VERY Interesting Generic Article on CACG slab Market Pricing

winesteven

Very interesting generic article by John Feigenbaum of the Greysheet on CACG slab market pricing, including a slight forecast of pricing of coins with CAC stickers for when the day eventually comes that the stickering service stops.

To me, each of his points makes sense!

Steve

https://www.greysheet.com/news/story/now-that-cac-slabs-are-here-what-are-they-worth?utm_source=Klaviyo&utm_medium=campaign&_kx=LjXwNLBZZwOeblZc27nkL6viJm6c-mTkLw-Ql1f3RR8=.TrdffQ

erwindoc

Good short read!

pcgscacgold

Thanks for posting this @winesteven

pcgscacgold

From what I have been reading here and elsewhere an NGC stickered gold coin will be rather rare in the future. Many are saying those are the first coins they are crossing to CACG. Often due to the fact that they are very hard to sell at PCGS prices.

winesteven

@pcgscacgold said:
From what I have been reading here and elsewhere an NGC stickered gold coin will be rather rare in the future. Many are saying those are the first coins they are crossing to CACG. Often due to the fact that they are very hard to sell at PCGS prices.

While I agree with both of your points, my guess is the “rarity” down the road of CAC green stickered gold coins in NGC holders will NOT translate to prices that exceed gold coins in CACG holders or of PCGS CAC stickered holders of the same grade. While the supply of the NGC CAC stickered holders of gold coins will indeed decrease, I don’t think the demand for those will cause market prices higher than the other two TPG counterparts.

Steve

BStrauss3

The whole green/gold is a farce. There were a pair of dealers at WFoM angrily complaining to each other that a coin had been gold, they sent it in, it upgraded only one point and then didn't bean so they ended up losing money beyond the grading fees.

They were thinking that a 63 gold --> 65 green should have been a lock, but instead, they ended up with a 64 no-bean.

At this point, it's not numismatics, it's not collecting, it's roulette.

bigjpst

Thanks for posting the article.
Regarding what @BStrauss3 posted. I think there are going to be a lot more of these disappointments coming. The premiums that sometimes get paid for gold stickers are based on some strange “potential” for upgrade. Even though CAC has always maintained that they mean solid for at least next grade, the premiums are often multiple grades higher. AU55 with gold must mean it’s a MS63 etc.
when these start upgrading only one grade at CACG people are going to trapped and buried in their premiums.

Cougar1978

I think when the rollout of CACG Classic coins comes out bidding will be in the stratosphere. I have seen some already and put in aggressive bids (to gauge the situation) but don’t have that high a confidence level mine will be successful. Bid war not my cup of tea.

The article addresses my question - will CACG and CAC CDN CPG Retail be the same? And at this time it appears yet to be determined.

Irregardless I don’t want to over pay for something that would fall when it all shakes out. Nor from a business view be buried in something the rank and file coming in the bourse room can’t afford nor will pay the money for. As far as the sample slabs (high bidding / prices) I believe down the line they will fall back to slab cost at some point in time. Sort of like benching the scrubs when the varsity players are available.

jmlanzaf

@BStrauss3 said:
The whole green/gold is a farce. There were a pair of dealers at WFoM angrily complaining to each other that a coin had been gold, they sent it in, it upgraded only one point and then didn't bean so they ended up losing money beyond the grading fees.

They were thinking that a 63 gold --> 65 green should have been a lock, but instead, they ended up with a 64 no-bean.

At this point, it's not numismatics, it's not collecting, it's roulette.

One coin is simply an anecdote. It is the equivalent of sending a coin back to PCGS and getting a different grade. It happens.

As for their expectations, a 63 gold should be a 64 green per CAC. There is no implication of a twp point jump for a gold.

there has been an element of roulette ever since TPGs came into existence. Some coins inevitably are going to be close to the line.

PeakRarities

@BStrauss3 said:
The whole green/gold is a farce. There were a pair of dealers at WFoM angrily complaining to each other that a coin had been gold, they sent it in, it upgraded only one point and then didn't bean so they ended up losing money beyond the grading fees.

They were thinking that a 63 gold --> 65 green should have been a lock, but instead, they ended up with a 64 no-bean.

At this point, it's not numismatics, it's not collecting, it's roulette.

I’m sorry, but I can’t give much merit to some hearsay at a show with no details or pictures. Honestly, what they did just sounds like a really poor business decision. Especially when gold beans already sell 1-2 grades up at a minimum. If anything, they could have tried to cross it specifying a minimum grade, OR they could have crossed it to CACG and automatically had CAC approval.

jmlanzaf

@winesteven said:
Very interesting generic article by John Feigenbaum of the Greysheet on CACG slab market pricing, including a slight forecast of pricing of coins with CAC stickers for when the day eventually comes that the stickering service stops.

To me, each of his points makes sense!

Steve

https://www.greysheet.com/news/story/now-that-cac-slabs-are-here-what-are-they-worth?utm_source=Klaviyo&utm_medium=campaign&_kx=LjXwNLBZZwOeblZc27nkL6viJm6c-mTkLw-Ql1f3RR8=.TrdffQ

Nice write up from our own @JohnF

That just demonstrates, again, why Greysheet is the "Bible".

MFeld

@jmlanzaf said:

@BStrauss3 said:
The whole green/gold is a farce. There were a pair of dealers at WFoM angrily complaining to each other that a coin had been gold, they sent it in, it upgraded only one point and then didn't bean so they ended up losing money beyond the grading fees.

They were thinking that a 63 gold --> 65 green should have been a lock, but instead, they ended up with a 64 no-bean.

At this point, it's not numismatics, it's not collecting, it's roulette.

One coin is simply an anecdote. It is the equivalent of sending a coin back to PCGS and getting a different grade. It happens.

As for their expectations, a 63 gold should be a 64 green per CAC. There is no implication of a twp point jump for a gold.

there has been an element of roulette ever since TPGs came into existence. Some coins inevitably are going to be close to the line.

Additionally, that one example was an extremely rare exception.

PeakRarities

@bigjpst said:
Thanks for posting the article.
Regarding what @BStrauss3 posted. I think there are going to be a lot more of these disappointments coming. The premiums that sometimes get paid for gold stickers are based on some strange “potential” for upgrade. Even though CAC has always maintained that they mean solid for at least next grade, the premiums are often multiple grades higher. AU55 with gold must mean it’s a MS63 etc.
when these start upgrading only one grade at CACG people are going to trapped and buried in their premiums.

What makes you think that everyone is racing to upgrade their gold stickered coins? The market already absorbs them for ALL of the money, there’s rarely enough upside to gamble with them.

jmlanzaf

@DeplorableDan said:

@bigjpst said:
Thanks for posting the article.
Regarding what @BStrauss3 posted. I think there are going to be a lot more of these disappointments coming. The premiums that sometimes get paid for gold stickers are based on some strange “potential” for upgrade. Even though CAC has always maintained that they mean solid for at least next grade, the premiums are often multiple grades higher. AU55 with gold must mean it’s a MS63 etc.
when these start upgrading only one grade at CACG people are going to trapped and buried in their premiums.

What makes you think that everyone is racing to upgrade their gold stickered coins? The market already absorbs them for ALL of the money, there’s rarely enough upside to gamble with them.

I do think it is an open question. The prudent thing for anyone to do is simply wait to see what Mr. Market says about the relative value of CACG vs. NGC(PCGS)/CAC. But, of course, people aren't always patient enough to take the prudent course. [Look at the other thread where one of our fellow forumites thought there was a major problem because his Morgan dollar shipped a day or two later than his Peace dollar. And how many threads have we had where someone wanted to know if they should report a theft when their coins took a couple extra days to arrive.]

I generally agree with you, however. I don't think there will be a mad dash to try and cross coins.

jmlanzaf

@MFeld said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@BStrauss3 said:
The whole green/gold is a farce. There were a pair of dealers at WFoM angrily complaining to each other that a coin had been gold, they sent it in, it upgraded only one point and then didn't bean so they ended up losing money beyond the grading fees.

They were thinking that a 63 gold --> 65 green should have been a lock, but instead, they ended up with a 64 no-bean.

At this point, it's not numismatics, it's not collecting, it's roulette.

One coin is simply an anecdote. It is the equivalent of sending a coin back to PCGS and getting a different grade. It happens.

As for their expectations, a 63 gold should be a 64 green per CAC. There is no implication of a twp point jump for a gold.

there has been an element of roulette ever since TPGs came into existence. Some coins inevitably are going to be close to the line.

Additionally, that one example was an extremely rare exception.

I'm not sure how rare it is. I don't have any statistics. But from other anecdotes (LOL), the CAC promise that a gold sticker will be (at least) a green at the next highest level is usually true.

It's really shocking to hear that someone was disappointed in their submission results. That almost never happens.

winesteven

My interpretation of the comment by @BStrauss3 is partially (and importantly) different from most of the replies that addressed that comment.

I see that comment as making two points:

1. That it "only" upgraded one point. In my opinion, the replies to that point were right on target. It got the upgrade, and there's nothing saying one should have confidence in a two grade upgrade.
2. More importantly, which no one seemed to address the way I will, was the point that the new 64 graded coin did not sticker when sent back to CAC. While this is indeed "rare", in my opinion when that coin now graded 64 was sent back to CAC for stickering, they should have included a photo of the prior cert with the gold sticker, AND the paperwork showing the resubmission to the TPG. If it was submitted to the TPG via Reconsideration (but probably wasn't), the cert number would have been the same. If it was submitted via Regrade, while the cert number would now be new, at least the paperwork would show the old cert number and the new result, so CAC would know it's the same coin if the paperwork is submitted to CAC with that coin. However, perhaps it was sent via crackout, which always introduces the small possibility of some "damage". Regardless, i believe there was probably no damage, but submitting photos and paperwork could likely have resulted in a green sticker being applied! Regardless, while in theory none of these steps should be needed, the reality is we're all human beings, including the people at CAC stickering. While their consistency has been remarkable, they are not perfect, and occasionally, like now, a difference occurs. I'm willing to bet (a common raw Jefferson nickel) that NO paperwork was submitted to CAC with the new 64 to show that this coin had previously had a Gold sticker at 63!

Steve

bigjpst

@DeplorableDan said:

@bigjpst said:
Thanks for posting the article.
Regarding what @BStrauss3 posted. I think there are going to be a lot more of these disappointments coming. The premiums that sometimes get paid for gold stickers are based on some strange “potential” for upgrade. Even though CAC has always maintained that they mean solid for at least next grade, the premiums are often multiple grades higher. AU55 with gold must mean it’s a MS63 etc.
when these start upgrading only one grade at CACG people are going to trapped and buried in their premiums.

What makes you think that everyone is racing to upgrade their gold stickered coins? The market already absorbs them for ALL of the money, there’s rarely enough upside to gamble with them.

I never said people are racing to do anything. What I said is that I believe there will be lots of disapointments in the future. We both agree that many Gold CAC coins sell for multiple point upgrades and I believe that it will be human nature for some to submit the gold stickered coins "assuming" that they will be worth more in a CACG holder at a higher grade. And many who paid a couple grade premium for these coins will "assume" that the upgrade will be more than one point. Maybe some will, but my guess is many will only go one point.
I think peoples assumptions of how much their coin will upgrade is where the dissapointments will lie. Again what lots of people here don't realize is that there are people who participate in the market who aren't as "in the know" as lots of people here. They follow trends without understanding the nuances of the market. Or they bought into some kind of marketing hype or sales pitch from whoever they bought the coin from and not think that when they are allowed to eventually submit to CACG thier coin will upgrade more than it does.

jmlanzaf

@winesteven said:
My interpretation of the comment by @BStrauss3 is partially (and importantly) different from most of the replies that addressed that comment.

I see that comment as making two points:

1. That it "only" upgraded one point. In my opinion, the replies to that point were right on target. It got the upgrade, and there's nothing saying one should have confidence in a two grade upgrade.
2. More importantly, which no one seemed to address the way I will, was the point that the new 64 graded coin did not sticker when sent back to CAC. While this is indeed "rare", in my opinion when that coin now graded 64 was sent back to CAC for stickering, they should have included a photo of the prior cert with the gold sticker, AND the paperwork showing the resubmission to the TPG. If it was submitted to the TPG via Reconsideration (but probably wasn't), the cert number would have been the same. If it was submitted via Regrade, while the cert number would now be new, at least the paperwork would show the old cert number and the new result, so CAC would know it's the same coin if the paperwork is submitted to CAC with that coin. However, perhaps it was sent via crackout, which always introduces the small possibility of some "damage". Regardless, i believe there was probably no damage, but submitting photos and paperwork could likely have resulted in a green sticker being applied! Regardless, while in theory none of these steps should be needed, the reality is we're all human beings, including the people at CAC stickering. While their consistency has been remarkable, they are not perfect, and occasionally, like now, a difference occurs. I'm willing to bet (a common raw Jefferson nickel) that NO paperwork was submitted to CAC with the new 64 to show that this coin had previously had a Gold sticker at 63!

Steve

While I'm sure you are correct on #2 - that no paperwork was supplied - you shouldn't have to do that. A 64 gold should 65 green (or better) without you needing to prove it.

I might also add that I would be a little disturbed if they stickered based on your paperwork. The standard should be the standard. And if the gold CAC should not have been a gold CAC (+1 with a green), it should not receive a legacy green CAC at the higher grade to perpetuate the error.

winesteven

@bigjpst said:

@DeplorableDan said:

@bigjpst said:
Thanks for posting the article.
Regarding what @BStrauss3 posted. I think there are going to be a lot more of these disappointments coming. The premiums that sometimes get paid for gold stickers are based on some strange “potential” for upgrade. Even though CAC has always maintained that they mean solid for at least next grade, the premiums are often multiple grades higher. AU55 with gold must mean it’s a MS63 etc.
when these start upgrading only one grade at CACG people are going to trapped and buried in their premiums.

What makes you think that everyone is racing to upgrade their gold stickered coins? The market already absorbs them for ALL of the money, there’s rarely enough upside to gamble with them.

I never said people are racing to do anything. What I said is that I believe there will be lots of disapointments in the future. We both agree that many Gold CAC coins sell for multiple point upgrades and I believe that it will be human nature for some to submit the gold stickered coins "assuming" that they will be worth more in a CACG holder at a higher grade. And many who paid a couple grade premium for these coins will "assume" that the upgrade will be more than one point. Maybe some will, but my guess is many will only go one point.
I think peoples assumptions of how much their coin will upgrade is where the dissapointments will lie. Again what lots of people here don't realize is that there are people who participate in the market who aren't as "in the know" as lots of people here. They follow trends without understanding the nuances of the market.

My understanding of the "Village Gossip" is that a Gold Sticker equates to roughly a 1-1/2 grade upgrade. If indeed there's merit to that thought, then it's reasonable for one to expect a Gold stickered coin "should" upgrade one grade, and if lucky, "might" upgrade two points.

In my opinion with the example shared by @BStrauss3, while I understand the disappointment in not getting the green sticker on the 64 (which I addressed in my prior comment just above), if they are experienced dealers, there should have been NO major surprise in it not grading 65!!!!

Steve

winesteven

@jmlanzaf said:

@winesteven said:
My interpretation of the comment by @BStrauss3 is partially (and importantly) different from most of the replies that addressed that comment.

I see that comment as making two points:

1. That it "only" upgraded one point. In my opinion, the replies to that point were right on target. It got the upgrade, and there's nothing saying one should have confidence in a two grade upgrade.
2. More importantly, which no one seemed to address the way I will, was the point that the new 64 graded coin did not sticker when sent back to CAC. While this is indeed "rare", in my opinion when that coin now graded 64 was sent back to CAC for stickering, they should have included a photo of the prior cert with the gold sticker, AND the paperwork showing the resubmission to the TPG. If it was submitted to the TPG via Reconsideration (but probably wasn't), the cert number would have been the same. If it was submitted via Regrade, while the cert number would now be new, at least the paperwork would show the old cert number and the new result, so CAC would know it's the same coin if the paperwork is submitted to CAC with that coin. However, perhaps it was sent via crackout, which always introduces the small possibility of some "damage". Regardless, i believe there was probably no damage, but submitting photos and paperwork could likely have resulted in a green sticker being applied! Regardless, while in theory none of these steps should be needed, the reality is we're all human beings, including the people at CAC stickering. While their consistency has been remarkable, they are not perfect, and occasionally, like now, a difference occurs. I'm willing to bet (a common raw Jefferson nickel) that NO paperwork was submitted to CAC with the new 64 to show that this coin had previously had a Gold sticker at 63!

Steve

While I'm sure you are correct on #2 - that no paperwork was supplied - you shouldn't have to do that. A 64 gold should 65 green (or better) without you needing to prove it.

I might also add that I would be a little disturbed if they stickered based on your paperwork. The standard should be the standard. And if the gold CAC should not have been a gold CAC (+1 with a green), it should not receive a legacy green CAC at the higher grade to perpetuate the error.

As I said, "Regardless, while in theory none of these steps should be needed, the reality is we're all human beings, including the people at CAC stickering. While their consistency has been remarkable, they are not perfect, and occasionally, like now, a difference occurs."

I agree that if indeed CAC determined later on that they erred in originally using the Gold sticker on the 63, then the paperwork should not force them to green sticker the 64. But I believe you and i agree that borderline cases have subjectivity, and if paperwork is included, and a call can legitimately go either way, then in my opinion it's OK to have the help of the paperwork!

Steve

bigjpst

@winesteven said:

@bigjpst said:

@DeplorableDan said:

@bigjpst said:
Thanks for posting the article.
Regarding what @BStrauss3 posted. I think there are going to be a lot more of these disappointments coming. The premiums that sometimes get paid for gold stickers are based on some strange “potential” for upgrade. Even though CAC has always maintained that they mean solid for at least next grade, the premiums are often multiple grades higher. AU55 with gold must mean it’s a MS63 etc.
when these start upgrading only one grade at CACG people are going to trapped and buried in their premiums.

What makes you think that everyone is racing to upgrade their gold stickered coins? The market already absorbs them for ALL of the money, there’s rarely enough upside to gamble with them.

I never said people are racing to do anything. What I said is that I believe there will be lots of disapointments in the future. We both agree that many Gold CAC coins sell for multiple point upgrades and I believe that it will be human nature for some to submit the gold stickered coins "assuming" that they will be worth more in a CACG holder at a higher grade. And many who paid a couple grade premium for these coins will "assume" that the upgrade will be more than one point. Maybe some will, but my guess is many will only go one point.
I think peoples assumptions of how much their coin will upgrade is where the dissapointments will lie. Again what lots of people here don't realize is that there are people who participate in the market who aren't as "in the know" as lots of people here. They follow trends without understanding the nuances of the market.

My understanding of the "Village Gossip" is that a Gold Sticker equates to roughly a 1-1/2 grade upgrade. If indeed there's merit to that thought, then it's reasonable for one to expect a Gold stickered coin "should" upgrade one grade, and if lucky, "might" upgrade two points.

Steve

Agree 100%
But if you and I believe that to be the case, and most people who swim in the CAC pool believe that to be the case, why do so many gold CAC coins sell for multiple grades higher? "potential" Once the coin upgrades (whatever that upgrade number is), the potential is gone. 64 gold ends up 65CACG you can't go back because the chance that you resubmit to NGC or PCGS for the downgrade and then the gold CAC again is very unlikely. Even if it goes up two points, some people will be underwater on the premiums paid.

winesteven

@bigjpst said:

@winesteven said:

@bigjpst said:

@DeplorableDan said:

@bigjpst said:
Thanks for posting the article.
Regarding what @BStrauss3 posted. I think there are going to be a lot more of these disappointments coming. The premiums that sometimes get paid for gold stickers are based on some strange “potential” for upgrade. Even though CAC has always maintained that they mean solid for at least next grade, the premiums are often multiple grades higher. AU55 with gold must mean it’s a MS63 etc.
when these start upgrading only one grade at CACG people are going to trapped and buried in their premiums.

What makes you think that everyone is racing to upgrade their gold stickered coins? The market already absorbs them for ALL of the money, there’s rarely enough upside to gamble with them.

I never said people are racing to do anything. What I said is that I believe there will be lots of disapointments in the future. We both agree that many Gold CAC coins sell for multiple point upgrades and I believe that it will be human nature for some to submit the gold stickered coins "assuming" that they will be worth more in a CACG holder at a higher grade. And many who paid a couple grade premium for these coins will "assume" that the upgrade will be more than one point. Maybe some will, but my guess is many will only go one point.
I think peoples assumptions of how much their coin will upgrade is where the dissapointments will lie. Again what lots of people here don't realize is that there are people who participate in the market who aren't as "in the know" as lots of people here. They follow trends without understanding the nuances of the market.

My understanding of the "Village Gossip" is that a Gold Sticker equates to roughly a 1-1/2 grade upgrade. If indeed there's merit to that thought, then it's reasonable for one to expect a Gold stickered coin "should" upgrade one grade, and if lucky, "might" upgrade two points.

Steve

Agree 100%
But if you and I believe that to be the case, and most people who swim in the CAC pool believe that to be the case, why do so many gold CAC coins sell for multiple grades higher? "potential" Once the coin upgrades (whatever that upgrade number is), the potential is gone. 64 gold ends up 65CACG you can't go back because the chance that you resubmit to NGC or PCGS for the downgrade and then the gold CAC again is very unlikely.

People are different from each other, and that's what makes the world go around! I don't buy any Gold CAC stickered coins, and I'm guessing you don't either. We agree many collectors also don't feel comfortable paying that premium, but the reality is SOME do. Some collectors pay high premiums for having the WORST coin, graded P01. I won't do that, and you won't either. While it truly baffles me, a bunch of collectors will indeed pay premiums for owning the worst coin!

Steve

PeakRarities

@bigjpst said:

@winesteven said:

@bigjpst said:

@DeplorableDan said:

@bigjpst said:
Thanks for posting the article.
Regarding what @BStrauss3 posted. I think there are going to be a lot more of these disappointments coming. The premiums that sometimes get paid for gold stickers are based on some strange “potential” for upgrade. Even though CAC has always maintained that they mean solid for at least next grade, the premiums are often multiple grades higher. AU55 with gold must mean it’s a MS63 etc.
when these start upgrading only one grade at CACG people are going to trapped and buried in their premiums.

What makes you think that everyone is racing to upgrade their gold stickered coins? The market already absorbs them for ALL of the money, there’s rarely enough upside to gamble with them.

I never said people are racing to do anything. What I said is that I believe there will be lots of disapointments in the future. We both agree that many Gold CAC coins sell for multiple point upgrades and I believe that it will be human nature for some to submit the gold stickered coins "assuming" that they will be worth more in a CACG holder at a higher grade. And many who paid a couple grade premium for these coins will "assume" that the upgrade will be more than one point. Maybe some will, but my guess is many will only go one point.
I think peoples assumptions of how much their coin will upgrade is where the dissapointments will lie. Again what lots of people here don't realize is that there are people who participate in the market who aren't as "in the know" as lots of people here. They follow trends without understanding the nuances of the market.

My understanding of the "Village Gossip" is that a Gold Sticker equates to roughly a 1-1/2 grade upgrade. If indeed there's merit to that thought, then it's reasonable for one to expect a Gold stickered coin "should" upgrade one grade, and if lucky, "might" upgrade two points.

Steve

Agree 100%
But if you and I believe that to be the case, and most people who swim in the CAC pool believe that to be the case, why do so many gold CAC coins sell for multiple grades higher? "potential" Once the coin upgrades (whatever that upgrade number is), the potential is gone. 64 gold ends up 65CACG you can't go back because the chance that you resubmit to NGC or PCGS for the downgrade and then the gold CAC again is very unlikely.

Well, there is a collectibility aspect, much like rattlers or other old holders. Some issues may only have a few coins that gold stickered at that grade and some do try to assemble collections of them. I am not one of those people, however. These collectors are buying the holder/sticker combo as much as they are buying the coin.

scubafuel

A gold cac is at least a green cac at the next grade up (and I agree with Steven that cac will enforce this if provided paperwork, barring any jackassery like dipping it)

It’s my guess that cac leaves themselves some wiggle room to avoid close calls, which results in the sense that they’re usually “1.5 grades up”

But there is only one color gold. A coin could be 5 grades up and would receive the same sticker. You still need to be able to grade.

VanHalen

@bigjpst said:
Thanks for posting the article.
Regarding what @BStrauss3 posted. I think there are going to be a lot more of these disappointments coming. The premiums that sometimes get paid for gold stickers are based on some strange “potential” for upgrade. Even though CAC has always maintained that they mean solid for at least next grade, the premiums are often multiple grades higher. AU55 with gold must mean it’s a MS63 etc.
when these start upgrading only one grade at CACG people are going to trapped and buried in their premiums.

To paraphrase: "....there are going to be a lot more of these disappointments coming."

There's going to be a learning curve, and with that will be disappointments. How this shakes out will likely take a year or two. In the meantime let's try to keep it positive because in the long run it will be a good thing for the hobby.

bigjpst

@DeplorableDan said:

@bigjpst said:

@winesteven said:

@bigjpst said:

@DeplorableDan said:

@bigjpst said:
Thanks for posting the article.
Regarding what @BStrauss3 posted. I think there are going to be a lot more of these disappointments coming. The premiums that sometimes get paid for gold stickers are based on some strange “potential” for upgrade. Even though CAC has always maintained that they mean solid for at least next grade, the premiums are often multiple grades higher. AU55 with gold must mean it’s a MS63 etc.
when these start upgrading only one grade at CACG people are going to trapped and buried in their premiums.

What makes you think that everyone is racing to upgrade their gold stickered coins? The market already absorbs them for ALL of the money, there’s rarely enough upside to gamble with them.

I never said people are racing to do anything. What I said is that I believe there will be lots of disapointments in the future. We both agree that many Gold CAC coins sell for multiple point upgrades and I believe that it will be human nature for some to submit the gold stickered coins "assuming" that they will be worth more in a CACG holder at a higher grade. And many who paid a couple grade premium for these coins will "assume" that the upgrade will be more than one point. Maybe some will, but my guess is many will only go one point.
I think peoples assumptions of how much their coin will upgrade is where the dissapointments will lie. Again what lots of people here don't realize is that there are people who participate in the market who aren't as "in the know" as lots of people here. They follow trends without understanding the nuances of the market.

My understanding of the "Village Gossip" is that a Gold Sticker equates to roughly a 1-1/2 grade upgrade. If indeed there's merit to that thought, then it's reasonable for one to expect a Gold stickered coin "should" upgrade one grade, and if lucky, "might" upgrade two points.

Steve

Agree 100%
But if you and I believe that to be the case, and most people who swim in the CAC pool believe that to be the case, why do so many gold CAC coins sell for multiple grades higher? "potential" Once the coin upgrades (whatever that upgrade number is), the potential is gone. 64 gold ends up 65CACG you can't go back because the chance that you resubmit to NGC or PCGS for the downgrade and then the gold CAC again is very unlikely.

Well, there is a collectibility aspect, much like rattlers or other old holders. Some issues may only have a few coins that gold stickered at that grade and some do try to assemble collections of them. I am not one of those people, however. These collectors are buying the holder/sticker combo as much as they are buying the coin.

I get that part of it. I've been buying sample slabs and collectible slabs for over 10 years. And while I have sent enough coins to CAC to earn an inagural sample slab, I don't make a habit of it. Most of the coins I think would CAC I sell for a premium without them making a trip to NJ, so I may lose out on some of the "potential" if the coins actually bean. I guess the thread got a bit derailed with my response to another poster. It wouldn't be a CAC thread if it wasn't . Haha.

Coin Finder

Personally I need more sales data to draw any conclusions, this may take a while..

lermish

@winesteven said:
However, perhaps it was sent via crackout.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. We don't know if the story is true and, if so, what kind of coin it was but a 2 point Reconsider/Regrade grade jump (which apparently they assumed) would likely have a hefty Guarantee Premium. I could absolutely see dealers not wanting to pay that and then being stung by the false economy.

As for re-stickering, I agree I would have submitted with quality photos and paperwork but that is never a guarantee and, as has been discussed here ad nauseam, JA's view of the Sheldon scale is not identical to the TPGs.

jmlanzaf

@bigjpst said:

@winesteven said:

@bigjpst said:

@DeplorableDan said:

@bigjpst said:
Thanks for posting the article.
Regarding what @BStrauss3 posted. I think there are going to be a lot more of these disappointments coming. The premiums that sometimes get paid for gold stickers are based on some strange “potential” for upgrade. Even though CAC has always maintained that they mean solid for at least next grade, the premiums are often multiple grades higher. AU55 with gold must mean it’s a MS63 etc.
when these start upgrading only one grade at CACG people are going to trapped and buried in their premiums.

What makes you think that everyone is racing to upgrade their gold stickered coins? The market already absorbs them for ALL of the money, there’s rarely enough upside to gamble with them.

I never said people are racing to do anything. What I said is that I believe there will be lots of disapointments in the future. We both agree that many Gold CAC coins sell for multiple point upgrades and I believe that it will be human nature for some to submit the gold stickered coins "assuming" that they will be worth more in a CACG holder at a higher grade. And many who paid a couple grade premium for these coins will "assume" that the upgrade will be more than one point. Maybe some will, but my guess is many will only go one point.
I think peoples assumptions of how much their coin will upgrade is where the dissapointments will lie. Again what lots of people here don't realize is that there are people who participate in the market who aren't as "in the know" as lots of people here. They follow trends without understanding the nuances of the market.

My understanding of the "Village Gossip" is that a Gold Sticker equates to roughly a 1-1/2 grade upgrade. If indeed there's merit to that thought, then it's reasonable for one to expect a Gold stickered coin "should" upgrade one grade, and if lucky, "might" upgrade two points.

Steve

Agree 100%
But if you and I believe that to be the case, and most people who swim in the CAC pool believe that to be the case, why do so many gold CAC coins sell for multiple grades higher? "potential" Once the coin upgrades (whatever that upgrade number is), the potential is gone. 64 gold ends up 65CACG you can't go back because the chance that you resubmit to NGC or PCGS for the downgrade and then the gold CAC again is very unlikely. Even if it goes up two points, some people will be underwater on the premiums paid.

I think part of the issue is the feeling that a 65 isn't a CAC 65. What I mean is that the guide is dominated by generic coins for the grade. (Ignore Pop 1s and 2s.) So let's say that I have a 63 (gold CAC) and I BELIEVE that means it's a 64. I'm going to pay more than 64 money because I believe the guide to be dominated by 64s that may lack original surfaces, for example. [Same if I think it's a 65.]

You can't let your thinking be dominated by a published price in a guide. CAC or no CAC, coins will sell well above that price and often below that price if the coin is exceptional or ugly. The market perception is that the CAC coins are always going to be solid or better for the grade with no surface issues or other problems.

People (mostly) COLLECT coins, they don't really INVEST in them. The idea of "potential" is tied to aesthetics not price. If I want a premium coin in my collection, I pay up for it - guide be damned. If I'm "investing", I might be better off with a raw widget that I can buy at a low price.

FrankH

Just another few inches into the grave of coin collecting.

Although I now only own slabs, they aren't even 10% of the fun of the old albums.

P0CKETCHANGE

@FrankH said:
Just another few inches into the grave of coin collecting.

Although I now only own slabs, they aren't even 10% of the fun of the old albums.

Coin albums are still around, last I checked

PhillyJoe

I have three common date ,same year Morgans. One is PCGS 64 green sticker, one is NGC 64 green, one is CACG 64. All are solid for the grade according to the experts. How will the market treat them? Should be the same, right?

P0CKETCHANGE

@PhillyJoe said:
I have three common date ,same year Morgans. One is PCGS 64 green sticker, one is NGC 64 green, one is CACG 64. All are solid for the grade according to the experts. How will the market treat them? Should be the same, right?

Why should they be the same? Each is graded by a different TPG. Buyers have other preferences as well—for ex., I prefer my coins in PCGS plastic with a TrueView, with the coin added to my PCGS Registry.

They are only the “same” if you completely disregard (and value as worthless) the grading opinions of PCGS and NGC, as well as the other aspects of their product and services that collectors may value.

jmlanzaf

@P0CKETCHANGE said:

@PhillyJoe said:
I have three common date ,same year Morgans. One is PCGS 64 green sticker, one is NGC 64 green, one is CACG 64. All are solid for the grade according to the experts. How will the market treat them? Should be the same, right?

Why should they be the same? Each is graded by a different TPG. Buyers have other preferences as well—for ex., I prefer my coins in PCGS plastic with a TrueView, with the coin added to my PCGS Registry.

They are only the “same” if you completely disregard (and value as worthless) the grading opinions of PCGS and NGC, as well as the other aspects of their product and services that collectors may value.

Forget the plastic, do the coins LOOK identical? You can get multiples of guide for PQ toners, for example.

PhillyJoe

My point is they were all graded, and in the case of PCGS and NGC, confirmed as 64’s. The article said we will have to wait a year to see the pricing shake out.

jmlanzaf

@FrankH said:
Just another few inches into the grave of coin collecting.

Although I now only own slabs, they aren't even 10% of the fun of the old albums.

99% of my coins are raw. It's not either/or.

P0CKETCHANGE

@jmlanzaf said:
Forget the plastic, do the coins LOOK identical? You can get multiples of guide for PQ toners, for example.

Sure, big differences in the coins themselves as in your example are obvious. I should have stated it explicitly, but assume the coins themselves are all essentially identical, which I think is what @PhillyJoe was implying.

Maywood

All this is very confusing. It makes me happy to be collecting in an area which CAC chooses to avoid.

Lakesammman

Maybe the dealers should learn how to grade rather than buying holders and gold beans??

dollarfan

@DeplorableDan said:

@bigjpst said:

@winesteven said:

@bigjpst said:

@DeplorableDan said:

@bigjpst said:
Thanks for posting the article.
Regarding what @BStrauss3 posted. I think there are going to be a lot more of these disappointments coming. The premiums that sometimes get paid for gold stickers are based on some strange “potential” for upgrade. Even though CAC has always maintained that they mean solid for at least next grade, the premiums are often multiple grades higher. AU55 with gold must mean it’s a MS63 etc.
when these start upgrading only one grade at CACG people are going to trapped and buried in their premiums.

What makes you think that everyone is racing to upgrade their gold stickered coins? The market already absorbs them for ALL of the money, there’s rarely enough upside to gamble with them.

I never said people are racing to do anything. What I said is that I believe there will be lots of disapointments in the future. We both agree that many Gold CAC coins sell for multiple point upgrades and I believe that it will be human nature for some to submit the gold stickered coins "assuming" that they will be worth more in a CACG holder at a higher grade. And many who paid a couple grade premium for these coins will "assume" that the upgrade will be more than one point. Maybe some will, but my guess is many will only go one point.
I think peoples assumptions of how much their coin will upgrade is where the dissapointments will lie. Again what lots of people here don't realize is that there are people who participate in the market who aren't as "in the know" as lots of people here. They follow trends without understanding the nuances of the market.

My understanding of the "Village Gossip" is that a Gold Sticker equates to roughly a 1-1/2 grade upgrade. If indeed there's merit to that thought, then it's reasonable for one to expect a Gold stickered coin "should" upgrade one grade, and if lucky, "might" upgrade two points.

Steve

Agree 100%
But if you and I believe that to be the case, and most people who swim in the CAC pool believe that to be the case, why do so many gold CAC coins sell for multiple grades higher? "potential" Once the coin upgrades (whatever that upgrade number is), the potential is gone. 64 gold ends up 65CACG you can't go back because the chance that you resubmit to NGC or PCGS for the downgrade and then the gold CAC again is very unlikely.

Well, there is a collectibility aspect, much like rattlers or other old holders. Some issues may only have a few coins that gold stickered at that grade and some do try to assemble collections of them. I am not one of those people, however. These collectors are buying the holder/sticker combo as much as they are buying the coin.

Strongly agree with Dan. I bought an 1883 S Morgan 63 gold bean that I probably way overpaid for, will be under water til I'm under the ground in a cardboard box, and would have went 2500 higher because I like it that much booming luster, ogh, better date and only gold for the date. Was it worth it? Probably not to 95 out of 100 but that is what makes collecting fun. I will try to dig out and post it later. Sweet coin even without the gold

fathom

As the article stated very clearly there is going to be artificial scarcity valuation which will need to play out.

IMO stickered NGC and PCGS will continue strong demand and valuation for the foreseeable future.

jmlanzaf

@Lakesammman said:
Maybe the dealers should learn how to grade rather than buying holders and gold beans??

Dealers buy what collectors want.

winesteven

@PhillyJoe said:
I have three common date, same year Morgan's. One is PCGS 64 green sticker, one is NGC 64 green, one is CACG 64. All are solid for the grade according to the experts. How will the market treat them? Should be the same, right?

Absolutely SHOULD be valued the same, but in the real world, not so much.

Steve

dollarfan

dollarfan

Here is the 1883. Looks nice nice in hand

lermish

@dollarfan said:
Here is the 1883. Looks nice nice in hand

65+

Walkerguy21D

@dollarfan said:
Here is the 1883. Looks nice nice in hand

$3k price spread to 64, $30k price spread to 65…very hard to price, also very surprised this coin survived the crack out games from prior owners.

dollarfan

@Walkerguy21D said:

@dollarfan said:
Here is the 1883. Looks nice nice in hand

$3k price spread to 64, $30k price spread to 65…very hard to price, also very surprised this coin survived the crack out games from prior owners.

i hadnt thought of that but that may help explain a total POP of 1 gold bean all grades for that date....interesting

Walkerguy21D

@dollarfan said:

@Walkerguy21D said:

@dollarfan said:
Here is the 1883. Looks nice nice in hand

$3k price spread to 64, $30k price spread to 65…very hard to price, also very surprised this coin survived the crack out games from prior owners.

i hadnt thought of that but that may help explain a total POP of 1 gold bean all grades for that date....interesting

Regardless of what you think you overpaid, you have a very solid premium coin with everything going for it. And since you already know that, and more or less plan on being buried with it, that’s what really counts!

dollarfan

i cant really grade well but it looked like a top end 64 to me and i never thought it could be higher but looking at it next to several other graded 64 morgans it looks like the boss. if this was a GTG where would you guys/gals guess?

Cougar1978

@P0CKETCHANGE said:

@PhillyJoe said:
I have three common date ,same year Morgans. One is PCGS 64 green sticker, one is NGC 64 green, one is CACG 64. All are solid for the grade according to the experts. How will the market treat them? Should be the same, right?

Why should they be the same? Each is graded by a different TPG. Buyers have other preferences as well—for ex., I prefer my coins in PCGS plastic with a TrueView, with the coin added to my PCGS Registry.

They are only the “same” if you completely disregard (and value as worthless) the grading opinions of PCGS and NGC, as well as the other aspects of their product and services that collectors may value.

I would use CDN CAC CPG for MV in my spreadsheet for all 3. At this point in time at least. I like consistency. Then from there pricing them for a show could vary based on cost / my assessment of the coin and where it falls in the grade range. As far as some mythical market god not going to be manipulated by that - everybody has their own opinion. Bobby rich guy know it all likes TPG A but won’t pay the money, Jimmy know it all Dumbo wants to low ball me on TPG B. My reg customer Frankie buys all 3 taking a 10 pct discount which works still leaving me room plus move them quick.