Perhaps I misunderstand @Cougar1978 's question, or a lot of other people here do. I think it is rare for a knowledgeable collector to pay a premium for a sticker, or a slab for that matter, but if it's true that a lot of the premium coins have stickers it would be foolish not to pay a strong price just because one doesn't like "the sticker game."
So I interpreted the question as "What is the biggest premium you've paid for a superior coin that happened to be in a CAC holder?" not "What is the most you've paid for a coin with a sticker over what you would have paid for the exact same coin without a sticker?"
It's much the same as asking what you would pay for a [insert grading service here] MS 66 compared to its MS 65 of a particular date and series compared to asking what premium you would pay for a coin over MS 65 that was graded MS 66 on its 26th trip through the process.
I see CAC as an extra validation that I coin I like is recognized as quality. At the price points of coins I typically collect, it also is insurance that when it comes time to sell (and some coins do turnover in my collection occasionally), I know the market will be receptive for my coin.
I've made my own CAC coins and had a few rejected. It can be expensive to play that exercise (rejected coins resold) if one prefers CAC coins in one's collection. Better to just buy it already certified if that is one's preference.
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@telephoto1 said: it was for my 1916 PO 01 SLQ and did not mind forking out the 25% premium for the green sticker as a reaffirmation that it was indeed a 1916.
Isn't that why people slab rare dates in the first place? To reaffirm it's a rare date?
Not exactly so in this case because it was a dateless SLQ and the bean reaffirmation helps.
New to the discussion...
It takes time to acquire the grading skills and eye to appraise our federal coinage. If the bean gives one a general nudge in the right direction, I'm willing to pay a premium.
Have a few but not intentional. Just so happened to have the crappy sticker on the slab when I purchased. Paid not a cent more than I would of for any other coin at the slabbed grade. RGDS!
I put 0% but that might not be exactly true. I paid “full retail” for a 1945 Micro S Merc that has a sticker. Don’t know if I’ve paid full retail for much anything else. Love the coin. Got it on GC and the sticker did help me since so couldn’t see it in hand.
For uber eye appeal bust quarters, 2x retail price happens and I have been on the buying side of these. Usually at auction, where a bunch of folks want the eye candy so bidding can go crazy.
So at this point only 18% respondents paid 50 pct or higher. Close to 50% of respondents at zero. 13% at 100 pct or more. Certainly on scarce highly valued material bidding competitive.
I think you’re misinterpreting the results of your “poll”. If a coin is nice collectors will pay a premium for it regardless of sticker status. It’s also such that a disproportionate number of nicer coins have a sticker.
I don’t think you understand my concept here. Beyond that take it up with the other respondents. A good number of them paid 100 pct and higher which would be par for a bid war especially bidders with lots of pocket.
I launched the poll out of curiosity.
I am simply analyzing empirical data. I don’t doubt people will pay more for PQ material and I have myself. Frankly I thought the numbers (premium over non CAC CPG amount) would be higher.
I do think the scarce, rare, really PQ stuff can bring premium in stratosphere. Especially CAC better dates / low pop.
As a guideline for me I would certainly bid / pay the CDN CAC number. If millionaire would want put together CAC $5 Indian Set MS64 or higher. Then upgrade over time.
Maybe the question is how much would you pay for the same coin with and without a sticker?
It would be interesting to post a picture of a PQ slabbed coin without a bean and take a poll on how much people would pay and then take another separate poll posting a picture of the same slabbed coin with a bean and see what people would pay.
I’m sure someone here versed in data science and stats could design a good study.
The CDN lays out in CPG for CAC and non CAC. Scarce, rare, higher MV, high demand material can have a larger CAC premium / bidding. I look at CPG and take a look at auction data. It is a neat data source to have. One can look at the individual coins in the auc data.
I got this in 2018 before the CAC price was in the gray sheet, at the time sheet was 2,000 and I got it for 1,750
I guess that’s a <12.5%> premium.
(If I did that math correctly)
It surprises me how many seem to strongly dislike cac. I'm curious the percentage of those who dislike cac versus when tpgs services came to fruition if this is the same crowd. I can imagine many who aren't fans of cac were also not fans of slabs in general. Please opine as both have always been a thing as long as I've collected.
@dollarfan said:
Please opine as both have always been a thing as long as I've collected.
Some (not all) of those who are good graders don't like CAC (and before that, slabs) because those things help identify better coins and make it harder to cherrypick a choice/gem coin from a less informed seller who doesn't recognize what he has.
@dollarfan said:
It surprises me how many seem to strongly dislike cac. I'm curious the percentage of those who dislike cac versus when tpgs services came to fruition if this is the same crowd. I can imagine many who aren't fans of cac were also not fans of slabs in general. Please opine as both have always been a thing as long as I've collected.
People who are dissatisfied will be more vocal than those who are satisfied. As such, they receive more attention than deserved.
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Paid $8250 for a MS65 Commem, CAC gold, with a price guide value of $390.
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose.
The 1909 $5 above PCGs 64 CAC Indian $3380 CPG MV non CAC / $4050 CAC CPG MV above. You did really well. What a really nice coin. I define CAC premium as difference between the 2 numbers above which in that case $670. I believe well off players will pay that but as far as the person of average means that’s 2-3 mo food bill. As far as finding one at bid forget it - those coins are in strong hands.
It also depends on if its a green sticker or gold. I have a gold CAC coin that IMO is clearly undergraded, but if you assume it would go up one grade, I still paid more than double the standard price of what it would go for if graded up, and even if it managed to go 2 grades up, I paid more than the standard price for it. No regrets, love the coin.
Asheland - you don't need a picture of an NGC 1.0 holder - - you know them!
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose.
No don’t believe dealers will tell u how much for sticker. They may have paid thru nose for it then marked up coin cost plus. Or it could be on consignment. But you can check CDN CPG and see both sticker MV and non sticker MV and decide from there.
Here you go Catbert. I've been told that this has the most stunning toning on an Oregon known - certainly I have not seen one like it. My image does not do it justice. The surfaces are pretty close to flawless too - the luster is what holds it back from a 66 or 67. The good news is that it went for 5x PCGS retail (actually 4.38x) some time back in auction so I guess what I paid for it was justified.....
Here is the auction description:
1926-S Oregon Trail Memorial. MS-65 (PCGS).
Silver commems with the eye appeal and technical quality that this Oregon Half possesses are anything but common in today's market. Both sides are beautifully toned around the peripheries in vivid turquoise-blue, orange-russet, and (over the lower reverse) emerald-green colors. The centers shine forth with undisturbed brilliance, and all areas are bathed in shimmering mint luster. In addition to the toning, the surfaces are also of premium quality due to an overall pristine look to the features. A coin that is sure to command a large premium at auction.
@spacehayduke said:
Here you go Catbert. I've been told that this has the most stunning toning on an Oregon known - certainly I have not seen one like it. My image does not do it justice. The surfaces are pretty close to flawless too - the luster is what holds it back from a 66 or 67. The good news is that it went for 5x PCGS retail some time back in auction so I guess what I paid for it was justified.....
Sorry, but based on the images, I disagree on two counts.
As attractive as the coin appears, I’ve seen many Oregons with even more appealing toning. And the luster looks to be more than adequate for a higher grade. So my guess is that something else held it back (or that it was simply under-graded).
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said:
Sorry, but based on the images, I disagree on two counts.
As attractive as the coin appears, I’ve seen many Oregons with even more appealing toning. And the luster looks to be more than adequate for a higher grade. So my guess is that something else held it back (or that it was simply under-graded).
The bean was added after I bought it. I expected a gold one but apparently CAC did not think so. In hand the luster does not explode like I have seen on Oregon's in 67 holders, so that I my thinking there bc the surfaces show nary a hit - just a few that are very hard to find/see. If you have seen Oregon's with even more appealing toning I would like to see them - I have not. No doubt they are out there.
@MFeld said:
Sorry, but based on the images, I disagree on two counts.
As attractive as the coin appears, I’ve seen many Oregons with even more appealing toning. And the luster looks to be more than adequate for a higher grade. So my guess is that something else held it back (or that it was simply under-graded).
I just did a search in the Auction Archives at HA. Not a single Oregon has the classic ringed color progression shown on mine with the deep blues on the rim going to orange etc. in that archive of 100's of Oregons. There are some very very pretty toned coins and most of these are 67-68 and go for multiples of my Oregon but none of them have the classic progression shown on mine. Many are stunning, agree, and I bet all of them have much better luster hence the higher grades. Toning as we know is something where 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' or not. Some of the higher grade ones have some ringed toning but not as strong, but combined with their likely better luster, certainly stunners. Not a single 65 is anywhere near mine in terms of toning eye appeal that I could see in the archive and there are 2,400 in 65.............
You've convinced me that I need to send this to CACG when they open and see if it upgrades......
@MFeld said:
Sorry, but based on the images, I disagree on two counts.
As attractive as the coin appears, I’ve seen many Oregons with even more appealing toning. And the luster looks to be more than adequate for a higher grade. So my guess is that something else held it back (or that it was simply under-graded).
The bean was added after I bought it. I expected a gold one but apparently CAC did not think so. In hand the luster does not explode like I have seen on Oregon's in 67 holders, so that I my thinking there bc the surfaces show nary a hit - just a few that are very hard to find/see. If you have seen Oregon's with even more appealing toning I would like to see them - I have not. No doubt they are out there.
Best, SH
There are a lot of Oregons graded higher than 65 with noticeably less luster than yours appear to have.
Here’s one that I feel has more appealing toning, though granted, it’s graded a bit higher.😉
Comments
Perhaps I misunderstand @Cougar1978 's question, or a lot of other people here do. I think it is rare for a knowledgeable collector to pay a premium for a sticker, or a slab for that matter, but if it's true that a lot of the premium coins have stickers it would be foolish not to pay a strong price just because one doesn't like "the sticker game."
So I interpreted the question as "What is the biggest premium you've paid for a superior coin that happened to be in a CAC holder?" not "What is the most you've paid for a coin with a sticker over what you would have paid for the exact same coin without a sticker?"
It's much the same as asking what you would pay for a [insert grading service here] MS 66 compared to its MS 65 of a particular date and series compared to asking what premium you would pay for a coin over MS 65 that was graded MS 66 on its 26th trip through the process.
I know my answers would be different.
I see CAC as an extra validation that I coin I like is recognized as quality. At the price points of coins I typically collect, it also is insurance that when it comes time to sell (and some coins do turnover in my collection occasionally), I know the market will be receptive for my coin.
I've made my own CAC coins and had a few rejected. It can be expensive to play that exercise (rejected coins resold) if one prefers CAC coins in one's collection. Better to just buy it already certified if that is one's preference.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
JA & I don't agree on how Saints should be graded.
His opinion means 0%
My Saint Set
0.0000000 %
I pay premiums for nice coins, not for stickers or labels.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
it was for my 1916 PO 01 SLQ and did not mind forking out the 25% premium for the green sticker as a reaffirmation that it was indeed a 1916.
Isn't that why people slab rare dates in the first place? To reaffirm it's a rare date?
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Not exactly so in this case because it was a dateless SLQ and the bean reaffirmation helps.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/13339395#Comment_13339395
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/quarters/PCGS-2020-quarter-quest/album/247091
New to the discussion...
It takes time to acquire the grading skills and eye to appraise our federal coinage. If the bean gives one a general nudge in the right direction, I'm willing to pay a premium.
Have a few but not intentional. Just so happened to have the crappy sticker on the slab when I purchased. Paid not a cent more than I would of for any other coin at the slabbed grade. RGDS!
I put 0% but that might not be exactly true. I paid “full retail” for a 1945 Micro S Merc that has a sticker. Don’t know if I’ve paid full retail for much anything else. Love the coin. Got it on GC and the sticker did help me since so couldn’t see it in hand.
For uber eye appeal bust quarters, 2x retail price happens and I have been on the buying side of these. Usually at auction, where a bunch of folks want the eye candy so bidding can go crazy.
So at this point only 18% respondents paid 50 pct or higher. Close to 50% of respondents at zero. 13% at 100 pct or more. Certainly on scarce highly valued material bidding competitive.
I think you’re misinterpreting the results of your “poll”. If a coin is nice collectors will pay a premium for it regardless of sticker status. It’s also such that a disproportionate number of nicer coins have a sticker.
I don’t think you understand my concept here. Beyond that take it up with the other respondents. A good number of them paid 100 pct and higher which would be par for a bid war especially bidders with lots of pocket.
I launched the poll out of curiosity.
I am simply analyzing empirical data. I don’t doubt people will pay more for PQ material and I have myself. Frankly I thought the numbers (premium over non CAC CPG amount) would be higher.
I do think the scarce, rare, really PQ stuff can bring premium in stratosphere. Especially CAC better dates / low pop.
As a guideline for me I would certainly bid / pay the CDN CAC number. If millionaire would want put together CAC $5 Indian Set MS64 or higher. Then upgrade over time.
I only did it once and I'll probably never do it again.
It was more about the coin than the sticker.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Maybe the question is how much would you pay for the same coin with and without a sticker?
It would be interesting to post a picture of a PQ slabbed coin without a bean and take a poll on how much people would pay and then take another separate poll posting a picture of the same slabbed coin with a bean and see what people would pay.
I’m sure someone here versed in data science and stats could design a good study.
The CDN lays out in CPG for CAC and non CAC. Scarce, rare, higher MV, high demand material can have a larger CAC premium / bidding. I look at CPG and take a look at auction data. It is a neat data source to have. One can look at the individual coins in the auc data.
I got this in 2018 before the CAC price was in the gray sheet, at the time sheet was 2,000 and I got it for 1,750
I guess that’s a <12.5%> premium.
(If I did that math correctly)
My YouTube Channel
It surprises me how many seem to strongly dislike cac. I'm curious the percentage of those who dislike cac versus when tpgs services came to fruition if this is the same crowd. I can imagine many who aren't fans of cac were also not fans of slabs in general. Please opine as both have always been a thing as long as I've collected.
Some (not all) of those who are good graders don't like CAC (and before that, slabs) because those things help identify better coins and make it harder to cherrypick a choice/gem coin from a less informed seller who doesn't recognize what he has.
This. It is the coin that made me do it.............
I just paid $300 for a MS65 1938-D Buffalo so... Granted, that's gold CAC but still.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
People who are dissatisfied will be more vocal than those who are satisfied. As such, they receive more attention than deserved.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Paid $8250 for a MS65 Commem, CAC gold, with a price guide value of $390.
The 1909 $5 above PCGs 64 CAC Indian $3380 CPG MV non CAC / $4050 CAC CPG MV above. You did really well. What a really nice coin. I define CAC premium as difference between the 2 numbers above which in that case $670. I believe well off players will pay that but as far as the person of average means that’s 2-3 mo food bill. As far as finding one at bid forget it - those coins are in strong hands.
Pics? 🧐
My YouTube Channel
Pics? 🧐
My YouTube Channel
15%
Joe.
What is the price guide that everyone is using in this poll?
It also depends on if its a green sticker or gold. I have a gold CAC coin that IMO is clearly undergraded, but if you assume it would go up one grade, I still paid more than double the standard price of what it would go for if graded up, and even if it managed to go 2 grades up, I paid more than the standard price for it. No regrets, love the coin.
Asheland - you don't need a picture of an NGC 1.0 holder - - you know them!
No don’t believe dealers will tell u how much for sticker. They may have paid thru nose for it then marked up coin cost plus. Or it could be on consignment. But you can check CDN CPG and see both sticker MV and non sticker MV and decide from there.
At 100% over, the coin was CAC, but it was also in a big name / pedigree auction, so it all added up!
That reminds me, I paid 6x PCGS retail for an MS65 Commen CAC green - LOL.
Best, SH
Well now I’ve got to see a pic SH! Bet it’s awesome.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Here you go Catbert. I've been told that this has the most stunning toning on an Oregon known - certainly I have not seen one like it. My image does not do it justice. The surfaces are pretty close to flawless too - the luster is what holds it back from a 66 or 67. The good news is that it went for 5x PCGS retail (actually 4.38x) some time back in auction so I guess what I paid for it was justified.....
Here is the auction description:
1926-S Oregon Trail Memorial. MS-65 (PCGS).
Silver commems with the eye appeal and technical quality that this Oregon Half possesses are anything but common in today's market. Both sides are beautifully toned around the peripheries in vivid turquoise-blue, orange-russet, and (over the lower reverse) emerald-green colors. The centers shine forth with undisturbed brilliance, and all areas are bathed in shimmering mint luster. In addition to the toning, the surfaces are also of premium quality due to an overall pristine look to the features. A coin that is sure to command a large premium at auction.
Sorry, but based on the images, I disagree on two counts.
As attractive as the coin appears, I’ve seen many Oregons with even more appealing toning. And the luster looks to be more than adequate for a higher grade. So my guess is that something else held it back (or that it was simply under-graded).
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The bean was added after I bought it. I expected a gold one but apparently CAC did not think so. In hand the luster does not explode like I have seen on Oregon's in 67 holders, so that I my thinking there bc the surfaces show nary a hit - just a few that are very hard to find/see. If you have seen Oregon's with even more appealing toning I would like to see them - I have not. No doubt they are out there.
Best, SH
I just did a search in the Auction Archives at HA. Not a single Oregon has the classic ringed color progression shown on mine with the deep blues on the rim going to orange etc. in that archive of 100's of Oregons. There are some very very pretty toned coins and most of these are 67-68 and go for multiples of my Oregon but none of them have the classic progression shown on mine. Many are stunning, agree, and I bet all of them have much better luster hence the higher grades. Toning as we know is something where 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' or not. Some of the higher grade ones have some ringed toning but not as strong, but combined with their likely better luster, certainly stunners. Not a single 65 is anywhere near mine in terms of toning eye appeal that I could see in the archive and there are 2,400 in 65.............
You've convinced me that I need to send this to CACG when they open and see if it upgrades......
Best, SH
There are a lot of Oregons graded higher than 65 with noticeably less luster than yours appear to have.
Here’s one that I feel has more appealing toning, though granted, it’s graded a bit higher.😉
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mycoinfacts/1926-oregon/3240751/147806
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.