@coinhack said: One of the recurring claims is that PCGS MS65 coins that CAC sees as lower end or C coins will be downgraded to MS64+. Now, on the surface, that may seem to make sense because who wants ugly low end coins anyway. But in reality, coins that have not stickered are not necessarily coins that you might guess would be low end. Many collectors, including quite a few on the board have sent in coins that they bought for their own collections thinking that they were especially nice coins for the grade only to have them come back without a sticker.
This is not an assumption, this came directly from the horses mouth. JA stated that manyproblem free C coins would downgrade to the next lowest grade with a +. It was also stated that some will downgrade to the next lowest grade with no +, or even lower than that. Many other coins will not straight grade at all, whether it be due to damage, cleaning, or other types of surface manipulation.
That sounds like a mere statement that CACG has its own standards and not a statement that all C quality for the grade coins will automatically downgrade as the way it was presented in this thread. There is a BIG difference there.
So, does it really matter? Most of the posters who have claimed that non stickered coins will downgrade say that financially it will not matter because now that the coin is correctly graded in its new CACG holder they will be happy and it will still be worth the same (in dollars, that is). There are many quotes similar to this: " I don’t think the majority of collectors are worrying about the slight differences between a 65C and a 64A, and I doubt that they’ll care if the 65C ends up in a 64+ holder."
It really depends on the coin. What I said was that I don't think theres going to be a line of people ready to accept a downgrade, unless the downgraded coin in the CACG + holder will be of similar value to its former holder. Some collectors are more idealistic, and that small minority may accept downgrades simply because they prefer CAC standards.
Unless the market shows an early preference for CACG (possible but far from guaranteed), there is little incentive to submit for stricter standards from a financial perspective for the submitter, meaning CACG will be severely limiting its own revenue/volume. I’m fine with that except it is just as likely if not more likely CACG will similarly loosen, kill the value of CAC,
and then CAC won’t accomplish its goal and it may cause confusion as collectors and the market sort out the value between CAC the sticker company and CACG which will likely be forced financially to toe the line and acquiesce to grade inflation at least somewhat if it wants to compete financially.
Really? Why didn't PCGS acquiesce to SEGS grading standards?
Did SEGS ever have a large following, particularly of higher value coins? SEGS is pretty much irrelevant to the market. The overwhelming majority of the higher end market (or even low four figure coins and up) end up in PCGS and NGC holders. Both companies have a firm base and reputation. Both companies have reasonably broad acceptance in the market place. Few are going to trade that for CACG unless there is a financial incentive to doing so. And unless there is a financial incentive for submissions, CACG volume and revenue will be limited. CAC will either hold firm (resulting in fewer submissions and revenue) or make itself attractive to submitters. Few are going to have their coins downgraded if that means the coins are worth less.
So, you're (now) saying that you don't have to acquiesce to looser standards to survive as long as the market accepts you and values you. Glad I convinced you.
SEGS never had market widespread acceptance or currency. Your comparison is not apt. You might as well have thrown NNC or NTC in there.
The point is that it isn't a race to the highest grade. If the market values CACG higher, people will submit, no matter what number is on the holder.
You PCGS fanboys think CAC users drank the koolaid, but you might look in the mirror. All the while, NGC is the largest player.
IF there is a CACG premium sufficient to cover the numerical downgrade then yes. This remains to be seen.
And I am not a fanboy or sycophant of any service. I have purchased coins from many different grading services and even raw. For my collection I prefer the PCGS holder and try to get the coins there when it makes sense. When it comes to selling, I prefer to maximize sale price which usually means PCGS/CAC.
@DeplorableDan said:
Can we entertain the notion that a "C coin" is just a clever euphemism in place so that JA didn't have to tell his customers that their rejected submissions are either over graded (by his standards), or details coins? lol
This defies logic. If every coin is special and “PQ” then no coin is special/PQ. They all become “average.”
@winesteven said:
As I’ve mentioned a couple of times, CACG will be spending MILLIONS of dollars creating grading sets for each coin type. This is one important measure to keep grading standards from shifting at CACG, either over time, if JA were to retire, or if they were to be bought out.
Separately, they’ll be bringing these grading sets to major coin shows for educational purposes. You can’t beat that!
Steve
Don’t PCGS and NGC have grading sets too? I think they do. We at least have PCGS Photograde.
They SHOULD have grading sets! Does anyone disagree? But do they? I don’t recall reading about that.
At least Photograde? Ha!!!! How often do we talk here on these forums about the difficulty of successfully grading coins from photos? And today’s technology of hi-res photos is far superior to when Photograde was made, and we still struggle. Really?
Having a three dimensional coin in hand (even in a slab) is superior! Give me a break!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@DeplorableDan said:
Can we entertain the notion that a "C coin" is just a clever euphemism in place so that JA didn't have to tell his customers that their rejected submissions are either over graded (by his standards), or details coins? lol
This defies logic. If every coin is special and “PQ” then no coin is special/PQ. They all become “average.”
How does my statement defy logic? CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”.
A grading set will foment increased scrutiny. The three dimensional aspect is a solid argument IMO.
So be it. Plunging into a distinct measure of grading criteria is a bold move. The numismatic community will still find a way to argue the accuracy of each coin in each series in each grade.... trust me.
@fathom said:
A grading set will foment increased scrutiny. The three dimensional aspect is a solid argument IMO.
So be it. Plunging into a distinct measure of grading criteria is a bold move. The numismatic community will still find a way to argue the accuracy of each coin in each series in each grade.... trust me.
Get ready for those threads.
I fully agree! That will be no surprise!
As I’ve said here a few times, the Flat Earth Society is still alive and well.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@DeplorableDan said:
Can we entertain the notion that a "C coin" is just a clever euphemism in place so that JA didn't have to tell his customers that their rejected submissions are either over graded (by his standards), or details coins? lol
This defies logic. If every coin is special and “PQ” then no coin is special/PQ. They all become “average.”
How does my statement defy logic? CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”.
If there is no such thing as low end for the grade, then how do we know what high end or solid are? Wouldn’t they also just be average for the grade at that point? At some point, I do seem to recall the phrase PQ on a return slip from CAC if I am not mistaken.
If I showed you a group of 100 Morgan Dollars in a Registry Set that were each considered really nice for their grade, coins that the vast majority of us would agree any one would fit nicely in our own sets, we can agree they’re all really nice for the grade. We can also agree that some are nicer than others. Yes, this may be a slightly exaggerated example, but I believe you see my point. Every one is really nice for the grade, and we also agree there are others out there that would never be considered to be part of this 100 coin set!
So what that some are at the bottom end of this set?
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@DeplorableDan said:
Can we entertain the notion that a "C coin" is just a clever euphemism in place so that JA didn't have to tell his customers that their rejected submissions are either over graded (by his standards), or details coins? lol
This defies logic. If every coin is special and “PQ” then no coin is special/PQ. They all become “average.”
How does my statement defy logic? CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”.
If there is no such thing as low end for the grade, then how do we know what high end or solid are? Wouldn’t they also just be average for the grade at that point? At some point, I do seem to recall the phrase PQ on a return slip from CAC if I am not mistaken.
These are just semantics that we discussed two pages ago. “Solid for the grade” exists when it’s used in context comparing other companies standards. A CAC 64 can still be “solid for the grade” if it barely made the cutoff at CAC, because there will still be lesser coins awarded the same grade at the other grading companies that we can compare to.
If CAC were in its own plane of existence, and there were not other grading companies, a 64 that barely made the cut would NOT be “solid for the grade”
@DeplorableDan said:
Some of today's MS67s we're the MS65's of yesteryear. After you take all of these things into consideration, tell me again that your position is that the "standards haven't changed".
You don't need standards to change in order for that to happen. Grades are opinions, submit a coin enough times and you'll eventually get a result that's an outlier. If it's on the high side, that coin will never get cracked out again and just about everyone who sees it will attribute the grade to changing standards.
Yes I agree, but can you agree that the "standards" or the "interpretation of the standards" may have been adjusted a bit since the 80's? Even if it was as little as, say, 1/3 of a grade? 🥸
Yes. Grading standards have fluctuated for Seated Liberty halves and Barber halves over the past 15 years or so at the grade ranges I collect. I even have some anecdotal proof of this from a tortuous purchase I made about 5 years ago. I purchased an EF45 CAC 1849 half off of eBay, but the slab was crushed in shipping. Miraculously, the coin was untouched (the Immaculate Compression). It was resubmitted to PCGS and CAC and came back EF40 CAC. During the year delay to get the coin back to me, PCGS had also notably tightened their standards for seated Liberty halves. PCGS's standards for midgrade SLHs had slipped down to NGC standards for a while. In my and PCGS's opinion, this 1849 is now properly graded as PCGS EF40.
Grades going down don't really demonstrate gradeflation, do they?
@DeplorableDan said:
Some of today's MS67s we're the MS65's of yesteryear. After you take all of these things into consideration, tell me again that your position is that the "standards haven't changed".
You don't need standards to change in order for that to happen. Grades are opinions, submit a coin enough times and you'll eventually get a result that's an outlier. If it's on the high side, that coin will never get cracked out again and just about everyone who sees it will attribute the grade to changing standards.
Yes I agree, but can you agree that the "standards" or the "interpretation of the standards" may have been adjusted a bit since the 80's? Even if it was as little as, say, 1/3 of a grade? 🥸
Yes. Grading standards have fluctuated for Seated Liberty halves and Barber halves over the past 15 years or so at the grade ranges I collect. I even have some anecdotal proof of this from a tortuous purchase I made about 5 years ago. I purchased an EF45 CAC 1849 half off of eBay, but the slab was crushed in shipping. Miraculously, the coin was untouched (the Immaculate Compression). It was resubmitted to PCGS and CAC and came back EF40 CAC. During the year delay to get the coin back to me, PCGS had also notably tightened their standards for seated Liberty halves. PCGS's standards for midgrade SLHs had slipped down to NGC standards for a while. In my and PCGS's opinion, this 1849 is now properly graded as PCGS EF40.
Grades going down don't really demonstrate gradeflation, do they?
No, but Im not convinced that one single coin is enough of a sample size to make any type of determination about the consistency of grading standards over the past 40 years, are you?
Grades going down don't really demonstrate gradeflation, do they?
If it's the same coin, which it is, it's a readjustment from earlier gradeflation. This tightening of standards was very noticeable to me at that time.
@DeplorableDan said:
No, but Im not convinced that one single coin is enough of a sample size to make any type of determination about the consistency of grading standards over the past 40 years, are you?
Of course not. However, it illustrates changes in grading that I and others here saw during that time period.
@DeplorableDan said:
Some of today's MS67s we're the MS65's of yesteryear. After you take all of these things into consideration, tell me again that your position is that the "standards haven't changed".
You don't need standards to change in order for that to happen. Grades are opinions, submit a coin enough times and you'll eventually get a result that's an outlier. If it's on the high side, that coin will never get cracked out again and just about everyone who sees it will attribute the grade to changing standards.
Yes I agree, but can you agree that the "standards" or the "interpretation of the standards" may have been adjusted a bit since the 80's? Even if it was as little as, say, 1/3 of a grade? 🥸
Yes. Grading standards have fluctuated for Seated Liberty halves and Barber halves over the past 15 years or so at the grade ranges I collect. I even have some anecdotal proof of this from a tortuous purchase I made about 5 years ago. I purchased an EF45 CAC 1849 half off of eBay, but the slab was crushed in shipping. Miraculously, the coin was untouched (the Immaculate Compression). It was resubmitted to PCGS and CAC and came back EF40 CAC. During the year delay to get the coin back to me, PCGS had also notably tightened their standards for seated Liberty halves. PCGS's standards for midgrade SLHs had slipped down to NGC standards for a while. In my and PCGS's opinion, this 1849 is now properly graded as PCGS EF40.
Grades going down don't really demonstrate gradeflation, do they?
@JohnBCoins said: @MasonG
CACG doesn't have a live web site. These are two separate businesses. That is the CAC stickering business web site you reference. I will not be participating in the stickering portion of the business. I will only be involved in the coin grading portion of the business. If a coin is a 65 then that coin will be either 65 or 65+. That company has an entirely different purpose. I believe it is to designate which coins John Albanese is willing to purchase or make markets. They have purchased well over $500 million of coins since they started stickering. He can do whatever he wants when he stickers coins since its his business on what he is willing to purchase. CACG will not be in the coin buying business. It is a grading company not a coin buying company.
And this sums it up. A CAC graded coin will NOT have the same market cache as a CAC stickered coin. In my view, a CAC stickered PCGS MS65 coin will be more marketable than a CACG MS65 coin.
@JohnBCoins said: @MasonG
CACG doesn't have a live web site. These are two separate businesses. That is the CAC stickering business web site you reference. I will not be participating in the stickering portion of the business. I will only be involved in the coin grading portion of the business. If a coin is a 65 then that coin will be either 65 or 65+. That company has an entirely different purpose. I believe it is to designate which coins John Albanese is willing to purchase or make markets. They have purchased well over $500 million of coins since they started stickering. He can do whatever he wants when he stickers coins since its his business on what he is willing to purchase. CACG will not be in the coin buying business. It is a grading company not a coin buying company.
And this sums it up. A CAC graded coin will NOT have the same market cache as a CAC stickered coin. In my view, a CAC stickered PCGS MS65 coin will be more marketable than a CACG MS65 coin.
I guess that sums it up?
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
Relax! JA has promised to continue applying stickers to coins for 10 years. However, the sticker prices will be increased, the exact prices have yet to be determined.
I must say I like the sticker! A group of pros grade a coin, finalize it etc.. Then a whole different group of experts grade the grade. If I buy a coin like that, I know that a lot of good graders saw the coin and that its nice for the grade. It has quality for the grade. ..
Of course I must like the eye appeal of the coin and I am the final grader when I decide to purchase a coin. When it comes to my hard earned bucks, I want quality.
@Coin Finder said:
I must say I like the sticker! A group of pros grade a coin, finalize it etc.. Then a whole different group of experts grade the grade. If I buy a coin like that, I know that a lot of good graders saw the coin and that its nice for the grade. It has quality for the grade. ..
Of course I must like the eye appeal of the coin and I am the final grader when I decide to purchase a coin. When it comes to my hard earned bucks, I want quality.
That all makes sense. What some people may not realize is that a CACG MS 65 is solid for the grade, but a CAC/PCGS MS 65 can be either an A or B coin solid or high as in a plus coin
@Coin Finder said:
I must say I like the sticker! A group of pros grade a coin, finalize it etc.. Then a whole different group of experts grade the grade. If I buy a coin like that, I know that a lot of good graders saw the coin and that its nice for the grade. It has quality for the grade. ..
Of course I must like the eye appeal of the coin and I am the final grader when I decide to purchase a coin. When it comes to my hard earned bucks, I want quality.
That all makes sense. What some people may not realize is that a CACG MS 65 is solid for the grade, but a CAC/PCGS MS 65 can be either an A or B coin solid or high as in a plus coin
As noted, I agree with you. However, the opposite can be true too.
All of my coins eligible for a CAC sticker have one, and over 60% of those have a plus grade given by PCGS. As many of us know though, the CAC sticker on these plus coins means that CAC is saying these coins are solid at the whole grade number, not necessarily as a plus. So while some PCGS plus coins with stickers will be deemed by CACG as A coins, and could therefore cross to CACG as a plus, some PCGS plus coins with stickers will be deemed by CACG as B coins, and would therefore presumably cross to CACG only at the whole grade number (as long as the sub form allows for that by the submitter).
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@Coin Finder said:
I must say I like the sticker! A group of pros grade a coin, finalize it etc.. Then a whole different group of experts grade the grade. If I buy a coin like that, I know that a lot of good graders saw the coin and that its nice for the grade. It has quality for the grade. ..
Of course I must like the eye appeal of the coin and I am the final grader when I decide to purchase a coin. When it comes to my hard earned bucks, I want quality.
best post on this thread. I am in total agreement.
PCGS plus grades with CAC sticker makes me happy; PCGS plus grades that are sent to CAC and fail to bean makes me cry. Sunshine on my shoulders makes me happy.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9Gh6dn7hzQ
How does my statement defy logic? CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”.
In the case of a gold bean, that's EXACTLY what it means, at least in CAC's opinion.
I find this whole discussion amusing... "the opinion of an opinion service that used to just give opinions on other TPGs' opinions is now going to be even more valid because it's about to start it's own TPG opinion service."
How does my statement defy logic? CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”.
In the case of a gold bean, that's EXACTLY what it means, at least in CAC's opinion.
NO ONE ever said anything about gold stickers. We were talking about green, which do NOT indicate the coin is "Special/PQ"
There are plenty of non-beaned slabs that are nice coins that the sticker crowd simply pass on, thinking that absence of one means inferior quality and/or lesser value. So what does that imply to you?
How does my statement defy logic? CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”.
In the case of a gold bean, that's EXACTLY what it means, at least in CAC's opinion.
NO ONE ever said anything about gold stickers. We were talking about green, which do NOT indicate the coin is "Special/PQ"
There are plenty of non-beaned slabs that are nice coins that the sticker crowd simply pass on, thinking that absence of one means inferior quality and/or lesser value. So what does that imply to you?
It implies that people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value. Some collectors choose to patronize PCGS and skip over NGC coins, others buy PCGS/NGC but choose to skip over ICG and Anacs holders. Does it bother you that collectors have preferences and buy what they like? If other collectors are skipping over coins without CAC, then there's less competition for you to buy them if they're that nice, right?
How does my statement defy logic? CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”.
In the case of a gold bean, that's EXACTLY what it means, at least in CAC's opinion.
NO ONE ever said anything about gold stickers. We were talking about green, which do NOT indicate the coin is "Special/PQ"
There are plenty of non-beaned slabs that are nice coins that the sticker crowd simply pass on, thinking that absence of one means inferior quality and/or lesser value. So what does that imply to you?
It implies that people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value. Some collectors choose to patronize PCGS and skip over NGC coins, others buy PCGS/NGC but choose to skip over ICG and Anacs holders. Does it bother you that collectors have preferences and buy what they like? If other collectors are skipping over coins without CAC, then there's less competition for you to buy them if they're that nice, right?
This isn't about having more for higher info buyers to acquire, though that statement is essentially true. Obviously people buy what they like. But- you yourself just stated it perfectly... "people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value". And people perceive the bean to indicate that the coin is, in fact, "special" or "PQ" versus a non-bean example, otherwise the service would not still exist.
How does my statement defy logic? CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”.
In the case of a gold bean, that's EXACTLY what it means, at least in CAC's opinion.
NO ONE ever said anything about gold stickers. We were talking about green, which do NOT indicate the coin is "Special/PQ"
There are plenty of non-beaned slabs that are nice coins that the sticker crowd simply pass on, thinking that absence of one means inferior quality and/or lesser value. So what does that imply to you?
There is no implication for me. It states to me that the CAC only collector believes that CAC's opinion of a coin (that it is at least solid for the grade and is a problem free coin) is very important. EDIT: Solid for the grade does not and should not imply "special" or "PQ".
Whether that is correct or not is irrelevant; the collector buys what they want and CAC approval is one of the key factors in their purchases.
How does my statement defy logic? CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”.
In the case of a gold bean, that's EXACTLY what it means, at least in CAC's opinion.
NO ONE ever said anything about gold stickers. We were talking about green, which do NOT indicate the coin is "Special/PQ"
There are plenty of non-beaned slabs that are nice coins that the sticker crowd simply pass on, thinking that absence of one means inferior quality and/or lesser value. So what does that imply to you?
It implies that people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value. Some collectors choose to patronize PCGS and skip over NGC coins, others buy PCGS/NGC but choose to skip over ICG and Anacs holders. Does it bother you that collectors have preferences and buy what they like? If other collectors are skipping over coins without CAC, then there's less competition for you to buy them if they're that nice, right?
This isn't about having more for higher info buyers to acquire, though that statement is essentially true. Obviously people buy what they like. But- you yourself just stated it perfectly... "people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value". And people perceive the bean to indicate that the coin is, in fact, "special" or "PQ" versus a non-bean example, otherwise the service would not still exist.
Ok, but what is the point you're making? CAC doesn't claim that beaned coins are special or PQ. Public perception may be otherwise. What is the issue?
How does my statement defy logic? CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”.
In the case of a gold bean, that's EXACTLY what it means, at least in CAC's opinion.
NO ONE ever said anything about gold stickers. We were talking about green, which do NOT indicate the coin is "Special/PQ"
There are plenty of non-beaned slabs that are nice coins that the sticker crowd simply pass on, thinking that absence of one means inferior quality and/or lesser value. So what does that imply to you?
There is no implication for me. It states to me that the CAC only collector believes that CAC's opinion of a coin (that it is at least solid for the grade and is a problem free coin) is very important. EDIT: Solid for the grade does not and should not imply "special" or "PQ".
Whether that is correct or not is irrelevant; the collector buys what they want and CAC approval is one of the key factors in their purchases.
I would add that it's not for us to understand any reasoning or logic, just to understand that it's how the collector market seems to work. I won't ever comprehend those who will "only buy CAC" or only want coins that are "good/solid" for the grade. If my target is MS64, sure an MS64 CAC would be nice to have. But if I can get a low end MS65 for the right price, why not get the MS65? From my perspective I end up with a better coin. It's OK that others don't feel the way I do. But I also have to realize that when I go to sell that MS65 it won't bring premium MS65 money and it will have a smaller market.
How does my statement defy logic? CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”.
In the case of a gold bean, that's EXACTLY what it means, at least in CAC's opinion.
NO ONE ever said anything about gold stickers. We were talking about green, which do NOT indicate the coin is "Special/PQ"
There are plenty of non-beaned slabs that are nice coins that the sticker crowd simply pass on, thinking that absence of one means inferior quality and/or lesser value. So what does that imply to you?
It implies that people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value. Some collectors choose to patronize PCGS and skip over NGC coins, others buy PCGS/NGC but choose to skip over ICG and Anacs holders. Does it bother you that collectors have preferences and buy what they like? If other collectors are skipping over coins without CAC, then there's less competition for you to buy them if they're that nice, right?
This isn't about having more for higher info buyers to acquire, though that statement is essentially true. Obviously people buy what they like. But- you yourself just stated it perfectly... "people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value". And people perceive the bean to indicate that the coin is, in fact, "special" or "PQ" versus a non-bean example, otherwise the service would not still exist.
Ok, but what is the point you're making? CAC doesn't claim that beaned coins are special or PQ. Public perception may be otherwise. What is the issue?
facepalm...you're the one saying "CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”." I simply pointed out that it DOES mean that to a LOT of collectors, and many dealers for that matter. And then you just agreed...
How does my statement defy logic? CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”.
In the case of a gold bean, that's EXACTLY what it means, at least in CAC's opinion.
NO ONE ever said anything about gold stickers. We were talking about green, which do NOT indicate the coin is "Special/PQ"
There are plenty of non-beaned slabs that are nice coins that the sticker crowd simply pass on, thinking that absence of one means inferior quality and/or lesser value. So what does that imply to you?
It implies that people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value. Some collectors choose to patronize PCGS and skip over NGC coins, others buy PCGS/NGC but choose to skip over ICG and Anacs holders. Does it bother you that collectors have preferences and buy what they like? If other collectors are skipping over coins without CAC, then there's less competition for you to buy them if they're that nice, right?
This isn't about having more for higher info buyers to acquire, though that statement is essentially true. Obviously people buy what they like. But- you yourself just stated it perfectly... "people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value". And people perceive the bean to indicate that the coin is, in fact, "special" or "PQ" versus a non-bean example, otherwise the service would not still exist.
Ok, but what is the point you're making? CAC doesn't claim that beaned coins are special or PQ. Public perception may be otherwise. What is the issue?
facepalm...you're the one saying "CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”." I simply pointed out that it DOES mean that to a LOT of collectors, and many dealers for that matter. And then you just agreed...
Certainly from a market valuation standpoint, no distinction is made for accurate vs premium for the CAC designation. It's all viewed as premium.
How does my statement defy logic? CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”.
In the case of a gold bean, that's EXACTLY what it means, at least in CAC's opinion.
NO ONE ever said anything about gold stickers. We were talking about green, which do NOT indicate the coin is "Special/PQ"
There are plenty of non-beaned slabs that are nice coins that the sticker crowd simply pass on, thinking that absence of one means inferior quality and/or lesser value. So what does that imply to you?
It implies that people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value. Some collectors choose to patronize PCGS and skip over NGC coins, others buy PCGS/NGC but choose to skip over ICG and Anacs holders. Does it bother you that collectors have preferences and buy what they like? If other collectors are skipping over coins without CAC, then there's less competition for you to buy them if they're that nice, right?
This isn't about having more for higher info buyers to acquire, though that statement is essentially true. Obviously people buy what they like. But- you yourself just stated it perfectly... "people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value". And people perceive the bean to indicate that the coin is, in fact, "special" or "PQ" versus a non-bean example, otherwise the service would not still exist.
Ok, but what is the point you're making? CAC doesn't claim that beaned coins are special or PQ. Public perception may be otherwise. What is the issue?
facepalm...you're the one saying "CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”." I simply pointed out that it DOES mean that to a LOT of collectors, and many dealers for that matter. And then you just agreed...
CAC does not market their product on the basis that the stickered coins are special/pq. Furthermore, I don't know of anyone who operates with the perception that a CAC coin is automatically PQ, and I talk to a lot of "CAC guys", quite regularly I might add. CAC is merely a tool, and I might look at 50 examples with CAC stickers before I pull the trigger on one. It's not like I come across the first coin with a CAC sticker and think "Ooooh this must be PQ, I'll take it!" LOL
How does my statement defy logic? CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”.
In the case of a gold bean, that's EXACTLY what it means, at least in CAC's opinion.
NO ONE ever said anything about gold stickers. We were talking about green, which do NOT indicate the coin is "Special/PQ"
There are plenty of non-beaned slabs that are nice coins that the sticker crowd simply pass on, thinking that absence of one means inferior quality and/or lesser value. So what does that imply to you?
Here is how I see this:
Yes, there are plenty of nice coins without CAC stickers, and there are plenty of buyers for those coins. And those coins in general ARE of lesser market value.
Of coins eligible for a CAC sticker but don’t have one, it is either that the coin was submitted to CAC and failed, or was never submitted. Only the people at CAC know for sure which is which, based on their records. The rest of us can only make guesses. For me, I believe the higher the value of the coin, the greater chance it’s been to CAC, due to the market value increase when successful, for only $16 (or now $35) paid.
Of the coins that have failed (and as noted, we don’t really know for sure which ones those are), there’s a reason they failed. Perhaps it’s “low end” for the grade. Perhaps CAC believes the coin is actually overgraded. Perhaps there’s a rub (wear) that CAC feels makes the coin unacceptable for the grade, even though the TPG finds it acceptable for the grade. Perhaps there are surface issues that CAC deems is a defect, even though it’s acceptable to the TPG’s. Those coins ARE of inferior quality.
So the real situation is, some people prefer to have coins that are deemed by CAC to be defect-free and solid for the grade, and other people are ok with having coins without stickers that may have those issues, but as long as the coin looks nice to them, all is good!
There’s no right or wrong! As I’ve described above, everyone is probably making an informed decision.
For me, I’m in the camp where I want the coins in my collection to be deemed by CAC to be defect-free and solid for the grade! I prefer not to have coins that may have surface issue defects, or are not solid for the grade. I’m smart enough to know I don’t have the expertise of the experts at CAC.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
How does my statement defy logic? CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”.
In the case of a gold bean, that's EXACTLY what it means, at least in CAC's opinion.
NO ONE ever said anything about gold stickers. We were talking about green, which do NOT indicate the coin is "Special/PQ"
There are plenty of non-beaned slabs that are nice coins that the sticker crowd simply pass on, thinking that absence of one means inferior quality and/or lesser value. So what does that imply to you?
There is no implication for me. It states to me that the CAC only collector believes that CAC's opinion of a coin (that it is at least solid for the grade and is a problem free coin) is very important. EDIT: Solid for the grade does not and should not imply "special" or "PQ".
Whether that is correct or not is irrelevant; the collector buys what they want and CAC approval is one of the key factors in their purchases.
I would add that it's not for us to understand any reasoning or logic, just to understand that it's how the collector market seems to work. I won't ever comprehend those who will "only buy CAC" or only want coins that are "good/solid" for the grade. If my target is MS64, sure an MS64 CAC would be nice to have. But if I can get a low end MS65 for the right price, why not get the MS65? From my perspective I end up with a better coin. It's OK that others don't feel the way I do. But I also have to realize that when I go to sell that MS65 it won't bring premium MS65 money and it will have a smaller market.
Look at that, we agree completely about something!
One thing I will add though, CAC is particularly helpful when it comes to surface preservation, cleaning, or other types of manipulation (Especially with gold coins, which are all I collect). If I could accurately identify all of the problem free "C coins", I would be making a fortune downgrading all the early gold and getting it stickered thereafter.
The beauty of this hobby is that none of us really need to comprehend how other participate in their collecting. Personally, I don't comprehend the practice of spending hours sorting through piles of circulated Lincoln cents, hoping to stumble across an exceedingly rare variety, but yet CRH is a prolific part of this hobby that many choose to participate in. YMMV
How does my statement defy logic? CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”.
In the case of a gold bean, that's EXACTLY what it means, at least in CAC's opinion.
NO ONE ever said anything about gold stickers. We were talking about green, which do NOT indicate the coin is "Special/PQ"
There are plenty of non-beaned slabs that are nice coins that the sticker crowd simply pass on, thinking that absence of one means inferior quality and/or lesser value. So what does that imply to you?
There is no implication for me. It states to me that the CAC only collector believes that CAC's opinion of a coin (that it is at least solid for the grade and is a problem free coin) is very important. EDIT: Solid for the grade does not and should not imply "special" or "PQ".
Whether that is correct or not is irrelevant; the collector buys what they want and CAC approval is one of the key factors in their purchases.
I would add that it's not for us to understand any reasoning or logic, just to understand that it's how the collector market seems to work. I won't ever comprehend those who will "only buy CAC" or only want coins that are "good/solid" for the grade. If my target is MS64, sure an MS64 CAC would be nice to have. But if I can get a low end MS65 for the right price, why not get the MS65? From my perspective I end up with a better coin. It's OK that others don't feel the way I do. But I also have to realize that when I go to sell that MS65 it won't bring premium MS65 money and it will have a smaller market.
If your target is 64, are eye appealing non CAC PCGS 65’s selling for just a little bit more than PCGS 64 CAC’s?
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
How does my statement defy logic? CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”.
In the case of a gold bean, that's EXACTLY what it means, at least in CAC's opinion.
NO ONE ever said anything about gold stickers. We were talking about green, which do NOT indicate the coin is "Special/PQ"
There are plenty of non-beaned slabs that are nice coins that the sticker crowd simply pass on, thinking that absence of one means inferior quality and/or lesser value. So what does that imply to you?
It implies that people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value. Some collectors choose to patronize PCGS and skip over NGC coins, others buy PCGS/NGC but choose to skip over ICG and Anacs holders. Does it bother you that collectors have preferences and buy what they like? If other collectors are skipping over coins without CAC, then there's less competition for you to buy them if they're that nice, right?
This isn't about having more for higher info buyers to acquire, though that statement is essentially true. Obviously people buy what they like. But- you yourself just stated it perfectly... "people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value". And people perceive the bean to indicate that the coin is, in fact, "special" or "PQ" versus a non-bean example, otherwise the service would not still exist.
Ok, but what is the point you're making? CAC doesn't claim that beaned coins are special or PQ. Public perception may be otherwise. What is the issue?
facepalm...you're the one saying "CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”." I simply pointed out that it DOES mean that to a LOT of collectors, and many dealers for that matter. And then you just agreed...
CAC does not market their product on the basis that the stickered coins are special/pq. Furthermore, I don't know of anyone who operates with the perception that a CAC coin is automatically PQ, and I talk to a lot of "CAC guys", quite regularly I might add. CAC is merely a tool, and I might look at 50 examples with CAC stickers before I pull the trigger on one. It's not like I come across the first coin with a CAC sticker and think "Ooooh this must be PQ, I'll take it!" LOL
Perhaps not, but if you're honest with yourself you'll admit that the beaned stuff usually gets a look before, if not instead of the non beaned versions. CAC even states that their sticker "doesn't add value", but value guides and prices realized in the real world say otherwise. Not that I agree with it mind you. The coin should stand or fall on its own merit IMO but the true believers often can't see beyond a label or bean.
How does my statement defy logic? CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”.
In the case of a gold bean, that's EXACTLY what it means, at least in CAC's opinion.
NO ONE ever said anything about gold stickers. We were talking about green, which do NOT indicate the coin is "Special/PQ"
There are plenty of non-beaned slabs that are nice coins that the sticker crowd simply pass on, thinking that absence of one means inferior quality and/or lesser value. So what does that imply to you?
It implies that people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value. Some collectors choose to patronize PCGS and skip over NGC coins, others buy PCGS/NGC but choose to skip over ICG and Anacs holders. Does it bother you that collectors have preferences and buy what they like? If other collectors are skipping over coins without CAC, then there's less competition for you to buy them if they're that nice, right?
This isn't about having more for higher info buyers to acquire, though that statement is essentially true. Obviously people buy what they like. But- you yourself just stated it perfectly... "people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value". And people perceive the bean to indicate that the coin is, in fact, "special" or "PQ" versus a non-bean example, otherwise the service would not still exist.
Ok, but what is the point you're making? CAC doesn't claim that beaned coins are special or PQ. Public perception may be otherwise. What is the issue?
facepalm...you're the one saying "CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”." I simply pointed out that it DOES mean that to a LOT of collectors, and many dealers for that matter. And then you just agreed...
CAC does not market their product on the basis that the stickered coins are special/pq. Furthermore, I don't know of anyone who operates with the perception that a CAC coin is automatically PQ, and I talk to a lot of "CAC guys", quite regularly I might add. CAC is merely a tool, and I might look at 50 examples with CAC stickers before I pull the trigger on one. It's not like I come across the first coin with a CAC sticker and think "Ooooh this must be PQ, I'll take it!" LOL
Perhaps not, but if you're honest with yourself you'll admit that the beaned stuff usually gets a look before, if not instead of the non beaned versions. CAC even states that their sticker "doesn't add value", but value guides and prices realized in the real world say otherwise. Not that I agree with it mind you. The coin should stand or fall on its own merit IMO but the true believers often can't see beyond a label or bean.
What CAC is implying is indeed the value guides and prices realized are higher, not because of the sticker, but because they’re nicer coins, and being they’re nicer coins is why the stickers were applied! See the difference?
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
How does my statement defy logic? CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”.
In the case of a gold bean, that's EXACTLY what it means, at least in CAC's opinion.
NO ONE ever said anything about gold stickers. We were talking about green, which do NOT indicate the coin is "Special/PQ"
There are plenty of non-beaned slabs that are nice coins that the sticker crowd simply pass on, thinking that absence of one means inferior quality and/or lesser value. So what does that imply to you?
It implies that people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value. Some collectors choose to patronize PCGS and skip over NGC coins, others buy PCGS/NGC but choose to skip over ICG and Anacs holders. Does it bother you that collectors have preferences and buy what they like? If other collectors are skipping over coins without CAC, then there's less competition for you to buy them if they're that nice, right?
This isn't about having more for higher info buyers to acquire, though that statement is essentially true. Obviously people buy what they like. But- you yourself just stated it perfectly... "people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value". And people perceive the bean to indicate that the coin is, in fact, "special" or "PQ" versus a non-bean example, otherwise the service would not still exist.
Ok, but what is the point you're making? CAC doesn't claim that beaned coins are special or PQ. Public perception may be otherwise. What is the issue?
facepalm...you're the one saying "CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”." I simply pointed out that it DOES mean that to a LOT of collectors, and many dealers for that matter. And then you just agreed...
CAC does not market their product on the basis that the stickered coins are special/pq. Furthermore, I don't know of anyone who operates with the perception that a CAC coin is automatically PQ, and I talk to a lot of "CAC guys", quite regularly I might add. CAC is merely a tool, and I might look at 50 examples with CAC stickers before I pull the trigger on one. It's not like I come across the first coin with a CAC sticker and think "Ooooh this must be PQ, I'll take it!" LOL
Perhaps not, but if you're honest with yourself you'll admit that the beaned stuff usually gets a look before, if not instead of the non beaned versions. CAC even states that their sticker "doesn't add value", but value guides and prices realized in the real world say otherwise. Not that I agree with it mind you. The coin should stand or fall on its own merit IMO but the true believers often can't see beyond a label or bean.
Lets try a different angle. Lets say I want to buy a nice mint state 1911 Indian $5 with no major distractions and some color. CPG is as follows:
64 - 3500
64+ - 5000
65 - 22,500
So anyways, I have up to $5000 to spend, because I don't want to spend 65 money. I can afford, and want to find the nicest 64 possible before the huge price jump. In theory, I'm looking for a coin that's 64.7 or better with fantastic eye appeal. Do I have a better chance of finding a coin like that in the group of coins that failed to sticker, or in the group of stickered coins?
How does my statement defy logic? CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”.
In the case of a gold bean, that's EXACTLY what it means, at least in CAC's opinion.
NO ONE ever said anything about gold stickers. We were talking about green, which do NOT indicate the coin is "Special/PQ"
There are plenty of non-beaned slabs that are nice coins that the sticker crowd simply pass on, thinking that absence of one means inferior quality and/or lesser value. So what does that imply to you?
It implies that people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value. Some collectors choose to patronize PCGS and skip over NGC coins, others buy PCGS/NGC but choose to skip over ICG and Anacs holders. Does it bother you that collectors have preferences and buy what they like? If other collectors are skipping over coins without CAC, then there's less competition for you to buy them if they're that nice, right?
This isn't about having more for higher info buyers to acquire, though that statement is essentially true. Obviously people buy what they like. But- you yourself just stated it perfectly... "people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value". And people perceive the bean to indicate that the coin is, in fact, "special" or "PQ" versus a non-bean example, otherwise the service would not still exist.
Ok, but what is the point you're making? CAC doesn't claim that beaned coins are special or PQ. Public perception may be otherwise. What is the issue?
facepalm...you're the one saying "CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”." I simply pointed out that it DOES mean that to a LOT of collectors, and many dealers for that matter. And then you just agreed...
CAC does not market their product on the basis that the stickered coins are special/pq. Furthermore, I don't know of anyone who operates with the perception that a CAC coin is automatically PQ, and I talk to a lot of "CAC guys", quite regularly I might add. CAC is merely a tool, and I might look at 50 examples with CAC stickers before I pull the trigger on one. It's not like I come across the first coin with a CAC sticker and think "Ooooh this must be PQ, I'll take it!" LOL
Perhaps not, but if you're honest with yourself you'll admit that the beaned stuff usually gets a look before, if not instead of the non beaned versions. CAC even states that their sticker "doesn't add value", but value guides and prices realized in the real world say otherwise. Not that I agree with it mind you. The coin should stand or fall on its own merit IMO but the true believers often can't see beyond a label or bean.
What CAC is implying is indeed the value guides and prices realized are higher, not because of the sticker, but because they’re nicer coins, and being they’re nicer coins is why the stickers were applied! See the difference?
Steve
Steve - I'd like to wager that if you have a CAC'd coin and solicited bids and then removed the sticker and solicited bids again, I bet CAC's assertion would be disproven when comparing the bids.
How does my statement defy logic? CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”.
In the case of a gold bean, that's EXACTLY what it means, at least in CAC's opinion.
NO ONE ever said anything about gold stickers. We were talking about green, which do NOT indicate the coin is "Special/PQ"
There are plenty of non-beaned slabs that are nice coins that the sticker crowd simply pass on, thinking that absence of one means inferior quality and/or lesser value. So what does that imply to you?
It implies that people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value. Some collectors choose to patronize PCGS and skip over NGC coins, others buy PCGS/NGC but choose to skip over ICG and Anacs holders. Does it bother you that collectors have preferences and buy what they like? If other collectors are skipping over coins without CAC, then there's less competition for you to buy them if they're that nice, right?
This isn't about having more for higher info buyers to acquire, though that statement is essentially true. Obviously people buy what they like. But- you yourself just stated it perfectly... "people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value". And people perceive the bean to indicate that the coin is, in fact, "special" or "PQ" versus a non-bean example, otherwise the service would not still exist.
Ok, but what is the point you're making? CAC doesn't claim that beaned coins are special or PQ. Public perception may be otherwise. What is the issue?
facepalm...you're the one saying "CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”." I simply pointed out that it DOES mean that to a LOT of collectors, and many dealers for that matter. And then you just agreed...
CAC does not market their product on the basis that the stickered coins are special/pq. Furthermore, I don't know of anyone who operates with the perception that a CAC coin is automatically PQ, and I talk to a lot of "CAC guys", quite regularly I might add. CAC is merely a tool, and I might look at 50 examples with CAC stickers before I pull the trigger on one. It's not like I come across the first coin with a CAC sticker and think "Ooooh this must be PQ, I'll take it!" LOL
Perhaps not, but if you're honest with yourself you'll admit that the beaned stuff usually gets a look before, if not instead of the non beaned versions. CAC even states that their sticker "doesn't add value", but value guides and prices realized in the real world say otherwise. Not that I agree with it mind you. The coin should stand or fall on its own merit IMO but the true believers often can't see beyond a label or bean.
What CAC is implying is indeed the value guides and prices realized are higher, not because of the sticker, but because they’re nicer coins, and being they’re nicer coins is why the stickers were applied! See the difference?
Steve
Steve - I'd like to wager that if you have a CAC'd coin and solicited bids and then removed the sticker and solicited bids again, I bet CAC's assertion would be disproven when comparing the bids.
As noted, I agree. All I said above is what CAC is implying, not me.
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
How does my statement defy logic? CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”.
In the case of a gold bean, that's EXACTLY what it means, at least in CAC's opinion.
NO ONE ever said anything about gold stickers. We were talking about green, which do NOT indicate the coin is "Special/PQ"
There are plenty of non-beaned slabs that are nice coins that the sticker crowd simply pass on, thinking that absence of one means inferior quality and/or lesser value. So what does that imply to you?
It implies that people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value. Some collectors choose to patronize PCGS and skip over NGC coins, others buy PCGS/NGC but choose to skip over ICG and Anacs holders. Does it bother you that collectors have preferences and buy what they like? If other collectors are skipping over coins without CAC, then there's less competition for you to buy them if they're that nice, right?
This isn't about having more for higher info buyers to acquire, though that statement is essentially true. Obviously people buy what they like. But- you yourself just stated it perfectly... "people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value". And people perceive the bean to indicate that the coin is, in fact, "special" or "PQ" versus a non-bean example, otherwise the service would not still exist.
Ok, but what is the point you're making? CAC doesn't claim that beaned coins are special or PQ. Public perception may be otherwise. What is the issue?
facepalm...you're the one saying "CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”." I simply pointed out that it DOES mean that to a LOT of collectors, and many dealers for that matter. And then you just agreed...
CAC does not market their product on the basis that the stickered coins are special/pq. Furthermore, I don't know of anyone who operates with the perception that a CAC coin is automatically PQ, and I talk to a lot of "CAC guys", quite regularly I might add. CAC is merely a tool, and I might look at 50 examples with CAC stickers before I pull the trigger on one. It's not like I come across the first coin with a CAC sticker and think "Ooooh this must be PQ, I'll take it!" LOL
Perhaps not, but if you're honest with yourself you'll admit that the beaned stuff usually gets a look before, if not instead of the non beaned versions. CAC even states that their sticker "doesn't add value", but value guides and prices realized in the real world say otherwise. Not that I agree with it mind you. The coin should stand or fall on its own merit IMO but the true believers often can't see beyond a label or bean.
What CAC is implying is indeed the value guides and prices realized are higher, not because of the sticker, but because they’re nicer coins, and being they’re nicer coins is why the stickers were applied! See the difference?
Steve
Steve - I'd like to wager that if you have a CAC'd coin and solicited bids and then removed the sticker and solicited bids again, I bet CAC's assertion would be disproven when comparing the bids.
Does this mean that an exact identical coin. "Non-cac" versus a "cac" version would get the same bids? Based on my limited experience on primarily 2k or less mostly morgans this is absolutely not what I have experienced.
Comments
IF there is a CACG premium sufficient to cover the numerical downgrade then yes. This remains to be seen.
And I am not a fanboy or sycophant of any service. I have purchased coins from many different grading services and even raw. For my collection I prefer the PCGS holder and try to get the coins there when it makes sense. When it comes to selling, I prefer to maximize sale price which usually means PCGS/CAC.
This defies logic. If every coin is special and “PQ” then no coin is special/PQ. They all become “average.”
They SHOULD have grading sets! Does anyone disagree? But do they? I don’t recall reading about that.
At least Photograde? Ha!!!! How often do we talk here on these forums about the difficulty of successfully grading coins from photos? And today’s technology of hi-res photos is far superior to when Photograde was made, and we still struggle. Really?
Having a three dimensional coin in hand (even in a slab) is superior! Give me a break!
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
How does my statement defy logic? CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”.
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
A grading set will foment increased scrutiny. The three dimensional aspect is a solid argument IMO.
So be it. Plunging into a distinct measure of grading criteria is a bold move. The numismatic community will still find a way to argue the accuracy of each coin in each series in each grade.... trust me.
Get ready for those threads.
I fully agree! That will be no surprise!
As I’ve said here a few times, the Flat Earth Society is still alive and well.
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 there is no such thing as low end for the grade, then how do we know what high end or solid are? Wouldn’t they also just be average for the grade at that point? At some point, I do seem to recall the phrase PQ on a return slip from CAC if I am not mistaken.
If I showed you a group of 100 Morgan Dollars in a Registry Set that were each considered really nice for their grade, coins that the vast majority of us would agree any one would fit nicely in our own sets, we can agree they’re all really nice for the grade. We can also agree that some are nicer than others. Yes, this may be a slightly exaggerated example, but I believe you see my point. Every one is really nice for the grade, and we also agree there are others out there that would never be considered to be part of this 100 coin set!
So what that some are at the bottom end of this set?
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
.
Not worth it.
These are just semantics that we discussed two pages ago. “Solid for the grade” exists when it’s used in context comparing other companies standards. A CAC 64 can still be “solid for the grade” if it barely made the cutoff at CAC, because there will still be lesser coins awarded the same grade at the other grading companies that we can compare to.
If CAC were in its own plane of existence, and there were not other grading companies, a 64 that barely made the cut would NOT be “solid for the grade”
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
Don't know about high end but I'm told "solid" includes coins that are immediately above the cutoff point for the next lowest grade.
Seems that the use can be trimmed to what the likely original intent was...higher graded coins with price spreads that are significant.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Grades going down don't really demonstrate gradeflation, do they?
No, but Im not convinced that one single coin is enough of a sample size to make any type of determination about the consistency of grading standards over the past 40 years, are you?
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
If it's the same coin, which it is, it's a readjustment from earlier gradeflation. This tightening of standards was very noticeable to me at that time.
Of course not. However, it illustrates changes in grading that I and others here saw during that time period.
If a coin's grade goes up over time, it demonstrates gradeflation. If it goes down, it demonstrates gradeflation.
Ok- I'm convinced.
They went up first
Nevermind...
And this sums it up. A CAC graded coin will NOT have the same market cache as a CAC stickered coin. In my view, a CAC stickered PCGS MS65 coin will be more marketable than a CACG MS65 coin.
I guess that sums it up?
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
Good thing y’all guys aren’t into moderns. I would just love to read the hair splitting conversation between 68 CAC and 67+ CACD
Well if it was a 1968 Lincoln cent - it may get scintillating. Involving a 1969 Jeff - down right interesting and fraught with danger.
Relax! JA has promised to continue applying stickers to coins for 10 years. However, the sticker prices will be increased, the exact prices have yet to be determined.
I must say I like the sticker! A group of pros grade a coin, finalize it etc.. Then a whole different group of experts grade the grade. If I buy a coin like that, I know that a lot of good graders saw the coin and that its nice for the grade. It has quality for the grade. ..
Of course I must like the eye appeal of the coin and I am the final grader when I decide to purchase a coin. When it comes to my hard earned bucks, I want quality.
Oh gee. We went almost 24 hours without a bump to the top. I thought we were finally finished with this thread, lol.
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
That all makes sense. What some people may not realize is that a CACG MS 65 is solid for the grade, but a CAC/PCGS MS 65 can be either an A or B coin solid or high as in a plus coin
As noted, I agree with you. However, the opposite can be true too.
All of my coins eligible for a CAC sticker have one, and over 60% of those have a plus grade given by PCGS. As many of us know though, the CAC sticker on these plus coins means that CAC is saying these coins are solid at the whole grade number, not necessarily as a plus. So while some PCGS plus coins with stickers will be deemed by CACG as A coins, and could therefore cross to CACG as a plus, some PCGS plus coins with stickers will be deemed by CACG as B coins, and would therefore presumably cross to CACG only at the whole grade number (as long as the sub form allows for that by the submitter).
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
best post on this thread. I am in total agreement.
PCGS plus grades with CAC sticker makes me happy; PCGS plus grades that are sent to CAC and fail to bean makes me cry. Sunshine on my shoulders makes me happy....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9Gh6dn7hzQ
In the case of a gold bean, that's EXACTLY what it means, at least in CAC's opinion.
I find this whole discussion amusing... "the opinion of an opinion service that used to just give opinions on other TPGs' opinions is now going to be even more valid because it's about to start it's own TPG opinion service."
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
NO ONE ever said anything about gold stickers. We were talking about green, which do NOT indicate the coin is "Special/PQ"
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
There are plenty of non-beaned slabs that are nice coins that the sticker crowd simply pass on, thinking that absence of one means inferior quality and/or lesser value. So what does that imply to you?
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
It implies that people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value. Some collectors choose to patronize PCGS and skip over NGC coins, others buy PCGS/NGC but choose to skip over ICG and Anacs holders. Does it bother you that collectors have preferences and buy what they like? If other collectors are skipping over coins without CAC, then there's less competition for you to buy them if they're that nice, right?
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
This isn't about having more for higher info buyers to acquire, though that statement is essentially true. Obviously people buy what they like. But- you yourself just stated it perfectly... "people choose to pay for what they perceive to be of value". And people perceive the bean to indicate that the coin is, in fact, "special" or "PQ" versus a non-bean example, otherwise the service would not still exist.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
There is no implication for me. It states to me that the CAC only collector believes that CAC's opinion of a coin (that it is at least solid for the grade and is a problem free coin) is very important. EDIT: Solid for the grade does not and should not imply "special" or "PQ".
Whether that is correct or not is irrelevant; the collector buys what they want and CAC approval is one of the key factors in their purchases.
Ok, but what is the point you're making? CAC doesn't claim that beaned coins are special or PQ. Public perception may be otherwise. What is the issue?
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
I would add that it's not for us to understand any reasoning or logic, just to understand that it's how the collector market seems to work. I won't ever comprehend those who will "only buy CAC" or only want coins that are "good/solid" for the grade. If my target is MS64, sure an MS64 CAC would be nice to have. But if I can get a low end MS65 for the right price, why not get the MS65? From my perspective I end up with a better coin. It's OK that others don't feel the way I do. But I also have to realize that when I go to sell that MS65 it won't bring premium MS65 money and it will have a smaller market.
facepalm...you're the one saying "CAC approval doesn’t mean “special/pq”." I simply pointed out that it DOES mean that to a LOT of collectors, and many dealers for that matter. And then you just agreed...
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Certainly from a market valuation standpoint, no distinction is made for accurate vs premium for the CAC designation. It's all viewed as premium.
CAC does not market their product on the basis that the stickered coins are special/pq. Furthermore, I don't know of anyone who operates with the perception that a CAC coin is automatically PQ, and I talk to a lot of "CAC guys", quite regularly I might add. CAC is merely a tool, and I might look at 50 examples with CAC stickers before I pull the trigger on one. It's not like I come across the first coin with a CAC sticker and think "Ooooh this must be PQ, I'll take it!" LOL
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
Here is how I see this:
So the real situation is, some people prefer to have coins that are deemed by CAC to be defect-free and solid for the grade, and other people are ok with having coins without stickers that may have those issues, but as long as the coin looks nice to them, all is good!
There’s no right or wrong! As I’ve described above, everyone is probably making an informed decision.
For me, I’m in the camp where I want the coins in my collection to be deemed by CAC to be defect-free and solid for the grade! I prefer not to have coins that may have surface issue defects, or are not solid for the grade. I’m smart enough to know I don’t have the expertise of the experts at CAC.
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
Look at that, we agree completely about something!
One thing I will add though, CAC is particularly helpful when it comes to surface preservation, cleaning, or other types of manipulation (Especially with gold coins, which are all I collect). If I could accurately identify all of the problem free "C coins", I would be making a fortune downgrading all the early gold and getting it stickered thereafter.
The beauty of this hobby is that none of us really need to comprehend how other participate in their collecting. Personally, I don't comprehend the practice of spending hours sorting through piles of circulated Lincoln cents, hoping to stumble across an exceedingly rare variety, but yet CRH is a prolific part of this hobby that many choose to participate in. YMMV
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
If your target is 64, are eye appealing non CAC PCGS 65’s selling for just a little bit more than PCGS 64 CAC’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
Perhaps not, but if you're honest with yourself you'll admit that the beaned stuff usually gets a look before, if not instead of the non beaned versions. CAC even states that their sticker "doesn't add value", but value guides and prices realized in the real world say otherwise. Not that I agree with it mind you. The coin should stand or fall on its own merit IMO but the true believers often can't see beyond a label or bean.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
What CAC is implying is indeed the value guides and prices realized are higher, not because of the sticker, but because they’re nicer coins, and being they’re nicer coins is why the stickers were applied! See the difference?
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
Lets try a different angle. Lets say I want to buy a nice mint state 1911 Indian $5 with no major distractions and some color. CPG is as follows:
64 - 3500
64+ - 5000
65 - 22,500
So anyways, I have up to $5000 to spend, because I don't want to spend 65 money. I can afford, and want to find the nicest 64 possible before the huge price jump. In theory, I'm looking for a coin that's 64.7 or better with fantastic eye appeal. Do I have a better chance of finding a coin like that in the group of coins that failed to sticker, or in the group of stickered coins?
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
Steve - I'd like to wager that if you have a CAC'd coin and solicited bids and then removed the sticker and solicited bids again, I bet CAC's assertion would be disproven when comparing the bids.
As noted, I agree. All I said above is what CAC is implying, not me.
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
Does this mean that an exact identical coin. "Non-cac" versus a "cac" version would get the same bids? Based on my limited experience on primarily 2k or less mostly morgans this is absolutely not what I have experienced.