders... it is what is within the holder. I don't think that is a difficult concept to grasp.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I don’t do the sticker or holder game (would go broke) or nervous wreck might get lost shipping. Furthermore I buy deals that might have all 4 current TPG’s - Pcgs, NGC, Anacs, ICG.
For me it’s the special look of a coin and it’s potential to sell that opens my wallet.
I would like a project for a table display get 4 generic $ from the 4 above plus CACG as a display. Picking out nice coins. Perhaps 4 for from each TPG and see how they sell cost plus same pct. Then replace as necessary or see which group sells out first. Perhaps all same grade like 63 or 64 or slight mix. Sort of like an arena death match…..
Right now big fan of Mexico 1oz slabbed Silver Libertads / Mostly 69&70. They sell like wildfire from my table, fun to stack.
For me the main interest is how many of the CAC TPG slabs on eBay as of 06/30/23 vs for starters the 4 TPG above? Will I be offered deals on them off bourse, etc. or will they be priced in stratosphere?
How will customers especially average means and less buyers react.
Question. You have an MS 65 type coin. The coin is graded correctly, is NOT market graded, but is from New Orleans and has a weak strike, like many of them do. Otherwise, it's a nice coin for the grade. You sent it to CAC and JA did not sticker it because he said it had a weak strike.
If said coin was sent to the new CAC grading service, would it grade MS 65, or would he downgrade it to MS 64? I can see them downgrading a market graded MS 65 coin but am unclear about the situation above.
Secondly, from what I've read, this new service appears to not do market grading. I personally like it, but it will make many people unhappy for reasons I won't get into further.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
@Cougar1978 , as I believe it's been pointed out previously, eBay has a set of rules before a TPG can be offered on eBay. One of those rules is having at least 50,000 coins graded. While that quantity is graded in short order by PCGS and NGC, I believe it'll take a little bit of time for CAC Grading to get up to that number. As such, your goal of looking at how many are listed on eBay by 6/30/23 may be tight.
More importantly, in my opinion it's not necessarily the quantity available on eBay that determines success and acceptance, but values for comparable coins in comparable grades. I'm not naïve enough to make any predictions on that important matter. Only time will tell (and it may take more time than 6/30/23).
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@Elcontador said:
Question. You have an MS 65 type coin. The coin is graded correctly, is NOT market graded, but is from New Orleans and has a weak strike, like many of them do. Otherwise, it's a nice coin for the grade. You sent it to CAC and JA did not sticker it because he said it had a weak strike.
If said coin was sent to the new CAC grading service, would it grade MS 65, or would he downgrade it to MS 64? I can see them downgrading a market graded MS 65 coin but am unclear about the situation above.
Secondly, from what I've read, this new service appears to not do market grading. I personally like it, but it will make many people unhappy for reasons I won't get into further.
Based on the scenario you described, it’s my understanding that the coin would likely be graded 64+ at the new grading service.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@coinkat said:
Let's be clear for a moment-if that is even possible- can discussions focus on coins instead of the current plastic that coins are housed in? TPG plastic, holders and stickers are going to come and go... Special coins with the look have a look that matters. So it is not about a lively discussion about holders... it is what is within the holder. I don't think that is a difficult concept to grasp.
This thread is clearly about plastic not the coins in them. I think we've been pretty clear about that. Sorry you were expecting something different.
Setting aside all the speculative slab trading that's going to occur, will CAC address the need to conserve every coin before its slabbed in an environmentally air tight holder? Will CAC automatically attribute a coin as an RPM, OMM, DDO, DDR, rarity, when applicable? Will CAC use a tamper resistant RF ID system slab/holder? AND will CAC do the above for the same grading fees or less being charged today?
If CAC can do all of the above, then CAC would truly be the gold standard of the grading business.
@fullstepnickels said:
Setting aside all the speculative slab trading that's going to occur, will CAC address the need to conserve every coin before its slabbed in an environmentally air tight holder? Will CAC automatically attribute a coin as an RPM, OMM, DDO, DDR, rarity, when applicable? Will CAC use a tamper resistant RF ID system slab/holder? AND will CAC do the above for the same grading fees or less being charged today?
If CAC can do all of the above, then CAC would truly be the gold standard of the grading business.
So, you want more for no additional cost and expect CAC to somehow be profitable?
@Elcontador said:
Question. You have an MS 65 type coin. The coin is graded correctly, is NOT market graded, but is from New Orleans and has a weak strike, like many of them do. Otherwise, it's a nice coin for the grade. You sent it to CAC and JA did not sticker it because he said it had a weak strike.
If said coin was sent to the new CAC grading service, would it grade MS 65, or would he downgrade it to MS 64? I can see them downgrading a market graded MS 65 coin but am unclear about the situation above.
Secondly, from what I've read, this new service appears to not do market grading. I personally like it, but it will make many people unhappy for reasons I won't get into further.
Based on the scenario you described, it’s my understanding that the coin would likely be graded 64+ at the new grading service.
Following up on this, the coin that used to be MS65 "C" and is now MS64+ is higher in grade than a current MS64 (even with a sticker), so the old MS64 "A" will be a new MS64 "B". Or will the new MS64+ coins get grouped with the old MS64 "A" coins?
@Elcontador said:
Question. You have an MS 65 type coin. The coin is graded correctly, is NOT market graded, but is from New Orleans and has a weak strike, like many of them do. Otherwise, it's a nice coin for the grade. You sent it to CAC and JA did not sticker it because he said it had a weak strike.
If said coin was sent to the new CAC grading service, would it grade MS 65, or would he downgrade it to MS 64? I can see them downgrading a market graded MS 65 coin but am unclear about the situation above.
Secondly, from what I've read, this new service appears to not do market grading. I personally like it, but it will make many people unhappy for reasons I won't get into further.
Based on the scenario you described, it’s my understanding that the coin would likely be graded 64+ at the new grading service.
Following up on this, the coin that used to be MS65 "C" and is now MS64+ is higher in grade than a current MS64 (even with a sticker), so the old MS64 "A" will be a new MS64 "B". Or will the new MS64+ coins get grouped with the old MS64 "A" coins?
An MS64 coin with a sticker that CAC Grading deems is an “A” coin and not a “B” coin should cross at 64+, (and not stay at just 64). That would then be equivalent to the old defect free 65 “C” coin that would cross to 64+.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
An MS64 coin with a sticker that CAC Grading deems is an “A” coin and not a “B” coin should cross at 64+, (and not stay at just 64). That would then be equivalent to the old defect free 65 “C” coin that would cross to 64+.
But the defect free 65 “C” coin is a higher grade than the MS64 coin with a sticker that CAC Grading deems is an “A” coin. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been considered accurately graded at MS65 while the MS64 coin didn't make that grade. Why would coins that were previously considered different in grade be grouped together in the same grade?
In CAC Gradings eyes those two coins are equivalent with each other, hence the CAC grade of 64+. To answer your question, perhaps it seems like CAC was saying the defect-free 65 C was properly graded by PCGS or NGC with their standards, but in CAC’s opinion, was not solid for the grade. MY sense is CAC wants coins in its holders that are solid for the grade on the label!
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
perhaps it seems like CAC was saying the defect-free 65 C was properly graded by PCGS or NGC with their standards, but in CAC’s opinion, was not solid for the grade.
That's exactly what CAC has been saying- there are coins that are considered to be accurately graded but not solid for the grade. Now, they're saying those coins will not be considered accurately graded. Ok- fine. Whatever.
But... if CAC agrees today that they are accurately graded but not solid for the grade, they are still, by definition, higher in grade than even the best coins in the next lower grade. Going forward, how does one justify grouping them with coins that were previously considered inferior in grade?
@winesteven said:
perhaps it seems like CAC was saying the defect-free 65 C was properly graded by PCGS or NGC with their standards, but in CAC’s opinion, was not solid for the grade.
That's exactly what CAC has been saying- there are coins that are considered to be accurately graded but not solid for the grade. Now, they're saying those coins will not be considered accurately graded. Ok- fine. Whatever.
But... if CAC agrees today that they are accurately graded but not solid for the grade, they are still, by definition, higher in grade than even the best coins in the next lower grade. Going forward, how does one justify grouping them with coins that were previously considered inferior in grade?
It’s a dilemma with no perfect solution.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@winesteven said:
perhaps it seems like CAC was saying the defect-free 65 C was properly graded by PCGS or NGC with their standards, but in CAC’s opinion, was not solid for the grade.
That's exactly what CAC has been saying- there are coins that are considered to be accurately graded but not solid for the grade. Now, they're saying those coins will not be considered accurately graded. Ok- fine. Whatever.
But... if CAC agrees today that they are accurately graded but not solid for the grade, they are still, by definition, higher in grade than even the best coins in the next lower grade. Going forward, how does one justify grouping them with coins that were previously considered inferior in grade?
It’s a dilemma with no perfect solution.
The claim is that coins in each grade are grouped into "A", "B" and "C" categories. Why not just do that (MS65A, MS65B and MS65C) instead of using plusses and dropping coins from their accurately identified grades to a lower one just to pretend that the low end for the grade coins aren't there anymore?
@fullstepnickels said:
Setting aside all the speculative slab trading that's going to occur, will CAC address the need to conserve every coin before its slabbed in an environmentally air tight holder? Will CAC automatically attribute a coin as an RPM, OMM, DDO, DDR, rarity, when applicable? Will CAC use a tamper resistant RF ID system slab/holder? AND will CAC do the above for the same grading fees or less being charged today?
If CAC can do all of the above, then CAC would truly be the gold standard of the grading business.
So, you want more for no additional cost and expect CAC to somehow be profitable?
I am all for a reasonable profit but not at the expense of killing the hobby for non-dealer collectors. It's no longer The Hobby of Kings. It's The Hobby of Dealers.
@MasonG said: The claim is that coins in each grade are grouped into "A", "B" and "C" categories. Why not just do that (MS65A, MS65B and MS65C) instead of using plusses and dropping coins from their accurately identified grades to a lower one just to pretend that the low end for the grade coins aren't there anymore?
Why not just put aside all the fancy BS and just call an MS65-whatever an MS65?? It's all really just marketing BS hype. This all reminds me of the talk 15 years ago when the 100 point scale was being talked about, someone always wants to re-invent the mousetrap.
@winesteven said:
perhaps it seems like CAC was saying the defect-free 65 C was properly graded by PCGS or NGC with their standards, but in CAC’s opinion, was not solid for the grade.
That's exactly what CAC has been saying- there are coins that are considered to be accurately graded but not solid for the grade. Now, they're saying those coins will not be considered accurately graded. Ok- fine. Whatever.
But... if CAC agrees today that they are accurately graded but not solid for the grade, they are still, by definition, higher in grade than even the best coins in the next lower grade. Going forward, how does one justify grouping them with coins that were previously considered inferior in grade?
It’s a dilemma with no perfect solution.
The claim is that coins in each grade are grouped into "A", "B" and "C" categories. Why not just do that (MS65A, MS65B and MS65C) instead of using plusses and dropping coins from their accurately identified grades to a lower one just to pretend that the low end for the grade coins aren't there anymore?
As I understand it, because grading, encapsulating and identifying C coins would be inconsistent with what CAC has been doing for the last 15 years. And it would also stigmatize the C coins.
In the event that you have a question or comment about that, my sight-unseen reply is “It’s a dilemma with no perfect solution”.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@fullstepnickels said:
Setting aside all the speculative slab trading that's going to occur, will CAC address the need to conserve every coin before its slabbed in an environmentally air tight holder? Will CAC automatically attribute a coin as an RPM, OMM, DDO, DDR, rarity, when applicable? Will CAC use a tamper resistant RF ID system slab/holder? AND will CAC do the above for the same grading fees or less being charged today?
If CAC can do all of the above, then CAC would truly be the gold standard of the grading business.
So, you want more for no additional cost and expect CAC to somehow be profitable?
I am all for a reasonable profit but not at the expense of killing the hobby for non-dealer collectors. It's no longer The Hobby of Kings. It's The Hobby of Dealers.
My perception is that CAC Grading and its registries are being set up in ways to NOT hurt, but in so many ways to help collectors.
They’re setting up a Registry that will accept TPG’s from several different TPG’s with or without CAC stickers.
They’re setting up a different Registry that is more restrictive, but WILL fully accept PCGS and NGC coins with CAC stickers. No need to incur the expense to cross these coins to CAC holders to partake in this restrictive Registry.
For those that want to cross to the new CAC holders, it sounds like they are guaranteeing that coins in NGC and PCGS holders with stickers will AUTOMATICALLY cross at the grade on the current holder.
For currently stickered coins in just a whole grade (with no plus), they can cross with a plus if CAC deems the coin is an “A” coin. (Coins with stickers in whole grade numbers are either A or B.)
For collectors with coins that failed to sticker, SOME may like the concept of having that coin in a CAC holder (to remove a perceived stigma) and have a plus grade too in most cases if the coin is defect-free, although it would be at the next lower grade. While many collectors may not want this, some will. Giving collectors a choice that some find acceptable is a good thing!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
Sounds like CAC is going to crest the super-elite, mega-mega-rich guy registry. I can’t imagine trying to go for all snickered coins for some of the bigger type sets without a huge bankroll. You can barely do it as it is now.
The coins exist. Calling them something else doesn't change that.
"If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?"
"Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
Not directed at you, Mark, just addressing the idea that C coins are less desirable. I understand, from a marketing standpoint, collectors don't want low end coins. To be honest though, I hope nobody ever figures a way to convince them that there are none.
@Vasanti said:
Sounds like CAC is going to crest the super-elite, mega-mega-rich guy registry. I can’t imagine trying to go for all snickered coins for some of the bigger type sets without a huge bankroll. You can barely do it as it is now.
And that’s why they will offer BOTH types of Registries, and in each one, there’s no need to incur the expense to cross. Right now PCGS does the same with many sets. For example, they have a 55 coin Indian Head Cent set that accepts coins with and without CAC stickers (and there’s no extra credit for coins in that set with CAC stickers), and a separate CAC composite 55 coin IHC set that requires each coin to have a CAC sticker. So let’s not pick on CAC with this specific issue if it’s OK being done by PCGS. And as noted, like NGC, the new CAC Registries will accept coins holdered by different TPG’s.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@Elcontador said:
Question. You have an MS 65 type coin. The coin is graded correctly, is NOT market graded, but is from New Orleans and has a weak strike, like many of them do. Otherwise, it's a nice coin for the grade. You sent it to CAC and JA did not sticker it because he said it had a weak strike.
If said coin was sent to the new CAC grading service, would it grade MS 65, or would he downgrade it to MS 64? I can see them downgrading a market graded MS 65 coin but am unclear about the situation above.
Secondly, from what I've read, this new service appears to not do market grading. I personally like it, but it will make many people unhappy for reasons I won't get into further.
Based on the scenario you described, it’s my understanding that the coin would likely be graded 64+ at the new grading service.
I would leave as is and price accordingly to move it at positive margin.
Never been fan of weakly struck stuff anyhow. Next to black spots turns off a lot of buyers. I recommend Type investment vs sets where you may have to invest in some inferior specimen.
Ignore the above. I didn’t quote correctly. I’m definitely not criticizing CAC, but the CAC sticker-tier registry will become the rich guy competition arena. That may not be a bad thing.
If new TPG A is grading stricter (taking a step backwards) than established TPG B or C why would players not crack TPG A material send to One of the others get higher grade / make money? Playing the holder game is about winning not losing lol. Be sure put minimum grade on form if trying cross.
@fullstepnickels said:
Setting aside all the speculative slab trading that's going to occur, will CAC address the need to conserve every coin before its slabbed in an environmentally air tight holder? Will CAC automatically attribute a coin as an RPM, OMM, DDO, DDR, rarity, when applicable? Will CAC use a tamper resistant RF ID system slab/holder? AND will CAC do the above for the same grading fees or less being charged today?
If CAC can do all of the above, then CAC would truly be the gold standard of the grading business.
So, you want more for no additional cost and expect CAC to somehow be profitable?
I am all for a reasonable profit but not at the expense of killing the hobby for non-dealer collectors. It's no longer The Hobby of Kings. It's The Hobby of Dealers.
You assume that PCGS and NGC have excessive profits rather than "reasonable". And we're talking certification services not dealers.
Yes many coins have large value differences between grades but this is where an astute, experienced seller prices PQ (A) coins higher, Solid Quality (B) coins in mid range, and C Coins (slightly below average to really low end) at lowest. It could be a cost plus markup or matrix structure. Imo the current system is about as precise as realistically possible. Adding ABC to grades would create a subjective mess.
Say your pricing a group of 50 world coins you bought for $50 or a dollar each. To keep it simple - You might separate into 2 groups based on attractiveness - pricing the top 50 pct cost plus 100 pct, the lower group cost plus 50 pct.
@Cougar1978 said:
If new TPG A is grading stricter (taking a step backwards) than established TPG B or C why would players not crack TPG A material send to One of the others get higher grade / make money? Playing the holder game is about winning not losing lol. Be sure put minimum grade on form if trying cross.
This is very likely to happen, and It will be more prevalent among the non “legacy” slabs which indicate a coin was slabbed in the next grade up with the prior tpg. For this reason, I expect that the value of a cac 64+ Is going to be very close to a non stickered 65 in another tpg. With so many people targeting them, there will be no bargains on + coins.
I do like his idea of a TPG (vs the stickers) and phasing out the sticker thing. He already has the pricing system setup for his slabs via CDN CPG for CAC. With the TPG he can take that synergy and move forward.
I believe he will be swamped with submissions for his TPG. I look forward seeing his slabbed material on the bourse or online and plan buy some. His slabbed material on the bourse / online will open up his brand to people who aren’t generally or large submitters to a TPG.
@winesteven said:
perhaps it seems like CAC was saying the defect-free 65 C was properly graded by PCGS or NGC with their standards, but in CAC’s opinion, was not solid for the grade.
That's exactly what CAC has been saying- there are coins that are considered to be accurately graded but not solid for the grade. Now, they're saying those coins will not be considered accurately graded. Ok- fine. Whatever.
But... if CAC agrees today that they are accurately graded but not solid for the grade, they are still, by definition, higher in grade than even the best coins in the next lower grade. Going forward, how does one justify grouping them with coins that were previously considered inferior in grade?
It’s a dilemma with no perfect solution.
The claim is that coins in each grade are grouped into "A", "B" and "C" categories. Why not just do that (MS65A, MS65B and MS65C) instead of using plusses and dropping coins from their accurately identified grades to a lower one just to pretend that the low end for the grade coins aren't there anymore?
As I understand it, because grading, encapsulating and identifying C coins would be inconsistent with what CAC has been doing for the last 15 years. And it would also stigmatize the C coins.
In the event that you have a question or comment about that, my sight-unseen reply is “It’s a dilemma with no perfect solution”.😉
It does, however, have a logical solution, as MasonG has suggested. I find this entire discussion fascinating.
@MasonG said: The claim is that coins in each grade are grouped into "A", "B" and "C" categories. Why not just do that (MS65A, MS65B and MS65C) instead of using plusses and dropping coins from their accurately identified grades to a lower one just to pretend that the low end for the grade coins aren't there anymore?
I reject the idea of ABC being designated on the TPG holder for reasons stated above and mess it would create in a very subjective area. Furthermore it’s not consistent with decades of TPG grading. Nor would every TPG agree to such.
For me it’s an area where one discerns on their own in procurement / pricing. Knowing how to grade and look at coins is an area one needs to take responsibility in. Also a knowledge of what can sell and can’t from years on the bourse (experience) is critical.
Everybody has their concept of PQ. It’s highly subjective and can vary. For me a noticeable scratch on the cheek especially of a slabbed MS64+ Gold $20 Coin is a deal breaker. For others it might not be. It’s nothing personal or against them it’s simply my execution of business practice based on experience.
@Cougar1978 said:
I reject the idea of ABC being designated on the TPG holder for reasons stated above and mess it would create in a very subjective area. Furthermore it’s not consistent with decades of TPG grading. Nor would every TPG agree to such.
For me it’s an area where one discerns on their own in procurement / pricing. Knowing how to grade and look at coins is an area one needs to take responsibility in. Also a knowledge of what can sell and can’t from years on the bourse (experience) is critical.
Everybody has their concept of PQ. It’s highly subjective and can vary. For me a noticeable scratch on the cheek especially of a slabbed MS64+ Gold $20 Coin is a deal breaker. For others it might not be. It’s nothing personal or against them it’s simply my execution of business practice based on experience.
TPGing was supposed to take the guesswork out of grading and pricing a coin for the novice collector. The plus, star and CAC sticker was supposed to take additional guesswork out of. The equation but the question you ask is valid, at what point does the buyer take ownership of the decision to buy a coin at a particular price. Does adding another TPG do that or does it further complicate the issue? I understood CAC as a 2nd set of eyes regarding a grade given by PCGS and NGC but I'm not sold on it as a third major grading service. Time will tell.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@Elcontador said:
Question. You have an MS 65 type coin. The coin is graded correctly, is NOT market graded, but is from New Orleans and has a weak strike, like many of them do. Otherwise, it's a nice coin for the grade. You sent it to CAC and JA did not sticker it because he said it had a weak strike.
If said coin was sent to the new CAC grading service, would it grade MS 65, or would he downgrade it to MS 64? I can see them downgrading a market graded MS 65 coin but am unclear about the situation above.
Secondly, from what I've read, this new service appears to not do market grading. I personally like it, but it will make many people unhappy for reasons I won't get into further.
Based on the scenario you described, it’s my understanding that the coin would likely be graded 64+ at the new grading service.
I would leave as is and price accordingly to move it at positive margin.
Never been fan of weakly struck stuff anyhow. Next to black spots turns off a lot of buyers. I recommend Type investment vs sets where you may have to invest in some inferior specimen.
Here's the problem. If you don't like weakly struck coins, you can forget about collecting most coins from the New Orleans mint. Note that the powers that be gave Unc. CC Morgans between 1/2 and 3/4 point leeway for bag marks due to their being transported by stagecoach to San Francisco. I see an inconsistency here.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
It is not about weakly struck coins or the hobby of Kings or Dealers... It is about plastic and how plastic is going to control the perception of how a coin should or should not be accepted by the collecting community. The sad news is simply that most will point to the plastic and what is on it instead of what is in it.
So why is it so essential that there be such an obsessive discussion about plastic when plastic is simply an opinion that can and often does change over time? Does any of what has been discussed in this thread contribute to making collecting coins a more compelling hobby to pursue?
I think most of you know the answer even though you may not like it.
Best wishes in your numismatic pursuits.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@coinkat said:
It is not about weakly struck coins or the hobby of Kings or Dealers... It is about plastic and how plastic is going to control the perception of how a coin should or should not be accepted by the collecting community. The sad news is simply that most will point to the plastic and what is on it instead of what is in it.
So why is it so essential that there be such an obsessive discussion about plastic when plastic is simply an opinion that can and often does change over time? Does any of what has been discussed in this thread contribute to making collecting coins a more compelling hobby to pursue?
I think most of you know the answer even though you may not like it.
Best wishes in your numismatic pursuits.
The continuing commoditization of coin collecting is not inherently bad. I believe that it makes the hobby accessible for collectors with more humble means.
Obviously for many of individuals on this message board, myself included, our passion for the hobby is driven by more than a number on a slab of plastic, but you need to have an entrance into the hobby to get to that point. If your first foray into collecting ends up with you getting fleeced on problem coins, you may not stick around.
I did the same. Anyone who has created this many alts and posted a similar message so many times, must have struck out in his attempts at getting his coins stickered.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Spivack said:
It's just staggering to me the level of ignorance required and displayed by all the "collectors" here that are too blind to see the completely obvious financial greed-based puppeteers behind the creation of the charade of CAC and this lame addition to third party grading. Why would PCGS promote and support CAC from square one? Helloooooo!!!
JA is a greasy used car salesman. A puppet. A front. Watch his interview by his buddy. He's got a tron of class....and it's all low.
This is all so freakin' stupid. Suckers unite!
That post certainly falls within the thread parameters of 'a lively discussion' and everyone is entitled to their opinion IMO.
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
@thebigeng said:
Is it possible that with now three "top tier" grading services ( assuming CAC will be one of course ) the coin market will become diluted and confusing to some? Meaning they wont know what to buy so they might not buy at all.
They won't buy at all if they don't like what they buy enough and are losing "noticeable" money. That's my opinion of most collectors with any "meaningful" outlay in their collection and has been for a long time. It's not a high likely outcome in a strong market (like now) but is in an (extended) weak one.
Will it improved grading at all services or will it just make it more difficult to price coins and sell them.? Will there by three columns on the graysheet?
Grading is an opinion, not science. The extent to which it will change market perception is (IMO) entirely a function of improved or differences in marketability. It doesn't have anything to do with collecting.
I have always liked it when 4 PCGS graders and then 4 CAC graders look at my coin that I bought raw (and submitted) and I get a good grade and then a sticker! I feel like I picked a good one that four pros agree with me.
Yes, you succinctly summarized my main point. The coin doesn't change. I received a difficult to find (actually very scarce to rare) coin in the mail yesterday. I bought it ungraded and asked the seller to have it graded under the agreement to keep it as long as it came back authentic.
It came back AU "details", consistent with the price I paid. I'd still prefer if it came back in a numerically graded holder.
seems being a simple collector i buy the coin not caring if the coin has this sticker or that on it or what grade or even what company and marking gimmicks i have seen many in my life, none have really even interested me into trying them
i buy cause of two major factors
one -useful down the road sometime
two -i like whatever it is
that is how i have done biz since 2003 when i started collecting and have kept that idea for over 17 yrs and will keep on doing that
Players need to take responsibility in selecting items for their investment by upgrading their grading skills and knowledge of the marketplace. I would suggest the ANA grading course and subscription to a publication like CW or NN.
Numismatic investment is risky and the higher an item is investment wise the more the risk. Getting out and going to coin shows allows sight seen buying and a good experience. Stay on a sane budget and keep overhead costs to a minimum. Remember at some point in time a coin may go bad in the holder due to reaction with the atmosphere - a good knowledge of coin preservation is a plus.
There are numerous other numismatic collecting areas besides US Classic Coins (which can be very expensive and can have various issues) that offer potential - One needs to find their own direction / work their angle.
Comments
The real question is:
Will PCGS sticker the CAC slabs?
BHNC #203
Let's be clear for a moment-if that is even possible- can discussions focus on coins instead of the current plastic that coins are housed in? TPG plastic, holders and stickers are going to come and go... Special coins with the look have a look that matters. So it is not about a lively discussion about holders... it is what is within the holder. I don't think that is a difficult concept to grasp.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I don’t do the sticker or holder game (would go broke) or nervous wreck might get lost shipping. Furthermore I buy deals that might have all 4 current TPG’s - Pcgs, NGC, Anacs, ICG.
For me it’s the special look of a coin and it’s potential to sell that opens my wallet.
I would like a project for a table display get 4 generic $ from the 4 above plus CACG as a display. Picking out nice coins. Perhaps 4 for from each TPG and see how they sell cost plus same pct. Then replace as necessary or see which group sells out first. Perhaps all same grade like 63 or 64 or slight mix. Sort of like an arena death match…..
Right now big fan of Mexico 1oz slabbed Silver Libertads / Mostly 69&70. They sell like wildfire from my table, fun to stack.
For me the main interest is how many of the CAC TPG slabs on eBay as of 06/30/23 vs for starters the 4 TPG above? Will I be offered deals on them off bourse, etc. or will they be priced in stratosphere?
How will customers especially average means and less buyers react.
Question. You have an MS 65 type coin. The coin is graded correctly, is NOT market graded, but is from New Orleans and has a weak strike, like many of them do. Otherwise, it's a nice coin for the grade. You sent it to CAC and JA did not sticker it because he said it had a weak strike.
If said coin was sent to the new CAC grading service, would it grade MS 65, or would he downgrade it to MS 64? I can see them downgrading a market graded MS 65 coin but am unclear about the situation above.
Secondly, from what I've read, this new service appears to not do market grading. I personally like it, but it will make many people unhappy for reasons I won't get into further.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
@Cougar1978 , as I believe it's been pointed out previously, eBay has a set of rules before a TPG can be offered on eBay. One of those rules is having at least 50,000 coins graded. While that quantity is graded in short order by PCGS and NGC, I believe it'll take a little bit of time for CAC Grading to get up to that number. As such, your goal of looking at how many are listed on eBay by 6/30/23 may be tight.
More importantly, in my opinion it's not necessarily the quantity available on eBay that determines success and acceptance, but values for comparable coins in comparable grades. I'm not naïve enough to make any predictions on that important matter. Only time will tell (and it may take more time than 6/30/23).
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
Based on the scenario you described, it’s my understanding that the coin would likely be graded 64+ at the new grading service.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This thread is clearly about plastic not the coins in them. I think we've been pretty clear about that. Sorry you were expecting something different.
Setting aside all the speculative slab trading that's going to occur, will CAC address the need to conserve every coin before its slabbed in an environmentally air tight holder? Will CAC automatically attribute a coin as an RPM, OMM, DDO, DDR, rarity, when applicable? Will CAC use a tamper resistant RF ID system slab/holder? AND will CAC do the above for the same grading fees or less being charged today?
If CAC can do all of the above, then CAC would truly be the gold standard of the grading business.
So, you want more for no additional cost and expect CAC to somehow be profitable?
Following up on this, the coin that used to be MS65 "C" and is now MS64+ is higher in grade than a current MS64 (even with a sticker), so the old MS64 "A" will be a new MS64 "B". Or will the new MS64+ coins get grouped with the old MS64 "A" coins?
An MS64 coin with a sticker that CAC Grading deems is an “A” coin and not a “B” coin should cross at 64+, (and not stay at just 64). That would then be equivalent to the old defect free 65 “C” coin that would cross to 64+.
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
But the defect free 65 “C” coin is a higher grade than the MS64 coin with a sticker that CAC Grading deems is an “A” coin. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been considered accurately graded at MS65 while the MS64 coin didn't make that grade. Why would coins that were previously considered different in grade be grouped together in the same grade?
In CAC Gradings eyes those two coins are equivalent with each other, hence the CAC grade of 64+. To answer your question, perhaps it seems like CAC was saying the defect-free 65 C was properly graded by PCGS or NGC with their standards, but in CAC’s opinion, was not solid for the grade. MY sense is CAC wants coins in its holders that are solid for the grade on the label!
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's exactly what CAC has been saying- there are coins that are considered to be accurately graded but not solid for the grade. Now, they're saying those coins will not be considered accurately graded. Ok- fine. Whatever.
But... if CAC agrees today that they are accurately graded but not solid for the grade, they are still, by definition, higher in grade than even the best coins in the next lower grade. Going forward, how does one justify grouping them with coins that were previously considered inferior in grade?
It’s a dilemma with no perfect solution.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The claim is that coins in each grade are grouped into "A", "B" and "C" categories. Why not just do that (MS65A, MS65B and MS65C) instead of using plusses and dropping coins from their accurately identified grades to a lower one just to pretend that the low end for the grade coins aren't there anymore?
I am all for a reasonable profit but not at the expense of killing the hobby for non-dealer collectors. It's no longer The Hobby of Kings. It's The Hobby of Dealers.
@MasonG said: The claim is that coins in each grade are grouped into "A", "B" and "C" categories. Why not just do that (MS65A, MS65B and MS65C) instead of using plusses and dropping coins from their accurately identified grades to a lower one just to pretend that the low end for the grade coins aren't there anymore?
Why not just put aside all the fancy BS and just call an MS65-whatever an MS65?? It's all really just marketing BS hype. This all reminds me of the talk 15 years ago when the 100 point scale was being talked about, someone always wants to re-invent the mousetrap.
As I understand it, because grading, encapsulating and identifying C coins would be inconsistent with what CAC has been doing for the last 15 years. And it would also stigmatize the C coins.
In the event that you have a question or comment about that, my sight-unseen reply is “It’s a dilemma with no perfect solution”.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
My perception is that CAC Grading and its registries are being set up in ways to NOT hurt, but in so many ways to help collectors.
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
Sounds like CAC is going to crest the super-elite, mega-mega-rich guy registry. I can’t imagine trying to go for all snickered coins for some of the bigger type sets without a huge bankroll. You can barely do it as it is now.
"And it would also stigmatize the C coins."
The coins exist. Calling them something else doesn't change that.
"If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?"
"Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
Not directed at you, Mark, just addressing the idea that C coins are less desirable. I understand, from a marketing standpoint, collectors don't want low end coins. To be honest though, I hope nobody ever figures a way to convince them that there are none.
When the price spread between grades becomes large enough, it makes sense (to both buyers and sellers) to be more precise with grades.
And that’s why they will offer BOTH types of Registries, and in each one, there’s no need to incur the expense to cross. Right now PCGS does the same with many sets. For example, they have a 55 coin Indian Head Cent set that accepts coins with and without CAC stickers (and there’s no extra credit for coins in that set with CAC stickers), and a separate CAC composite 55 coin IHC set that requires each coin to have a CAC sticker. So let’s not pick on CAC with this specific issue if it’s OK being done by PCGS. And as noted, like NGC, the new CAC Registries will accept coins holdered by different TPG’s.
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
Double post.
I would leave as is and price accordingly to move it at positive margin.
Never been fan of weakly struck stuff anyhow. Next to black spots turns off a lot of buyers. I recommend Type investment vs sets where you may have to invest in some inferior specimen.
Ignore the above. I didn’t quote correctly. I’m definitely not criticizing CAC, but the CAC sticker-tier registry will become the rich guy competition arena. That may not be a bad thing.
If new TPG A is grading stricter (taking a step backwards) than established TPG B or C why would players not crack TPG A material send to One of the others get higher grade / make money? Playing the holder game is about winning not losing lol. Be sure put minimum grade on form if trying cross.
You assume that PCGS and NGC have excessive profits rather than "reasonable". And we're talking certification services not dealers.
Yes many coins have large value differences between grades but this is where an astute, experienced seller prices PQ (A) coins higher, Solid Quality (B) coins in mid range, and C Coins (slightly below average to really low end) at lowest. It could be a cost plus markup or matrix structure. Imo the current system is about as precise as realistically possible. Adding ABC to grades would create a subjective mess.
Say your pricing a group of 50 world coins you bought for $50 or a dollar each. To keep it simple - You might separate into 2 groups based on attractiveness - pricing the top 50 pct cost plus 100 pct, the lower group cost plus 50 pct.
.
@MasonG said: When the price spread between grades becomes large enough, it makes sense (to both buyers and sellers) to be more precise with grades.
Not to me.
When I was heavy into grading cards, I would have a PSA 10 stack, a BGS 9.5 stack, and on rarest occasions a card so sweet it might go BGS 10
Hard to put into a post, but I cannot grade to ANACS, IGC, or NGC standards but I got a pretty good idea how PCGS will grade a coin.
Most of my mistakes are not being ruthless enough in my selection process.
Guess the crackout gamers will go into over drive.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
They do not.
This is very likely to happen, and It will be more prevalent among the non “legacy” slabs which indicate a coin was slabbed in the next grade up with the prior tpg. For this reason, I expect that the value of a cac 64+ Is going to be very close to a non stickered 65 in another tpg. With so many people targeting them, there will be no bargains on + coins.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I do like his idea of a TPG (vs the stickers) and phasing out the sticker thing. He already has the pricing system setup for his slabs via CDN CPG for CAC. With the TPG he can take that synergy and move forward.
I believe he will be swamped with submissions for his TPG. I look forward seeing his slabbed material on the bourse or online and plan buy some. His slabbed material on the bourse / online will open up his brand to people who aren’t generally or large submitters to a TPG.
It does, however, have a logical solution, as MasonG has suggested. I find this entire discussion fascinating.
@MasonG said: The claim is that coins in each grade are grouped into "A", "B" and "C" categories. Why not just do that (MS65A, MS65B and MS65C) instead of using plusses and dropping coins from their accurately identified grades to a lower one just to pretend that the low end for the grade coins aren't there anymore?
Tom
I reject the idea of ABC being designated on the TPG holder for reasons stated above and mess it would create in a very subjective area. Furthermore it’s not consistent with decades of TPG grading. Nor would every TPG agree to such.
For me it’s an area where one discerns on their own in procurement / pricing. Knowing how to grade and look at coins is an area one needs to take responsibility in. Also a knowledge of what can sell and can’t from years on the bourse (experience) is critical.
Everybody has their concept of PQ. It’s highly subjective and can vary. For me a noticeable scratch on the cheek especially of a slabbed MS64+ Gold $20 Coin is a deal breaker. For others it might not be. It’s nothing personal or against them it’s simply my execution of business practice based on experience.
TPGing was supposed to take the guesswork out of grading and pricing a coin for the novice collector. The plus, star and CAC sticker was supposed to take additional guesswork out of. The equation but the question you ask is valid, at what point does the buyer take ownership of the decision to buy a coin at a particular price. Does adding another TPG do that or does it further complicate the issue? I understood CAC as a 2nd set of eyes regarding a grade given by PCGS and NGC but I'm not sold on it as a third major grading service. Time will tell.
Here's the problem. If you don't like weakly struck coins, you can forget about collecting most coins from the New Orleans mint. Note that the powers that be gave Unc. CC Morgans between 1/2 and 3/4 point leeway for bag marks due to their being transported by stagecoach to San Francisco. I see an inconsistency here.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
It is not about weakly struck coins or the hobby of Kings or Dealers... It is about plastic and how plastic is going to control the perception of how a coin should or should not be accepted by the collecting community. The sad news is simply that most will point to the plastic and what is on it instead of what is in it.
So why is it so essential that there be such an obsessive discussion about plastic when plastic is simply an opinion that can and often does change over time? Does any of what has been discussed in this thread contribute to making collecting coins a more compelling hobby to pursue?
I think most of you know the answer even though you may not like it.
Best wishes in your numismatic pursuits.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Troll reported
The continuing commoditization of coin collecting is not inherently bad. I believe that it makes the hobby accessible for collectors with more humble means.
Obviously for many of individuals on this message board, myself included, our passion for the hobby is driven by more than a number on a slab of plastic, but you need to have an entrance into the hobby to get to that point. If your first foray into collecting ends up with you getting fleeced on problem coins, you may not stick around.
I did the same. Anyone who has created this many alts and posted a similar message so many times, must have struck out in his attempts at getting his coins stickered.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That post certainly falls within the thread parameters of 'a lively discussion' and everyone is entitled to their opinion IMO.
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
Unbelievable! I hope the mod's remove @Spivack's venomous post because his words are slanderous, offensive, and untrue.
They won't buy at all if they don't like what they buy enough and are losing "noticeable" money. That's my opinion of most collectors with any "meaningful" outlay in their collection and has been for a long time. It's not a high likely outcome in a strong market (like now) but is in an (extended) weak one.
Grading is an opinion, not science. The extent to which it will change market perception is (IMO) entirely a function of improved or differences in marketability. It doesn't have anything to do with collecting.
Someone either likes what they buy enough or they don't. In this context, it's overwhelmingly due to the buyer's perception of the financial result.
Yes, you succinctly summarized my main point. The coin doesn't change. I received a difficult to find (actually very scarce to rare) coin in the mail yesterday. I bought it ungraded and asked the seller to have it graded under the agreement to keep it as long as it came back authentic.
It came back AU "details", consistent with the price I paid. I'd still prefer if it came back in a numerically graded holder.
seems being a simple collector i buy the coin not caring if the coin has this sticker or that on it or what grade or even what company and marking gimmicks i have seen many in my life, none have really even interested me into trying them
i buy cause of two major factors
one -useful down the road sometime
two -i like whatever it is
that is how i have done biz since 2003 when i started collecting and have kept that idea for over 17 yrs and will keep on doing that
shut up or put up i care little
Players need to take responsibility in selecting items for their investment by upgrading their grading skills and knowledge of the marketplace. I would suggest the ANA grading course and subscription to a publication like CW or NN.
Numismatic investment is risky and the higher an item is investment wise the more the risk. Getting out and going to coin shows allows sight seen buying and a good experience. Stay on a sane budget and keep overhead costs to a minimum. Remember at some point in time a coin may go bad in the holder due to reaction with the atmosphere - a good knowledge of coin preservation is a plus.
There are numerous other numismatic collecting areas besides US Classic Coins (which can be very expensive and can have various issues) that offer potential - One needs to find their own direction / work their angle.
Didn't NGC carry an early premium above PCGS at one point in the historical arc of major TPG's?
The CAC resume is indeed impressive.
Nothing changes...
Collectors pay higher costs... check
Dealers do dealer stuff and work on thin margins... check
Crack outs churn $$$ ... check
I stay in my lane, work on my hobby skills, and work my niches.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out