@tcollects said:
didn't JA say one time that most if not almost all slabbed scarce coins or rarities had been evaluated by CAC? wouldn't that maintain the value of the CAC sticker on old slabs without those coins needing to go through the new service?
That’s actually pretty interesting. If the stickered coins continue to hold their own, it could mean a disproportionate amount of low end material their way. (Why break up the PCGS-CAC combo? ) And I doubt any one will pay to have CACG downgrade their coin unless the lower grade prices will support the current value in current plastic. This remains to be seen. Put another way, CAC/JA’s statement may have sabotaged CACG.
The longer the turmoil continues, it is getting me almost ..(almost).. unconcerned if a slab is stickered or not. Or redone in another holder.
Wouldn't it be awful if people started collecting by eye appeal? INDIVIDUAL eye appeal. Like it? Get it.
@tcollects said:
didn't JA say one time that most if not almost all slabbed scarce coins or rarities had been evaluated by CAC? wouldn't that maintain the value of the CAC sticker on old slabs without those coins needing to go through the new service?
That’s actually pretty interesting. If the stickered coins continue to hold their own, it could mean a disproportionate amount of low end material their way. (Why break up the PCGS-CAC combo? ) And I doubt any one will pay to have CACG downgrade their coin unless the lower grade prices will support the current value in current plastic. This remains to be seen. Put another way, CAC/JA’s statement may have sabotaged CACG.
The longer the turmoil continues, it is getting me almost ..(almost).. unconcerned if a slab is stickered or not. Or redone in another holder.
Wouldn't it be awful if people started collecting by eye appeal? INDIVIDUAL eye appeal. Like it? Get it.
Tried collecting by eye appeal... the coins never stickered.
Now I buy coins I truly dislike. I'm doing better.
@tcollects said:
didn't JA say one time that most if not almost all slabbed scarce coins or rarities had been evaluated by CAC? wouldn't that maintain the value of the CAC sticker on old slabs without those coins needing to go through the new service?
That’s actually pretty interesting. If the stickered coins continue to hold their own, it could mean a disproportionate amount of low end material their way. (Why break up the PCGS-CAC combo? ) And I doubt any one will pay to have CACG downgrade their coin unless the lower grade prices will support the current value in current plastic. This remains to be seen. Put another way, CAC/JA’s statement may have sabotaged CACG.
"Sabotaged"? "Disproportionate amount of low end material"? Disproportionate to what?
I was under the impression that the vast majority of classic coins worth grading have already been to one grading service or another, just like the vast majority of high end material has made at least one trip to Bedminster. People just seem to be incapable of separating CAC from a TPG, like our hosts, ATS, or CACG.
The prestige comes from the high end classic coins, but the revenue comes from bulk submitted moderns. Why would this be different for CACG, and what would be the point, in 2023, of committing capital to build a business around cross-overs and the relatively few worthwhile classic coins that have not seen the light of day since 1986?
I don't think the goal is to break up a PCGS-CAC combo. I think the goal for JA is to lend his prestige and credibility to a new company engineered to enter the space Blackstone, D1 Capital Partners and the other investors found attractive enough to collectively commit over one billion dollars to. The money will be made by stealing new, mostly modern, business from them, not from crossing already stickered coins, or holding their breath waiting for a hoard socked away over 100 years ago to surface.
"I think the goal for JA is to lend his prestige and credibility to a new company engineered to enter the space Blackstone, D1 Capital Partners and the other investors found attractive enough to collectively commit over one billion dollars to."
@tcollects said:
didn't JA say one time that most if not almost all slabbed scarce coins or rarities had been evaluated by CAC? wouldn't that maintain the value of the CAC sticker on old slabs without those coins needing to go through the new service?
That’s actually pretty interesting. If the stickered coins continue to hold their own, it could mean a disproportionate amount of low end material their way. (Why break up the PCGS-CAC combo? ) And I doubt any one will pay to have CACG downgrade their coin unless the lower grade prices will support the current value in current plastic. This remains to be seen. Put another way, CAC/JA’s statement may have sabotaged CACG.
"Sabotaged"? "Disproportionate amount of low end material"? Disproportionate to what?
I was under the impression that the vast majority of classic coins worth grading have already been to one grading service or another, just like the vast majority of high end material has made at least one trip to Bedminster. People just seem to be incapable of separating CAC from a TPG, like our hosts, ATS, or CACG.
The prestige comes from the high end classic coins, but the revenue comes from bulk submitted moderns. Why would this be different for CACG, and what would be the point, in 2023, of committing capital to build a business around cross-overs and the relatively few worthwhile classic coins that have not seen the light of day since 1986?
I don't think the goal is to break up a PCGS-CAC combo. I think the goal for JA is to lend his prestige and credibility to a new company engineered to enter the space Blackstone, D1 Capital Partners and the other investors found attractive enough to collectively commit over one billion dollars to. The money will be made by stealing new, mostly modern, business from them, not from crossing already stickered coins, or holding their breath waiting for a hoard socked away over 100 years ago to surface.
You might be right, but if most CACG coins end up being modern bullion coins, it will be disappointing. I had hoped that it might put pressure on the other services to tighten.
@tcollects said:
"I think the goal for JA is to lend his prestige and credibility to a new company engineered to enter the space Blackstone, D1 Capital Partners and the other investors found attractive enough to collectively commit over one billion dollars to."
omg was this a billion dollar deal?
No, but the PCGS one was for $700 million and the NGC one was for $500+ million. Obviously, smart money thinks there is money to be made in the space, and JA has the expertise, credibility, connections, etc., that he does not have to pay a premium to play. The money these guys are making today is primarily attributable to bulk submissions on moderns, not on the trophy coins that occasionally enter the grading room.
@GRANDAM said:
My dear old GrandPappy use to say,,,,,,, everyone is replaceable.
Your GrandPappy was right most of the time, but not all of the time. Just ask GE shareholders since Jack Welch retired. JA IS CAC, and he just might not be replaceable there. That, as much as anything else, might very well be driving the push to enter a business that is more scalable and isn't as dependent on the skill and reputation of one individual.
@tcollects said:
didn't JA say one time that most if not almost all slabbed scarce coins or rarities had been evaluated by CAC? wouldn't that maintain the value of the CAC sticker on old slabs without those coins needing to go through the new service?
That’s actually pretty interesting. If the stickered coins continue to hold their own, it could mean a disproportionate amount of low end material their way. (Why break up the PCGS-CAC combo? ) And I doubt any one will pay to have CACG downgrade their coin unless the lower grade prices will support the current value in current plastic. This remains to be seen. Put another way, CAC/JA’s statement may have sabotaged CACG.
"Sabotaged"? "Disproportionate amount of low end material"? Disproportionate to what?
I was under the impression that the vast majority of classic coins worth grading have already been to one grading service or another, just like the vast majority of high end material has made at least one trip to Bedminster. People just seem to be incapable of separating CAC from a TPG, like our hosts, ATS, or CACG.
The prestige comes from the high end classic coins, but the revenue comes from bulk submitted moderns. Why would this be different for CACG, and what would be the point, in 2023, of committing capital to build a business around cross-overs and the relatively few worthwhile classic coins that have not seen the light of day since 1986?
I don't think the goal is to break up a PCGS-CAC combo. I think the goal for JA is to lend his prestige and credibility to a new company engineered to enter the space Blackstone, D1 Capital Partners and the other investors found attractive enough to collectively commit over one billion dollars to. The money will be made by stealing new, mostly modern, business from them, not from crossing already stickered coins, or holding their breath waiting for a hoard socked away over 100 years ago to surface.
You might be right, but if most CACG coins end up being modern bullion coins, it will be disappointing. I had hoped that it might put pressure on the other services to tighten.
I hear you, but most PCGS coins nowadays are modern bullion coins. Does that disappoint you, or diminish the value of classic coins in PCGS holders?
That's just the reality of the business. JA is cashing in on the cachet of CAC to launch this thing, and everyone seems to think it's going to be CAC 2.0.
It isn't. It's going to be another NGC or PCGS. And this does not mean it won't put pressure on the others to tighten. It might or might not, and CACG coins might or might not trade at a premium to NGC/PCGS once people realize it is not CAC 2.0. TBD.
@tcollects said:
didn't JA say one time that most if not almost all slabbed scarce coins or rarities had been evaluated by CAC? wouldn't that maintain the value of the CAC sticker on old slabs without those coins needing to go through the new service?
That’s actually pretty interesting. If the stickered coins continue to hold their own, it could mean a disproportionate amount of low end material their way. (Why break up the PCGS-CAC combo? ) And I doubt any one will pay to have CACG downgrade their coin unless the lower grade prices will support the current value in current plastic. This remains to be seen. Put another way, CAC/JA’s statement may have sabotaged CACG.
"Sabotaged"? "Disproportionate amount of low end material"? Disproportionate to what?
I was under the impression that the vast majority of classic coins worth grading have already been to one grading service or another, just like the vast majority of high end material has made at least one trip to Bedminster. People just seem to be incapable of separating CAC from a TPG, like our hosts, ATS, or CACG.
The prestige comes from the high end classic coins, but the revenue comes from bulk submitted moderns. Why would this be different for CACG, and what would be the point, in 2023, of committing capital to build a business around cross-overs and the relatively few worthwhile classic coins that have not seen the light of day since 1986?
I don't think the goal is to break up a PCGS-CAC combo. I think the goal for JA is to lend his prestige and credibility to a new company engineered to enter the space Blackstone, D1 Capital Partners and the other investors found attractive enough to collectively commit over one billion dollars to. The money will be made by stealing new, mostly modern, business from them, not from crossing already stickered coins, or holding their breath waiting for a hoard socked away over 100 years ago to surface.
You might be right, but if most CACG coins end up being modern bullion coins, it will be disappointing. I had hoped that it might put pressure on the other services to tighten.
I hear you, but most PCGS coins nowadays are modern bullion coins. Does that disappoint you, or diminish the value of classic coins in PCGS holders?
That's just the reality of the business. JA is cashing in on the cachet of CAC to launch this thing, and everyone seems to think it's going to be CAC 2.0.
It isn't. It's going to be another NGC or PCGS. And this does not mean it won't put pressure on the others to tighten. It might or might not, and CACG coins might or might not trade at a premium to NGC/PCGS once people realize it is not CAC 2.0. TBD.
It doesn’t phase me that PCGS derives its revenue from moderns. My initial point was that if all the good coins have been to CAC and most of them are in PCGS CAC holders (which is where the biggest resale premiums come from), there may be inertia to sending the coins to CACG and CACG could be limited largely to retreads.
I agree fully with your other points. I do not believe CACG is CAC 2.0, and I see no reason it won’t end up being just like PCGS and NGC. JA started those too. I had hoped the third time would be the charm and there would finally be a consistent grading service through time with a new chance to get population reports that are less skewed by virtue of being newer.
@tcollects said:
didn't JA say one time that most if not almost all slabbed scarce coins or rarities had been evaluated by CAC? wouldn't that maintain the value of the CAC sticker on old slabs without those coins needing to go through the new service?
That’s actually pretty interesting. If the stickered coins continue to hold their own, it could mean a disproportionate amount of low end material their way. (Why break up the PCGS-CAC combo? ) And I doubt any one will pay to have CACG downgrade their coin unless the lower grade prices will support the current value in current plastic. This remains to be seen. Put another way, CAC/JA’s statement may have sabotaged CACG.
"Sabotaged"? "Disproportionate amount of low end material"? Disproportionate to what?
I was under the impression that the vast majority of classic coins worth grading have already been to one grading service or another, just like the vast majority of high end material has made at least one trip to Bedminster. People just seem to be incapable of separating CAC from a TPG, like our hosts, ATS, or CACG.
The prestige comes from the high end classic coins, but the revenue comes from bulk submitted moderns. Why would this be different for CACG, and what would be the point, in 2023, of committing capital to build a business around cross-overs and the relatively few worthwhile classic coins that have not seen the light of day since 1986?
I don't think the goal is to break up a PCGS-CAC combo. I think the goal for JA is to lend his prestige and credibility to a new company engineered to enter the space Blackstone, D1 Capital Partners and the other investors found attractive enough to collectively commit over one billion dollars to. The money will be made by stealing new, mostly modern, business from them, not from crossing already stickered coins, or holding their breath waiting for a hoard socked away over 100 years ago to surface.
You might be right, but if most CACG coins end up being modern bullion coins, it will be disappointing. I had hoped that it might put pressure on the other services to tighten.
I hear you, but most PCGS coins nowadays are modern bullion coins. Does that disappoint you, or diminish the value of classic coins in PCGS holders?
That's just the reality of the business. JA is cashing in on the cachet of CAC to launch this thing, and everyone seems to think it's going to be CAC 2.0.
It isn't. It's going to be another NGC or PCGS. And this does not mean it won't put pressure on the others to tighten. It might or might not, and CACG coins might or might not trade at a premium to NGC/PCGS once people realize it is not CAC 2.0. TBD.
It doesn’t phase me that PCGS derives its revenue from moderns. My initial point was that if all the good coins have been to CAC and most of them are in PCGS CAC holders (which is where the biggest resale premiums come from), there may be inertia to sending the coins to CACG and CACG could be limited largely to retreads.
I agree fully with your other points. I do not believe CACG is CAC 2.0, and I see no reason it won’t end up being just like PCGS and NGC. JA started those too. I had hoped the third time would be the charm and there would finally be a consistent grading service through time with a new chance to get population reports that are less skewed by virtue of being newer.
I totally agree with you. There will, and quite frankly, should be inertia with respect to resubmitting graded coins where the owners are satisfied with the grades.
People are enamored with CAC and just don't seem to be believing it, but the point of this new venture is not to convert NGC/PCGS coins to CACG holders over the next however many years. Which is why CACG will never catch them in terms of installed base.
What very well could happen, if they get this right, is that they will have credibility out of the box due to JA;s involvement. That is an advantage no one else has, and could very well lead to them taking over the space over time. It's just worth keeping in mind that the vast majority of the space today is moderns.
It's probably wishful thinking to believe that CACG coins will be worth a premium over PCGS/CAC, or even straight NGC/PCGS coins, so it's hard to see how it will make economic sense to do cross-overs. Over time, CACG should get more than its fair share of new business, which will inevitably be mostly moderns but will also include crack outs and fresh classic coins.
And, as the private equity guys have figured out, that's a pretty lucrative place to be. People thinking this is an exercise in imposing grading discipline on the incumbents is probably a little naive. This is probably more JA reentering a market he created in order to share in the spoils.
@tcollects said:
didn't JA say one time that most if not almost all slabbed scarce coins or rarities had been evaluated by CAC? wouldn't that maintain the value of the CAC sticker on old slabs without those coins needing to go through the new service?
That’s actually pretty interesting. If the stickered coins continue to hold their own, it could mean a disproportionate amount of low end material their way. (Why break up the PCGS-CAC combo? ) And I doubt any one will pay to have CACG downgrade their coin unless the lower grade prices will support the current value in current plastic. This remains to be seen. Put another way, CAC/JA’s statement may have sabotaged CACG.
"Sabotaged"? "Disproportionate amount of low end material"? Disproportionate to what?
I was under the impression that the vast majority of classic coins worth grading have already been to one grading service or another, just like the vast majority of high end material has made at least one trip to Bedminster. People just seem to be incapable of separating CAC from a TPG, like our hosts, ATS, or CACG.
The prestige comes from the high end classic coins, but the revenue comes from bulk submitted moderns. Why would this be different for CACG, and what would be the point, in 2023, of committing capital to build a business around cross-overs and the relatively few worthwhile classic coins that have not seen the light of day since 1986?
I don't think the goal is to break up a PCGS-CAC combo. I think the goal for JA is to lend his prestige and credibility to a new company engineered to enter the space Blackstone, D1 Capital Partners and the other investors found attractive enough to collectively commit over one billion dollars to. The money will be made by stealing new, mostly modern, business from them, not from crossing already stickered coins, or holding their breath waiting for a hoard socked away over 100 years ago to surface.
You might be right, but if most CACG coins end up being modern bullion coins, it will be disappointing. I had hoped that it might put pressure on the other services to tighten.
I hear you, but most PCGS coins nowadays are modern bullion coins. Does that disappoint you, or diminish the value of classic coins in PCGS holders?
That's just the reality of the business. JA is cashing in on the cachet of CAC to launch this thing, and everyone seems to think it's going to be CAC 2.0.
It isn't. It's going to be another NGC or PCGS. And this does not mean it won't put pressure on the others to tighten. It might or might not, and CACG coins might or might not trade at a premium to NGC/PCGS once people realize it is not CAC 2.0. TBD.
It doesn’t phase me that PCGS derives its revenue from moderns. My initial point was that if all the good coins have been to CAC and most of them are in PCGS CAC holders (which is where the biggest resale premiums come from), there may be inertia to sending the coins to CACG and CACG could be limited largely to retreads.
I agree fully with your other points. I do not believe CACG is CAC 2.0, and I see no reason it won’t end up being just like PCGS and NGC.
CAC has a few big advantages in its mission to hold to a constant grading standard. First, it has learned from the mistakes made by PCGS and NGC. And I don’t mean that they saw the standards slip, but that they saw exactly how it happened. Second, CAC is far less inclined to net grade a coin for halfway tolerable problems like modest cleaning, unattractive toning, etc. And third, based mostly on my conversations with principals at all three companies over the years, there’s a subtle difference to the way they assign grades, which I would describe as follows. PCGS tries to assign the right grade to every coin. NGC tries to assign the ultimate grade to every coin, without forcing owners to resubmit truly borderline coins until the higher grade is achieved. And CAC tries to grade coins at the level at which buyers would actually like the coin at the grade. None of those approaches is inherently right or wrong, they’re just different. But I do think that the CAC approach is less likely to lead to gradeflation.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Your GrandPappy was right most of the time, but not all of the time. Just ask GE shareholders since Jack Welch retired. JA IS CAC, and he just might not be replaceable there. That, as much as anything else, might very well be driving the push to enter a business that is more scalable and isn't as dependent on the skill and reputation of one individual.
I am going from memory here, so correct me if I am wrong but I remember reading a few years ago. This very question was posted and JA answered it by saying he was mentoring the next generation of graders and he was confident that CAC would live on after he was no longer in the picture so it seems to me he thinks CAC can flourish without him.
"I had hoped that it might put pressure on the other services to tighten." Perhaps but there are a multitude of problem and over-graded coins that are in straight graded holders. Therefore that ship sailed long ago.
So many negative assumptions regarding CACG grading without JA finalizing all the coins. He agrees with his grading teams the vast majority of the time. Those who know his graders have faith in their desire and ability to maintain CAC grading standards.
Your GrandPappy was right most of the time, but not all of the time. Just ask GE shareholders since Jack Welch retired. JA IS CAC, and he just might not be replaceable there. That, as much as anything else, might very well be driving the push to enter a business that is more scalable and isn't as dependent on the skill and reputation of one individual.
I am going from memory here, so correct me if I am wrong but I remember reading a few years ago. This very question was posted and JA answered it by saying he was mentoring the next generation of graders and he was confident that CAC would live on after he was no longer in the picture so it seems to me he thinks CAC can flourish without him.
I don't know what he said a few years ago, but right now he is signaling that he does not anticipate CAC being in business 10 years from now, with or without him.
One of the big things that gives CAC coins value is the bid JA places on them. Is he also capitalizing the next generation of graders so that they can make markets in the coins they sticker? Without that, the sticker is just an adhesive on a slab.
Coins JA stickered should always hold their value, even if the market he makes in them goes away, because everyone respects the fact that he put his money behind his opinion. But coins stickered once JA exits the business, if they are even still stickering at that point, won't be worth anything if no one is standing behind them with a market.
At that point, it would just represent someone trained by the master agreeing with someone else's opinion, with nothing at all standing behind it, which really won't have any more value than a slab without such a second opinion. It sure appears today that the thing JA is setting up to flourish when he is no longer in the picture is CACG, not CAC, because the former is not dependent on one personality and his market making ability while the latter is.
@NJCoin said:
Coins JA stickered should always hold their value, even if the market he makes in them goes away, because everyone respects the fact that he put his money behind his opinion. But coins stickered once JA exits the business, if they are even still stickering at that point, won't be worth anything if no one is standing behind them with a market.
Unless there is no way to tell "Rembrandt" from "Studio of Rembrandt". Most paintings were made by a flock of artists. If "the master" only put down 1% of the brush strokes it's clearly one, 10% clearly the other. 5%???
If they change the sticker so it's visually different, that's admitting the difference.
-----Burton ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
@NJCoin said:
Coins JA stickered should always hold their value, even if the market he makes in them goes away, because everyone respects the fact that he put his money behind his opinion. But coins stickered once JA exits the business, if they are even still stickering at that point, won't be worth anything if no one is standing behind them with a market.
Unless there is no way to tell "Rembrandt" from "Studio of Rembrandt". Most paintings were made by a flock of artists. If "the master" only put down 1% of the brush strokes it's clearly one, 10% clearly the other. 5%???
If they change the sticker so it's visually different, that's admitting the difference.
But there is a way. It's the slab number, and it's how CACG knows which slabs were stickered before their 6/5/23 cutoff for Legacy crossover grading.
They've already designated a difference without changing the sticker. Nice analogy, but not relevant here, since CAC has already shown that it places a different value on stickers applied before and after a certain date, and it is not trying to hide its Studio product.
Records of when coins were stickered, and who stickered them, exist. If the market demands them (and it will), they will be provided, if the alternative will be to dilute the value of JA stickers (and it will).
I'm not too worried, though, because it REALLY does not look like the plan is to continue a stickering service post-JA, with no bid behind it. He's doing everything he can to move people from CAC to CACG while he is still around pulling the strings.
My money is on CAC being nothing more than a fond memory in 5 years, let alone 10. Unless CACG flops (which I SERIOUSLY doubt), in which case all bets are off.
4 - Will CAC continue to be a market maker in stickered coins and if not, will the lack of price floor/CAC bid substantially affect prices for CACed coins?
4 - Will CAC continue to be a market maker in stickered coins and if not, will the lack of price floor/CAC bid substantially affect prices for CACed coins?
Probably the most salient point of this thread.
Pretty sure CAC will not be dealing in coins, and that JA will continue under his own name. Which doesn’t really matter because, unlike when CAC first opened its doors, there are now thousands of dealers eager to buy and sell the product.
I agree that truly rare material (think high end original antebellum coinage) will likely do well but what about classic commemoratives and generic type? A few years ago, I can recall finding stickered classic commemoratives and gem type for sale on Great Collections and eBay for less than CAC bid level. I’m wondering if those will fall.
4 - Will CAC continue to be a market maker in stickered coins and if not, will the lack of price floor/CAC bid substantially affect prices for CACed coins?
4 - Will CAC continue to be a market maker in stickered coins and if not, will the lack of price floor/CAC bid substantially affect prices for CACed coins?
Probably the most salient point of this thread.
Pretty sure CAC will not be dealing in coins, and that JA will continue under his own name. Which doesn’t really matter because, unlike when CAC first opened its doors, there are now thousands of dealers eager to buy and sell the product.
I agree that truly rare material (think high end original antebellum coinage) will likely do well but what about classic commemoratives and generic type? A few years ago, I can recall finding stickered classic commemoratives and gem type for sale on Great Collections and eBay for less than CAC bid level. I’m wondering if those will fall.
Continued noting that commems are down will surely keep them that way.
Comments
The longer the turmoil continues, it is getting me almost ..(almost).. unconcerned if a slab is stickered or not. Or redone in another holder.
Wouldn't it be awful if people started collecting by eye appeal? INDIVIDUAL eye appeal. Like it? Get it.
All good things come to an end....
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
"All things end badly, or else they wouldn't end".
Movie Cocktail.
Tried collecting by eye appeal... the coins never stickered.
Now I buy coins I truly dislike. I'm doing better.
I like this one. Never submitted. No need to for me.
Rice is in Houston... and their football history with Alabama must be a favorite topic among the Geritol Crowd
Seriously...It is all going to be just fine
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Oh yeah, about the coins....
Show me the auction results !
Isn't that what matters, at this juncture ?
So does anyone have an updated roster of the members of the updated grading team in NJ and the new one in VA?
"Sabotaged"? "Disproportionate amount of low end material"? Disproportionate to what?
I was under the impression that the vast majority of classic coins worth grading have already been to one grading service or another, just like the vast majority of high end material has made at least one trip to Bedminster. People just seem to be incapable of separating CAC from a TPG, like our hosts, ATS, or CACG.
The prestige comes from the high end classic coins, but the revenue comes from bulk submitted moderns. Why would this be different for CACG, and what would be the point, in 2023, of committing capital to build a business around cross-overs and the relatively few worthwhile classic coins that have not seen the light of day since 1986?
I don't think the goal is to break up a PCGS-CAC combo. I think the goal for JA is to lend his prestige and credibility to a new company engineered to enter the space Blackstone, D1 Capital Partners and the other investors found attractive enough to collectively commit over one billion dollars to. The money will be made by stealing new, mostly modern, business from them, not from crossing already stickered coins, or holding their breath waiting for a hoard socked away over 100 years ago to surface.
"I think the goal for JA is to lend his prestige and credibility to a new company engineered to enter the space Blackstone, D1 Capital Partners and the other investors found attractive enough to collectively commit over one billion dollars to."
omg was this a billion dollar deal?
My dear old GrandPappy use to say,,,,,,, everyone is replaceable.
You might be right, but if most CACG coins end up being modern bullion coins, it will be disappointing. I had hoped that it might put pressure on the other services to tighten.
No, but the PCGS one was for $700 million and the NGC one was for $500+ million. Obviously, smart money thinks there is money to be made in the space, and JA has the expertise, credibility, connections, etc., that he does not have to pay a premium to play. The money these guys are making today is primarily attributable to bulk submissions on moderns, not on the trophy coins that occasionally enter the grading room.
Your GrandPappy was right most of the time, but not all of the time. Just ask GE shareholders since Jack Welch retired. JA IS CAC, and he just might not be replaceable there. That, as much as anything else, might very well be driving the push to enter a business that is more scalable and isn't as dependent on the skill and reputation of one individual.
I hear you, but most PCGS coins nowadays are modern bullion coins. Does that disappoint you, or diminish the value of classic coins in PCGS holders?
That's just the reality of the business. JA is cashing in on the cachet of CAC to launch this thing, and everyone seems to think it's going to be CAC 2.0.
It isn't. It's going to be another NGC or PCGS. And this does not mean it won't put pressure on the others to tighten. It might or might not, and CACG coins might or might not trade at a premium to NGC/PCGS once people realize it is not CAC 2.0. TBD.
It doesn’t phase me that PCGS derives its revenue from moderns. My initial point was that if all the good coins have been to CAC and most of them are in PCGS CAC holders (which is where the biggest resale premiums come from), there may be inertia to sending the coins to CACG and CACG could be limited largely to retreads.
I agree fully with your other points. I do not believe CACG is CAC 2.0, and I see no reason it won’t end up being just like PCGS and NGC. JA started those too. I had hoped the third time would be the charm and there would finally be a consistent grading service through time with a new chance to get population reports that are less skewed by virtue of being newer.
I totally agree with you. There will, and quite frankly, should be inertia with respect to resubmitting graded coins where the owners are satisfied with the grades.
People are enamored with CAC and just don't seem to be believing it, but the point of this new venture is not to convert NGC/PCGS coins to CACG holders over the next however many years. Which is why CACG will never catch them in terms of installed base.
What very well could happen, if they get this right, is that they will have credibility out of the box due to JA;s involvement. That is an advantage no one else has, and could very well lead to them taking over the space over time. It's just worth keeping in mind that the vast majority of the space today is moderns.
It's probably wishful thinking to believe that CACG coins will be worth a premium over PCGS/CAC, or even straight NGC/PCGS coins, so it's hard to see how it will make economic sense to do cross-overs. Over time, CACG should get more than its fair share of new business, which will inevitably be mostly moderns but will also include crack outs and fresh classic coins.
And, as the private equity guys have figured out, that's a pretty lucrative place to be. People thinking this is an exercise in imposing grading discipline on the incumbents is probably a little naive. This is probably more JA reentering a market he created in order to share in the spoils.
CAC has a few big advantages in its mission to hold to a constant grading standard. First, it has learned from the mistakes made by PCGS and NGC. And I don’t mean that they saw the standards slip, but that they saw exactly how it happened. Second, CAC is far less inclined to net grade a coin for halfway tolerable problems like modest cleaning, unattractive toning, etc. And third, based mostly on my conversations with principals at all three companies over the years, there’s a subtle difference to the way they assign grades, which I would describe as follows. PCGS tries to assign the right grade to every coin. NGC tries to assign the ultimate grade to every coin, without forcing owners to resubmit truly borderline coins until the higher grade is achieved. And CAC tries to grade coins at the level at which buyers would actually like the coin at the grade. None of those approaches is inherently right or wrong, they’re just different. But I do think that the CAC approach is less likely to lead to gradeflation.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
From my observations at shows, CU is doing a land office business by grading sports cards.
I am going from memory here, so correct me if I am wrong but I remember reading a few years ago. This very question was posted and JA answered it by saying he was mentoring the next generation of graders and he was confident that CAC would live on after he was no longer in the picture so it seems to me he thinks CAC can flourish without him.
After a while, your brain just becomes a useless sponge...
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
"I had hoped that it might put pressure on the other services to tighten." Perhaps but there are a multitude of problem and over-graded coins that are in straight graded holders. Therefore that ship sailed long ago.
So many negative assumptions regarding CACG grading without JA finalizing all the coins. He agrees with his grading teams the vast majority of the time. Those who know his graders have faith in their desire and ability to maintain CAC grading standards.
I don't know what he said a few years ago, but right now he is signaling that he does not anticipate CAC being in business 10 years from now, with or without him.
One of the big things that gives CAC coins value is the bid JA places on them. Is he also capitalizing the next generation of graders so that they can make markets in the coins they sticker? Without that, the sticker is just an adhesive on a slab.
Coins JA stickered should always hold their value, even if the market he makes in them goes away, because everyone respects the fact that he put his money behind his opinion. But coins stickered once JA exits the business, if they are even still stickering at that point, won't be worth anything if no one is standing behind them with a market.
At that point, it would just represent someone trained by the master agreeing with someone else's opinion, with nothing at all standing behind it, which really won't have any more value than a slab without such a second opinion. It sure appears today that the thing JA is setting up to flourish when he is no longer in the picture is CACG, not CAC, because the former is not dependent on one personality and his market making ability while the latter is.
Unless there is no way to tell "Rembrandt" from "Studio of Rembrandt". Most paintings were made by a flock of artists. If "the master" only put down 1% of the brush strokes it's clearly one, 10% clearly the other. 5%???
If they change the sticker so it's visually different, that's admitting the difference.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
But there is a way. It's the slab number, and it's how CACG knows which slabs were stickered before their 6/5/23 cutoff for Legacy crossover grading.
They've already designated a difference without changing the sticker. Nice analogy, but not relevant here, since CAC has already shown that it places a different value on stickers applied before and after a certain date, and it is not trying to hide its Studio product.
Records of when coins were stickered, and who stickered them, exist. If the market demands them (and it will), they will be provided, if the alternative will be to dilute the value of JA stickers (and it will).
I'm not too worried, though, because it REALLY does not look like the plan is to continue a stickering service post-JA, with no bid behind it. He's doing everything he can to move people from CAC to CACG while he is still around pulling the strings.
My money is on CAC being nothing more than a fond memory in 5 years, let alone 10. Unless CACG flops (which I SERIOUSLY doubt), in which case all bets are off.
I agree that truly rare material (think high end original antebellum coinage) will likely do well but what about classic commemoratives and generic type? A few years ago, I can recall finding stickered classic commemoratives and gem type for sale on Great Collections and eBay for less than CAC bid level. I’m wondering if those will fall.
I’ll certainly miss all of the CAC threads then. 😢 I always found those to be a source of entertainment and enjoyment.
Continued noting that commems are down will surely keep them that way.
As a generalization, Commems have not fallen for the past four years, and in some cases, have increased somewhat.
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
After more than 30 years, classic commemoratives finally hit rock bottom. 😲