Cac pricing structure/ clarification?

dollarfan

I went to the site but wasn't real clear. How much will it cost to send a previously green stickered chipped corner common peace dollar. Value 75 bucks maybe to get a "L" cacg slab? What service would this be considered?

dollarfan

I guess more specifically is the cost the service fee plus reholder fee? Sorry if this is a dumb question

PeakRarities

I would bet that the grading fees are going to closely mirror the sticker fees, in which case you'd pay the economy tier ($22) plus handling fee ($10) plus whatever return shipping costs. Im not certain, and I don't know if CAC officially released grading prices. I would imagine they would make grading and stickering cost about the same, in order to make it seem like a better value for grading.

Vasanti

@DeplorableDan said:
I would bet that the grading fees are going to closely mirror the sticker fees, in which case you'd pay the economy tier ($22) plus handling fee ($10) plus whatever return shipping costs. Im not certain, and I don't know if CAC officially released grading prices. I would imagine they would make grading and stickering cost about the same, in order to make it seem like a better value for grading.

They are going to have to recover the cost is the holder and the development cost of the holder. They are also going to have to recover the cost of new physical infrastructure, staff, IT development and the assorted other new expenses they are incurring. That by definition is going to make it more expensive than stickering.

coinbuf

@dollarfan said:
I guess more specifically is the cost the service fee plus reholder fee? Sorry if this is a dumb question

No, the reholder fee only applies to coins that have been previously graded/encapsulated by the new CAC grading firm. You would need to send in (something that you cannot do right now) for crossover to be eligible for the "L" (legacy) designation on the label. However, the new CAC grading site does not list crossover in the pricing structure, so my guess is that you would need to submit under the econ tier (I assume that there will be a box on the form to check for crossovers) which is $22 per the price structure on the CAC grading site. I am sure that this will be spelled out in the coming months once CAC grading actually begins to grade and encapsulate coins. You can find the grading and the new stickering pricing here. https://cacgrading.com/pricing

FrankH

coinbuf

@Vasanti said:

@DeplorableDan said:
I would bet that the grading fees are going to closely mirror the sticker fees, in which case you'd pay the economy tier ($22) plus handling fee ($10) plus whatever return shipping costs. Im not certain, and I don't know if CAC officially released grading prices. I would imagine they would make grading and stickering cost about the same, in order to make it seem like a better value for grading.

They are going to have to recover the cost is the holder and the development cost of the holder. They are also going to have to recover the cost of new physical infrastructure, staff, IT development and the assorted other new expenses they are incurring. That by definition is going to make it more expensive than stickering.

Really you know that for fact? Perhaps you should look at the pricing structure that I just posted a link to and reevaluate your statement.

PeakRarities

I did not even realize they went public with the pricing for grading, but it looks like my assumptions were correct anyway.

Vasanti

@coinbuf said:

@Vasanti said:

@DeplorableDan said:
I would bet that the grading fees are going to closely mirror the sticker fees, in which case you'd pay the economy tier ($22) plus handling fee ($10) plus whatever return shipping costs. Im not certain, and I don't know if CAC officially released grading prices. I would imagine they would make grading and stickering cost about the same, in order to make it seem like a better value for grading.

They are going to have to recover the cost is the holder and the development cost of the holder. They are also going to have to recover the cost of new physical infrastructure, staff, IT development and the assorted other new expenses they are incurring. That by definition is going to make it more expensive than stickering.

Really you know that for fact? Perhaps you should look at the pricing structure that I just posted a link to and reevaluate your statement.

I do know that for a fact because they wouldn’t be a profitable business if they didn’t increase revenue to cover costs that CAC does not incur, including additional staff, their new building, their new software, their new holders and all of the other associated costs that you incur when you startup a new business that intends to compete with legacy businesses that have a huge share of the market. They can either recoup those costs through the fees or through volume. Don’t be surprised if the fees increase after an initial trial period, particularly once they start opening up grading to new members. The fees are already increasing defacto because CAC only charged you if the coin stickers. CACG is going to charge you no matter what. They are also going to holder coins that previously wouldn’t have stickered by dropping them a grade. All of that increase revenue.

coinbuf

@Vasanti said:

@coinbuf said:

@Vasanti said:

@DeplorableDan said:
I would bet that the grading fees are going to closely mirror the sticker fees, in which case you'd pay the economy tier ($22) plus handling fee ($10) plus whatever return shipping costs. Im not certain, and I don't know if CAC officially released grading prices. I would imagine they would make grading and stickering cost about the same, in order to make it seem like a better value for grading.

They are going to have to recover the cost is the holder and the development cost of the holder. They are also going to have to recover the cost of new physical infrastructure, staff, IT development and the assorted other new expenses they are incurring. That by definition is going to make it more expensive than stickering.

Really you know that for fact? Perhaps you should look at the pricing structure that I just posted a link to and reevaluate your statement.

I do know that for a fact because they wouldn’t be a profitable business if they didn’t increase revenue to cover costs that CAC does not incur, including additional staff, their new building, their new software, their new holders and all of the other associated costs that you incur when you startup a new business that intends to compete with legacy businesses that have a huge share of the market. They can either recoup those costs through the fees or through volume. Don’t be surprised if the fees increase after an initial trial period, particularly once they start opening up grading to new members. The fees are already increasing defacto because CAC only charged you if the coin stickers. CACG is going to charge you no matter what. They are also going to holder coins that previously wouldn’t have stickered by dropping them a grade. All of that increase revenue.

Most of what you are writing is just stating the obvious. Sure the grading has a higher overhead than the stickering, but that applies to NGC and PCGS as well and both of those companies are making plenty of dough with prices that are very comparable to the CAC grading fees. Would I be dropping a bombshell if I say don't be surprised if grading fees at PCGS increase in the future, no I am not. Prices go up to cover higher costs and as a generalization labor cost always rises, that type of statement is not a revelation.

If you have been reading and following the CAC threads you know that JA has a dealer network (many of those 150 investors in CACG) already lined up who will be submitting coins, so I suspect that a healthy beginning volume is already in the pipeline to begin the process of paying back the startup costs.

However to circle back, what I read from your post is that you think the cost of grading was going to be higher than the cost to sticker, which for now is not true. If I read too much into your post then my apologies.

Vasanti

@coinbuf said:

@Vasanti said:

@coinbuf said:

@Vasanti said:

@DeplorableDan said:
I would bet that the grading fees are going to closely mirror the sticker fees, in which case you'd pay the economy tier ($22) plus handling fee ($10) plus whatever return shipping costs. Im not certain, and I don't know if CAC officially released grading prices. I would imagine they would make grading and stickering cost about the same, in order to make it seem like a better value for grading.

They are going to have to recover the cost is the holder and the development cost of the holder. They are also going to have to recover the cost of new physical infrastructure, staff, IT development and the assorted other new expenses they are incurring. That by definition is going to make it more expensive than stickering.

Really you know that for fact? Perhaps you should look at the pricing structure that I just posted a link to and reevaluate your statement.

I do know that for a fact because they wouldn’t be a profitable business if they didn’t increase revenue to cover costs that CAC does not incur, including additional staff, their new building, their new software, their new holders and all of the other associated costs that you incur when you startup a new business that intends to compete with legacy businesses that have a huge share of the market. They can either recoup those costs through the fees or through volume. Don’t be surprised if the fees increase after an initial trial period, particularly once they start opening up grading to new members. The fees are already increasing defacto because CAC only charged you if the coin stickers. CACG is going to charge you no matter what. They are also going to holder coins that previously wouldn’t have stickered by dropping them a grade. All of that increase revenue.

Most of what you are writing is just stating the obvious. Sure the grading has a higher overhead than the stickering, but that applies to NGC and PCGS as well and both of those companies are making plenty of dough with prices that are very comparable to the CAC grading fees. Would I be dropping a bombshell if I say don't be surprised if grading fees at PCGS increase in the future, no I am not. Prices go up to cover higher costs and as a generalization labor cost always rises, that type of statement is not a revelation.

If you have been reading and following the CAC threads you know that JA has a dealer network (many of those 150 investors in CACG) already lined up who will be submitting coins, so I suspect that a healthy beginning volume is already in the pipeline to begin the process of paying back the startup costs.

However to circle back, what I read from your post is that you think the cost of grading was going to be higher than the cost to sticker, which for now is not true. If I read too much into your post then my apologies.

All good. All I was saying is that they are going to have to generate revenue somewhere to cover their costs and make money for their investors. From what I’ve read in the past, CAC’s stickering service was never a money maker. It was a feeder into market making, which is the reason they could afford to not charge for coins that don’t sticker. The grading service isn’t the same model.

winesteven

CAC stickering has released their new stickering prices, as all tiers have reopened to all “members”. While the “Economy” Tier (for coins valued up to $3,000) is $22, the stickering costs for higher valued coins has increased significantly, presumably being close to CAC Grading fees, which would encourage members to submit those coins for grading instead of stickering.

Steve

MFeld

@Vasanti said:

@coinbuf said:

@Vasanti said:

@coinbuf said:

@Vasanti said:

@DeplorableDan said:
I would bet that the grading fees are going to closely mirror the sticker fees, in which case you'd pay the economy tier ($22) plus handling fee ($10) plus whatever return shipping costs. Im not certain, and I don't know if CAC officially released grading prices. I would imagine they would make grading and stickering cost about the same, in order to make it seem like a better value for grading.

They are going to have to recover the cost is the holder and the development cost of the holder. They are also going to have to recover the cost of new physical infrastructure, staff, IT development and the assorted other new expenses they are incurring. That by definition is going to make it more expensive than stickering.

Really you know that for fact? Perhaps you should look at the pricing structure that I just posted a link to and reevaluate your statement.

I do know that for a fact because they wouldn’t be a profitable business if they didn’t increase revenue to cover costs that CAC does not incur, including additional staff, their new building, their new software, their new holders and all of the other associated costs that you incur when you startup a new business that intends to compete with legacy businesses that have a huge share of the market. They can either recoup those costs through the fees or through volume. Don’t be surprised if the fees increase after an initial trial period, particularly once they start opening up grading to new members. The fees are already increasing defacto because CAC only charged you if the coin stickers. CACG is going to charge you no matter what. They are also going to holder coins that previously wouldn’t have stickered by dropping them a grade. All of that increase revenue.

Most of what you are writing is just stating the obvious. Sure the grading has a higher overhead than the stickering, but that applies to NGC and PCGS as well and both of those companies are making plenty of dough with prices that are very comparable to the CAC grading fees. Would I be dropping a bombshell if I say don't be surprised if grading fees at PCGS increase in the future, no I am not. Prices go up to cover higher costs and as a generalization labor cost always rises, that type of statement is not a revelation.

If you have been reading and following the CAC threads you know that JA has a dealer network (many of those 150 investors in CACG) already lined up who will be submitting coins, so I suspect that a healthy beginning volume is already in the pipeline to begin the process of paying back the startup costs.

However to circle back, what I read from your post is that you think the cost of grading was going to be higher than the cost to sticker, which for now is not true. If I read too much into your post then my apologies.

All good. All I was saying is that they are going to have to generate revenue somewhere to cover their costs and make money for their investors. From what I’ve read in the past, CAC’s stickering service was never a money maker. It was a feeder into market making, which is the reason they could afford to not charge for coins that don’t sticker. The grading service isn’t the same model.

You’re correct - the grading service isn’t the same model and one major difference will be that the submission volume will be multiples of what it’s been for CAC stickering. So that will generate significantly higher revenue, even without higher fees.