<<< but I find it odd that the new firm has stated that GR and HRH will review every coin. First, because they're busy guys and can’t possibly have enough time to grade much more than a couple hundred coins a day in their spare time. >>>
Their announcement seems pretty clear cut to me: "Hall and Roberts will assess each coin for its quality, eye appeal and grade. Coins that Hall and Roberts unanimously agree meet CMQ’s rigorous standards will be recognized as “qualified” and granted a tamper-resistant hologram sticker, symbolizing a mark of approval."
<<< And second, because they’re coin dealers, and the obvious conflicts of interest would seem to create an insurmountable marketing hurdle. >>>
How is this different from what Albanese and CAC are currently doing as far as actively making a market in their stickered products?
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
As I noted at the bottom of the prior page, if a firm truly believes their reputation is their most valuable asset, then I will ignore that theoretical conflict.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@Maywood said:
I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but I am quite confident in saying that nobody should complain about. It is the "to be expected" result of two factors, greed and the inability of collectors to hone their grading/attribution skills over time while they gain confidence in themselves.
Interestingly and in nearly absolute terms, all but PCGS and NGC encapsulations have been eliminated from the general marketplace. With a "slow drip" the CAC sticker has been added to the equation. It appears to me that it won't be long, perhaps by the end of the decade, that a PCGS/NGC coin capsule could contain as many as 4-5 of these stickers asserting its worthiness to a point which relegates the insert and the encapsulated coins as secondary. Certainly collectors will still want to know what the coin looks like and what the grade is, but the "slow drip" is insidious and takes us over.
It happened when TPG's first arrived and the Hobby eventually succumbed and adjusted. It is underway right now with a large swath of this forum, dealers and the Hobby in general: a coin must have a CAC sticker. Others insist on a coin with an Eagle Eye sticker. I hear the choir starting up, "It doesn't hurt to have another opinion" and I guess that OK. But when does it stop??
I fully trust my grading ability. However, I don't trust auction photos.
But do you trust a Stacks auction photo with a Stacks sticker?
There appears to be a conflict of interest when a company stickers the coins it is also offering for sale.
I was commenting more on CAC. It is really too soon to know anything about the new sticker.
@Luxor said:
<<< but I find it odd that the new firm has stated that GR and HRH will review every coin. First, because they're busy guys and can’t possibly have enough time to grade much more than a couple hundred coins a day in their spare time. >>>
Their announcement seems pretty clear cut to me: "Hall and Roberts will assess each coin for its quality, eye appeal and grade. Coins that Hall and Roberts unanimously agree meet CMQ’s rigorous standards will be recognized as “qualified” and granted a tamper-resistant hologram sticker, symbolizing a mark of approval."
<<< And second, because they’re coin dealers, and the obvious conflicts of interest would seem to create an insurmountable marketing hurdle. >>>
How is this different from what Albanese and CAC are currently doing as far as actively making a market in their stickered products?
It's not necessarily any different. The question is less about whether they sell stickered coins and more about whether they buy unstickered coins and sticker them.
While in theory they could buy garbage, sticker it and raise the price, as soon as they did that the sticker would have no value.
The only "scam" you could run that would work is to refuse to sticker a gem. But the gem. Then sticker it. That would be a really difficult thing to do and not with the effort for 95% of coins. Most submissions are not also requests for bids.
@Luxor said:
<<< but I find it odd that the new firm has stated that GR and HRH will review every coin. First, because they're busy guys and can’t possibly have enough time to grade much more than a couple hundred coins a day in their spare time. >>>
Their announcement seems pretty clear cut to me: "Hall and Roberts will assess each coin for its quality, eye appeal and grade. Coins that Hall and Roberts unanimously agree meet CMQ’s rigorous standards will be recognized as “qualified” and granted a tamper-resistant hologram sticker, symbolizing a mark of approval."
<<< And second, because they’re coin dealers, and the obvious conflicts of interest would seem to create an insurmountable marketing hurdle. >>>
How is this different from what Albanese and CAC are currently doing as far as actively making a market in their stickered products?
It's not necessarily any different. The question is less about whether they sell stickered coins and more about whether they buy unstickered coins and sticker them.
While in theory they could buy garbage, sticker it and raise the price, as soon as they did that the sticker would have no value.
The only "scam" you could run that would work is to refuse to sticker a gem. But the gem. Then sticker it. That would be a really difficult thing to do and not with the effort for 95% of coins. Most submissions are not also requests for bids.
But the trend for TPGs has been to start with high standards, establish a reputation as being conservative and then let the standards slowly fall over time. If you are stickering your own coins, that temptation is even greater. It’s a way to further monetize the conservative reputation established early on.
Not saying that will be the case here, but the risk is there. Rick Snow has maintained his Eagle Eye standards - so it can be done. However, it’s likely easier for him to maintain standards than for a larger corporate entity.
It’s just a risk - it may or may not materialize - time will tell.
Finally, CAC has given up the throne? “Stack’s swooped in to take the spot”? Tell me how many submissions has Stack’s received?
I fully agree with you that nobody can say exactly what the future holds.
Steve
I was not thinking about quantity, I was indicating position. I was under the intention that CAC was going to stop stickering coins eventually. Perhaps that is not the case, but if it is, they will have given up the position and Stacks will be the only one to fill that spot in the market.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
Finally, CAC has given up the throne? “Stack’s swooped in to take the spot”? Tell me how many submissions has Stack’s received?
I fully agree with you that nobody can say exactly what the future holds.
Steve
I was not thinking about quantity, I was indicating position. I was under the intention that CAC was going to stop stickering coins eventually. Perhaps that is not the case, but if it is, they will have given up the position and Stacks will be the only one to fill that spot in the market.
I agree that it's very likely the day will come that CAC stickering will end, and that this new venture by Stack's is to position themselves to fill that void. I misinterpreted your "tense", thinking you implied the present, and not the future when CAC does stop stickering.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
When will Heritage start a similar service? When will Legend? At some point this becomes lunacy if every auction house does the same thing. Does GC get into the game?
This of course is a hypothetical scenario and hopefully never happens. I consign a coin with Stacks. It doesn’t earn a CMQ. Okay, I want my coin back. I consign with Heritage and it stickers with their new service. This nightmarish scenario could eventually border on insanity.
The long term effect is to de-emphasize the coin and
focus on labels & stickers - the hobby is slowly but surely
going through metamorphosis from coins to labels :
"I like the label / sticker, so I buy the coin." IMHO this is
nothing more than a new avenue of commerce in numismatics.
Given all the coins floating out in the market, one could easily
dream up and execute a variety of "unique" categories based on
creativity and imagination. Was it C*C who initiated this whole
regrading and recertification process because they made us
believe that coins previously examined were now subject to inaccuracy ?
I mean just how many times does a coin have to be regraded
and re-certified within layers of bureaucracy to convince the buyer
that it is unique and valuable ???
It will be interesting to see how this progresses. Personally, I like the second opinions on the coins, but I will continue to do what I do and that is buy the coins I like. I don't care if a coin has been approved by every stickering company out there and then blessed by Almighty God Himself. I won't buy a coin if I don't like it. This works for me as this is my hobby and the price paid for my coins is for my enjoyment, not as an investment.
I wish them the best in their endeavor.
Enjoy the hobby and ignore the noise, but make sure you know the difference.
@skier07 said:
When will Heritage start a similar service? When will Legend? At some point this becomes lunacy if every auction house does the same thing. Does GC get into the game?
This of course is a hypothetical scenario and hopefully never happens. I consign a coin with Stacks. It doesn’t earn a CMQ. Okay, I want my coin back. I consign with Heritage and it stickers with their new service. This nightmarish scenario could eventually border on insanity.
With Stack's starting this venture "early", it looks like they're positioning themselves to take over that void when CAC does stop stickering. While in theory I agree with the lunacy if HA, GC, Legend, and DLRC all do the same, I doubt they will. But who knows? As we often say, "Time will tell!"
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
I want to be the first person to have a slab that carries the Sight White, QA, Eagle Eye Photo Seal, Watch Dog, CAC, and CMQ stickers. I wonder if I'd still be able to see the coin.
@horseyride said:
One day I am going to take a PCGS slab with CAC sticker and try to add an Eagle Eye photo seal, Stacks sticker, plus whatever they come out with in the future just to see how many I can get
@horseyride said:
One day I am going to take a PCGS slab with CAC sticker and try to add an Eagle Eye photo seal, Stacks sticker, plus whatever they come out with in the future just to see how many I can get
Don't forget (((((PQ)))))
Also Everest and ECC.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
@Bikergeek said:
I want to be the first person to have a slab that carries the Sight White, QA, Eagle Eye Photo Seal, Watch Dog, CAC, and CMQ stickers. I wonder if I'd still be able to see the coin.
@skier07 said:
When will Heritage start a similar service? When will Legend? At some point this becomes lunacy if every auction house does the same thing. Does GC get into the game?
This of course is a hypothetical scenario and hopefully never happens. I consign a coin with Stacks. It doesn’t earn a CMQ. Okay, I want my coin back. I consign with Heritage and it stickers with their new service. This nightmarish scenario could eventually border on insanity.
I don't think corporate entities can or would try. It's John Albanese and David Hall that make these (possibly) work. Heritage just sticking a Heritage sticker on a coin without a prominent authority as their finalizer would be a disaster.
@sfs2002usa said:
The long term effect is to de-emphasize the coin and
focus on labels & stickers - the hobby is slowly but surely
going through metamorphosis from coins to labels :
"I like the label / sticker, so I buy the coin." IMHO this is
nothing more than a new avenue of commerce in numismatics.
Given all the coins floating out in the market, one could easily
dream up and execute a variety of "unique" categories based on
creativity and imagination. Was it C*C who initiated this whole
regrading and recertification process because they made us
believe that coins previously examined were now subject to inaccuracy ?
I mean just how many times does a coin have to be regraded
and re-certified within layers of bureaucracy to convince the buyer
that it is unique and valuable ???
I have NEVER met anyone who told me that they didn't like the coin "...but it's PCGS/CAC so..."
People like coins with labels BECAUSE THE LABELS MEAN SOMETHING about the coin.
Honest question: how often do you see a PCGS CAC coin and say "that coin has a problem" or "that coin is overgraded"?
You may not like the "look" because blast white vs toned etc. Only once have I seen a PCGS CAC coin that I thought had a missed problem. And CAC made the owner whole.
@Smudge said:
Maybe in a few years you will be able to get a premium for a coin with no stickers.
There's a lot of people figuring their NONstickered coins will generate proceeds very similar to CAC stickered coins when the time comes that they (or quite likely, their heirs) sell their coins. Maybe I'll be surprised, but I believe they'll be the ones surprised.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@skier07 said:
When will Heritage start a similar service? When will Legend? At some point this becomes lunacy if every auction house does the same thing. Does GC get into the game?
This of course is a hypothetical scenario and hopefully never happens. I consign a coin with Stacks. It doesn’t earn a CMQ. Okay, I want my coin back. I consign with Heritage and it stickers with their new service. This nightmarish scenario could eventually border on insanity.
I don't think corporate entities can or would try. It's John Albanese and David Hall that make these (possibly) work. Heritage just sticking a Heritage sticker on a coin without a prominent authority as their finalizer would be a disaster.
I understand and agree with your point in general, but just for discussion purposes, if Heritage had @MarkFeld as their finalizer, they should do OK. Yes, his name off of these forums is not as recognizable as JA or Hall, but word would spread.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@291fifth said:
Just what the coin market needs ... more stickers to drain away more collector money that could be spent on nice coins themselves. If only collectors would learn how to grade conservatively ...
If only collectors would open their eyes and educate themselves to the world of raw numismatics. There are deals everywhere! Or perhaps the quality material will exceed retail price anyway, regardless of any sticker.
I think CAC made a misjudgement because the market does not need another grading service. PCGS will remain on top because the situation has solidified long enough. CAC has given up the throne and Stack's swooped in to take the spot.
Keep in mind, when CAC came out, many people thought it was a dumb and useless idea. Nobody can say exactly what the future holds.
Just my opinion...
CACG is NOT trying at all to beat out PCGS or NGC in volume. They just want to provide a grading service that in their opinion is more consistent AND one that uses THEIR standard for grading, which presumably is stricter in certain regards. Collectors and dealers that want that will use that. Those that don’t want it, won’t, and my understanding is that CACG is OK with those decisions!
Separately, you indicate that when CAC came out, many people thought it was a dumb and useless idea. Time has showed those people that thought that were wrong, by every metric.
Finally, CAC has given up the throne? “Stack’s swooped in to take the spot”? Tell me how many submissions has Stack’s received?
I fully agree with you that nobody can say exactly what the future holds.
Steve
I completely agree with Steve and let me be transparent an state that I am a fan of CAC.
I've reached the point where I am just going to enjoy my Morgan's. The slab and sticker game just fluctuates to much for my liking. What doesn't slab a higher grade today might tomorrow. We've all seen it and been there. What doesn't sticker today might sticker tomorrow. Nothing against any of the services. That's just what they are, services.
I just know that I myself am not interested in the expensive roller coaster ride.
I will of course be happy to buy an already stickered coin at a fair price.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan
A few months ago I concluded, after many months of thought, that it was time to sell my collection. Machinations and changes in the coin environment, like this, confirm I made the right choice. The coins are what they are. That the market requires you to surround them with expensive plastic, labels, and stickers gets a little over-the-top at some point. YMMV.
@skier07 said:
When will Heritage start a similar service? When will Legend? At some point this becomes lunacy if every auction house does the same thing. Does GC get into the game?
This of course is a hypothetical scenario and hopefully never happens. I consign a coin with Stacks. It doesn’t earn a CMQ. Okay, I want my coin back. I consign with Heritage and it stickers with their new service. This nightmarish scenario could eventually border on insanity.
With Stack's starting this venture "early", it looks like they're positioning themselves to take over that void when CAC does stop stickering. While in theory I agree with the lunacy if HA, GC, Legend, and DLRC all do the same, I doubt they will. But who knows? As we often say, "Time will tell!"
Steve
Everyone is ASSUMING that CAC will stop the stickering business at some point. Fact is the stickering business has a long track history of success and respect in the coin community. Has anyone considered that CACG may not be a successful business enterprise and may eventually cease operations, leaving JA to fall back on his CAC sticker company and continue it for many more years than publicly stated
@FlyingAl said: I don’t know - seems rather like they’re trying to replace CAC It seems out of place and it definitely seems like “just another sticker company”.
The connection to Stacks leaves me feeling like there’s a conflict of interest here as well.
I totally agree. The timing is much more than a mere coincidence
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
@FlyingAl said:
I don’t know - seems rather like they’re trying to replace CAC. It seems out of place and it definitely seems like “just another sticker company”.
The connection to Stacks leaves me feeling like there’s a conflict of interest here as well.
Is John Albanese or anyone else working for CAC a coin dealer?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I'm going to start putting gold star stickers on my coins, including 2×2's. If you ever see a coin with a gold star, know that it is Modwriter approved!
I'll withhold final judgement until I see the product, but I'll admit i'm rather disconnected from the idea of a sticker service backed by an AH/retail operation. With CAC I never saw a conflict because John only operates at wholesale levels, but are these stickers going to show up in disproportionate amounts on coins being offered in Stacks auctions?
@FlyingAl said: The connection to Stacks leaves me feeling like there’s a conflict of interest here as well.
What's the conflict and how is it different from CAC?
At CAC coins are stickered and then the company has offers to buy. At Stack's, I presume they will have some sort of offer to consignors to have coins examined by HRH and "stickered" in accordance to whatever their criteria might be, then those coins will be offered at auction.
Why is one service good and the other held suspect before they've even really done anything?? In a funny way this is starting almost exactly the way CAC started, criticized at the beginning before anything was really known.
@Maywood said: @FlyingAl said: The connection to Stacks leaves me feeling like there’s a conflict of interest here as well.
What's the conflict and how is it different from CAC?
At CAC coins are stickered and then the company has offers to buy. At Stack's, I presume they will have some sort of offer to consignors to have coins examined by HRH and "stickered" in accordance to whatever their criteria might be, then those coins will be offered at auction.
Why is one service good and the other held suspect before they've even really done anything?? In a funny way this is starting almost exactly the way CAC started, criticized at the beginning before anything was really known.
From my sense, I understand that CAC buys coins after they are put in the open market, not as coins are submitted. CAC would also not earn a commission from any sale of their coins through their own sponsored selling platform (which they do not have but Stacks does).
@Maywood said: @FlyingAl said: The connection to Stacks leaves me feeling like there’s a conflict of interest here as well.
What's the conflict and how is it different from CAC?
At CAC coins are stickered and then the company has offers to buy. At Stack's, I presume they will have some sort of offer to consignors to have coins examined by HRH and "stickered" in accordance to whatever their criteria might be, then those coins will be offered at auction.
Why is one service good and the other held suspect before they've even really done anything?? In a funny way this is starting almost exactly the way CAC started, criticized at the beginning before anything was really known.
Apples and oranges imo. One would have vested interest in a coins performance on the auction block, which in theory could be dramatically changed by the application of their own sticker. The other buys wholesale and sells wholesale behind the scenes, acting as a market maker. These are all just first impressions of course, as I said my conclusions are TBD in the future.
@FlyingAl said:
I don’t know - seems rather like they’re trying to replace CAC. It seems out of place and it definitely seems like “just another sticker company”.
The connection to Stacks leaves me feeling like there’s a conflict of interest here as well.
Is John Albanese or anyone else working for CAC a coin dealer?
JA does operate as a dealer, but in the wholesale side of the market. He doesn't operate a retail coin selling operation (that I know of) and he doesn't operate an auction company. As others have said I see this as a potential conflict of interest.
earn a commission from any sale of their coins through their own sponsored selling platform. One would have vested interest in a coins performance on the auction block.
From what I have read, Stack's/HRH will be functioning the same as CAC: coins can be submitted and then will be returned to the submitter. What I posted about consignors is what I said, a presumption. To believe that Stack's/HRH would "sticker" coins to influence their auction performance seems pretty cynical. It's the same line of thinking that supposes certain submitters at PCGS receive preferential grading.
Remember that time when you looked at a coin and decided **for yourself ** if it was "quality for the grade?" I'm probably just being a grumpy old man here, but all of these stickering companies seem to be dumbing down the collector. Rather than looking at multiple examples of a coin, collectors are basically being told "just look for the sticker! You'll be fine!" Takes some of the educational component away, IMHO.
All that being said, I will not be utilizing a Stack's/David Hall service, nor will I care if they deem the coin "quality."
@Maywood said: earn a commission from any sale of their coins through their own sponsored selling platform. One would have vested interest in a coins performance on the auction block.
From what I have read, Stack's/HRH will be functioning the same as CAC: coins can be submitted and then will be returned to the submitter. What I posted about consignors is what I said, a presumption. To believe that Stack's/HRH would "sticker" coins to influence their auction performance seems pretty cynical. It's the same line of thinking that supposes certain submitters at PCGS receive preferential grading.
Read some more:
I may be mistaken but I do not believe that CAC/JA makes offers before sending the coins back to the submitter. Sure this may save the submitter some postage, but.
@skier07 said:
When will Heritage start a similar service? When will Legend? At some point this becomes lunacy if every auction house does the same thing. Does GC get into the game?
This of course is a hypothetical scenario and hopefully never happens. I consign a coin with Stacks. It doesn’t earn a CMQ. Okay, I want my coin back. I consign with Heritage and it stickers with their new service. This nightmarish scenario could eventually border on insanity.
I don't think corporate entities can or would try. It's John Albanese and David Hall that make these (possibly) work. Heritage just sticking a Heritage sticker on a coin without a prominent authority as their finalizer would be a disaster.
I understand and agree with your point in general, but just for discussion purposes, if Heritage had @MarkFeld as their finalizer, they should do OK. Yes, his name off of these forums is not as recognizable as JA or Hall, but word would spread.
Steve
Only if Heritage is willing to put bids under the coins. Otherwise, it's just another marketing scheme meant primarily to increase values at auction, and people will see through it. Just like they do with any other retailer stickering coins to indicate PQ.
As great as Mark Feld is, he's no JA or David Hall, and doesn't have a bankroll to put behind his opinions. If Heritage would be willing to place competitive bids under his opinions, and take coins into inventory to sell for its own account, then we'd be cooking with gas.
Otherwise, if they were to do it, even with a Mark Feld, it would be no different than any of the other stickers mentioned in this thread. David Hall, AND the stated intention to make markets in the coins, is what makes this look like CAC.
@Maywood said: earn a commission from any sale of their coins through their own sponsored selling platform. One would have vested interest in a coins performance on the auction block.
From what I have read, Stack's/HRH will be functioning the same as CAC: coins can be submitted and then will be returned to the submitter. What I posted about consignors is what I said, a presumption. To believe that Stack's/HRH would "sticker" coins to influence their auction performance seems pretty cynical. It's the same line of thinking that supposes certain submitters at PCGS receive preferential grading.
Cynicism has served me well over the years. That aside, think about how GC does business with CAC. When you consign, they will send coins to CAC they feel will help add value. If Stacks has the same model with CMQ, that's a conflict of interest. Even if they encourage consignors to submit (wink, wink) on their own to CMQ, that's still a problem. If Stacks has zero direct or indirect business with CMQ, then fine. We'll just have to hope for the best.
@Luxor said:
<<< but I find it odd that the new firm has stated that GR and HRH will review every coin. First, because they're busy guys and can’t possibly have enough time to grade much more than a couple hundred coins a day in their spare time. >>>
Their announcement seems pretty clear cut to me: "Hall and Roberts will assess each coin for its quality, eye appeal and grade. Coins that Hall and Roberts unanimously agree meet CMQ’s rigorous standards will be recognized as “qualified” and granted a tamper-resistant hologram sticker, symbolizing a mark of approval."
<<< And second, because they’re coin dealers, and the obvious conflicts of interest would seem to create an insurmountable marketing hurdle. >>>
How is this different from what Albanese and CAC are currently doing as far as actively making a market in their stickered products?
It's not necessarily any different. The question is less about whether they sell stickered coins and more about whether they buy unstickered coins and sticker them.
While in theory they could buy garbage, sticker it and raise the price, as soon as they did that the sticker would have no value.
The only "scam" you could run that would work is to refuse to sticker a gem. But the gem. Then sticker it. That would be a really difficult thing to do and not with the effort for 95% of coins. Most submissions are not also requests for bids.
But the trend for TPGs has been to start with high standards, establish a reputation as being conservative and then let the standards slowly fall over time. If you are stickering your own coins, that temptation is even greater. It’s a way to further monetize the conservative reputation established early on.
Not saying that will be the case here, but the risk is there. Rick Snow has maintained his Eagle Eye standards - so it can be done. However, it’s likely easier for him to maintain standards than for a larger corporate entity.
It’s just a risk - it may or may not materialize - time will tell.
I wouldn't say they "let the standards slowly fall." In fact, I do believe the standards stay the same as they are published, but the adherence waivers of time. Regardless, I think that over time there will be an appearance of "letting standards fall" as the number of outliers become more prevalent. Just think if there are 3% of "bad" grades and our hose has graded 45M coins, that's 1.3M coins with "bad" grades out there and your chance of encountering one is significant.
@Walkerlover said:
I wish they would be a little more specific in what exactly are all the criteria for their stickers. Also will they also reject coins that are not strictly uncirculated but market graded or acceptable by PCGS/NGC like CAC does?
I think that “coins that are not strictly uncirculated but market graded” would fall under the “marginally graded” category (in David Hall’s quote below) and thus, shouldn’t sticker. I also think it was a mistake to claim “…no marginally graded or negative eye appeal coins will ever exhibit a CMQ sticker,…”. Coin grading is too subjective and inconsistent for such a claim to be true.
“Collectors and dealers can rest assured that no marginally graded or negative eye appeal coins will ever exhibit a CMQ sticker, providing a new level of confidence when buying or selling CMQ qualified coins,” commented Hall.“
I agree with your view. Next question of interest is 1) How much premium if any will this new sticker command in the market place and 2) How much premium might be added to the coin if it a achieved both stickers?
I expect the premiums will be like CAC premiums if the opinions are respected similarly. I'd like to think that a 2-sticker premium won't be significant but I am surprised constantly by the market.> @johnny010 said:
I’m not opposed to the service. I can’t send my coins to CAC and have been on the waitlist about a year now.
I'm also thrilled to have another option since JA hasn't been able to figure out how to add more members. I too am on that waitlist.
I'm very happy about the pricing. $20 for coins up to $10k.
I'm interested to send in some CAC rejects and see what happens.
I believe that CAC's statement of "coins are solid for the grade" is inaccurate because CAC rejects many coins that are "solid" for the grade.
Super cool that they will do a "Coin In Motion" for $20 also.
I wouldn't say they "let the standards slowly fall." In fact, I do believe the standards stay the same as they are published, but the adherence waivers of time.
A distinction without a difference!
You’re the first person I’ve met in this hobby that rejects the notion of gradeflation! Why do you think there is such a preference for old holders?
@Luxor said:
<<< but I find it odd that the new firm has stated that GR and HRH will review every coin. First, because they're busy guys and can’t possibly have enough time to grade much more than a couple hundred coins a day in their spare time. >>>
Their announcement seems pretty clear cut to me: "Hall and Roberts will assess each coin for its quality, eye appeal and grade. Coins that Hall and Roberts unanimously agree meet CMQ’s rigorous standards will be recognized as “qualified” and granted a tamper-resistant hologram sticker, symbolizing a mark of approval."
<<< And second, because they’re coin dealers, and the obvious conflicts of interest would seem to create an insurmountable marketing hurdle. >>>
How is this different from what Albanese and CAC are currently doing as far as actively making a market in their stickered products?
It's not necessarily any different. The question is less about whether they sell stickered coins and more about whether they buy unstickered coins and sticker them.
While in theory they could buy garbage, sticker it and raise the price, as soon as they did that the sticker would have no value.
The only "scam" you could run that would work is to refuse to sticker a gem. But the gem. Then sticker it. That would be a really difficult thing to do and not with the effort for 95% of coins. Most submissions are not also requests for bids.
But the trend for TPGs has been to start with high standards, establish a reputation as being conservative and then let the standards slowly fall over time. If you are stickering your own coins, that temptation is even greater. It’s a way to further monetize the conservative reputation established early on.
Not saying that will be the case here, but the risk is there. Rick Snow has maintained his Eagle Eye standards - so it can be done. However, it’s likely easier for him to maintain standards than for a larger corporate entity.
It’s just a risk - it may or may not materialize - time will tell.
I wouldn't say they "let the standards slowly fall." In fact, I do believe the standards stay the same as they are published, but the adherence waivers of time. Regardless, I think that over time there will be an appearance of "letting standards fall" as the number of outliers become more prevalent. Just think if there are 3% of "bad" grades and our hose has graded 45M coins, that's 1.3M coins with "bad" grades out there and your chance of encountering one is significant.
@Walkerlover said:
I wish they would be a little more specific in what exactly are all the criteria for their stickers. Also will they also reject coins that are not strictly uncirculated but market graded or acceptable by PCGS/NGC like CAC does?
I think that “coins that are not strictly uncirculated but market graded” would fall under the “marginally graded” category (in David Hall’s quote below) and thus, shouldn’t sticker. I also think it was a mistake to claim “…no marginally graded or negative eye appeal coins will ever exhibit a CMQ sticker,…”. Coin grading is too subjective and inconsistent for such a claim to be true.
“Collectors and dealers can rest assured that no marginally graded or negative eye appeal coins will ever exhibit a CMQ sticker, providing a new level of confidence when buying or selling CMQ qualified coins,” commented Hall.“
I agree with your view. Next question of interest is 1) How much premium if any will this new sticker command in the market place and 2) How much premium might be added to the coin if it a achieved both stickers?
I expect the premiums will be like CAC premiums if the opinions are respected similarly. I'd like to think that a 2-sticker premium won't be significant but I am surprised constantly by the market.> @johnny010 said:
I’m not opposed to the service. I can’t send my coins to CAC and have been on the waitlist about a year now.
I'm also thrilled to have another option since JA hasn't been able to figure out how to add more members. I too am on that waitlist.
I'm very happy about the pricing. $20 for coins up to $10k.
I'm interested to send in some CAC rejects and see what happens.
I believe that CAC's statement of "coins are solid for the grade" is inaccurate because CAC rejects many coins that are "solid" for the grade.
Super cool that they will do a "Coin In Motion" for $20 also.
Well you’re the first person I’ve met in this hobby that rejects the notion of gradeflation! Why do you think there is such a preference for old holders?
Nostalgia and Perception. I see plenty of undergraded examples in modern holders.
The standards haven't changed (has PCGS updated any photo grade contents since it was published?). That doesn't mean that implementation of the standards hasn't changed though which may result in differences between "then" and "now." For example, we know that lighting is probably different and the grading process has been modernized. For better or worse, I don't know, but they don't do things the same today as they did 30-40 years ago. My point above is that I don't believe anyone at PCGS "let" the standards fall, but that they waiver over time for different reasons. But if PCGS's standard is published in photo grade, the only way you can claim the standard has changed is if they swap out any of those images.
Nostalgia and Perception. I see plenty of undergraded examples in modern holders.
The standards haven't changed (has PCGS updated any photo grade contents since it was published?). That doesn't mean that implementation of the standards hasn't changed though which may result in differences between "then" and "now." For example, we know that lighting is probably different and the grading process has been modernized. For better or worse, I don't know, but they don't do things the same today as they did 30-40 years ago. My point above is that I don't believe anyone at PCGS "let" the standards fall, but that they waiver over time for different reasons. But if PCGS's standard is published in photo grade, the only way you can claim the standard has changed is if they swap out any of those images.
A distinction without a difference.
Perception is reality - as evidenced by premiums for old holders - the market feels they are good candidates for upgrade. Because of gradeflation.
@skier07 said:
When will Heritage start a similar service? When will Legend? At some point this becomes lunacy if every auction house does the same thing. Does GC get into the game?
This of course is a hypothetical scenario and hopefully never happens. I consign a coin with Stacks. It doesn’t earn a CMQ. Okay, I want my coin back. I consign with Heritage and it stickers with their new service. This nightmarish scenario could eventually border on insanity.
I don't think corporate entities can or would try. It's John Albanese and David Hall that make these (possibly) work. Heritage just sticking a Heritage sticker on a coin without a prominent authority as their finalizer would be a disaster.
I understand and agree with your point in general, but just for discussion purposes, if Heritage had @MarkFeld as their finalizer, they should do OK. Yes, his name off of these forums is not as recognizable as JA or Hall, but word would spread.
Steve
I don't disagree. But, as I said or tried to, corporate entities can't do it. They need a recognized expert.
@skier07 said:
When will Heritage start a similar service? When will Legend? At some point this becomes lunacy if every auction house does the same thing. Does GC get into the game?
This of course is a hypothetical scenario and hopefully never happens. I consign a coin with Stacks. It doesn’t earn a CMQ. Okay, I want my coin back. I consign with Heritage and it stickers with their new service. This nightmarish scenario could eventually border on insanity.
With Stack's starting this venture "early", it looks like they're positioning themselves to take over that void when CAC does stop stickering. While in theory I agree with the lunacy if HA, GC, Legend, and DLRC all do the same, I doubt they will. But who knows? As we often say, "Time will tell!"
Steve
Everyone is ASSUMING that CAC will stop the stickering business at some point. Fact is the stickering business has a long track history of success and respect in the coin community. Has anyone considered that CACG may not be a successful business enterprise and may eventually cease operations, leaving JA to fall back on his CAC sticker company and continue it for many more years than publicly stated
No. CAC said they were going to phase it out. It is not an assumption.
Comments
<<< but I find it odd that the new firm has stated that GR and HRH will review every coin. First, because they're busy guys and can’t possibly have enough time to grade much more than a couple hundred coins a day in their spare time. >>>
Their announcement seems pretty clear cut to me: "Hall and Roberts will assess each coin for its quality, eye appeal and grade. Coins that Hall and Roberts unanimously agree meet CMQ’s rigorous standards will be recognized as “qualified” and granted a tamper-resistant hologram sticker, symbolizing a mark of approval."
<<< And second, because they’re coin dealers, and the obvious conflicts of interest would seem to create an insurmountable marketing hurdle. >>>
How is this different from what Albanese and CAC are currently doing as far as actively making a market in their stickered products?
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
As I noted at the bottom of the prior page, if a firm truly believes their reputation is their most valuable asset, then I will ignore that theoretical conflict.
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
I was commenting more on CAC. It is really too soon to know anything about the new sticker.
It's not necessarily any different. The question is less about whether they sell stickered coins and more about whether they buy unstickered coins and sticker them.
While in theory they could buy garbage, sticker it and raise the price, as soon as they did that the sticker would have no value.
The only "scam" you could run that would work is to refuse to sticker a gem. But the gem. Then sticker it. That would be a really difficult thing to do and not with the effort for 95% of coins. Most submissions are not also requests for bids.
But the trend for TPGs has been to start with high standards, establish a reputation as being conservative and then let the standards slowly fall over time. If you are stickering your own coins, that temptation is even greater. It’s a way to further monetize the conservative reputation established early on.
Not saying that will be the case here, but the risk is there. Rick Snow has maintained his Eagle Eye standards - so it can be done. However, it’s likely easier for him to maintain standards than for a larger corporate entity.
It’s just a risk - it may or may not materialize - time will tell.
I was not thinking about quantity, I was indicating position. I was under the intention that CAC was going to stop stickering coins eventually. Perhaps that is not the case, but if it is, they will have given up the position and Stacks will be the only one to fill that spot in the market.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
I agree that it's very likely the day will come that CAC stickering will end, and that this new venture by Stack's is to position themselves to fill that void. I misinterpreted your "tense", thinking you implied the present, and not the future when CAC does stop stickering.
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
When will Heritage start a similar service? When will Legend? At some point this becomes lunacy if every auction house does the same thing. Does GC get into the game?
This of course is a hypothetical scenario and hopefully never happens. I consign a coin with Stacks. It doesn’t earn a CMQ. Okay, I want my coin back. I consign with Heritage and it stickers with their new service. This nightmarish scenario could eventually border on insanity.
The long term effect is to de-emphasize the coin and
focus on labels & stickers - the hobby is slowly but surely
going through metamorphosis from coins to labels :
"I like the label / sticker, so I buy the coin." IMHO this is
nothing more than a new avenue of commerce in numismatics.
Given all the coins floating out in the market, one could easily
dream up and execute a variety of "unique" categories based on
creativity and imagination. Was it C*C who initiated this whole
regrading and recertification process because they made us
believe that coins previously examined were now subject to inaccuracy ?
I mean just how many times does a coin have to be regraded
and re-certified within layers of bureaucracy to convince the buyer
that it is unique and valuable ???
It will be interesting to see how this progresses. Personally, I like the second opinions on the coins, but I will continue to do what I do and that is buy the coins I like. I don't care if a coin has been approved by every stickering company out there and then blessed by Almighty God Himself. I won't buy a coin if I don't like it. This works for me as this is my hobby and the price paid for my coins is for my enjoyment, not as an investment.
I wish them the best in their endeavor.
Enjoy the hobby and ignore the noise, but make sure you know the difference.
Donato
Donato's Complete US Type Set ---- Donato's Dansco 7070 Modified Type Set ---- Donato's Basic U.S. Coin Design Set
Successful transactions: Shrub68 (Jim), MWallace (Mike)
With Stack's starting this venture "early", it looks like they're positioning themselves to take over that void when CAC does stop stickering. While in theory I agree with the lunacy if HA, GC, Legend, and DLRC all do the same, I doubt they will. But who knows? As we often say, "Time will tell!"
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
I want to be the first person to have a slab that carries the Sight White, QA, Eagle Eye Photo Seal, Watch Dog, CAC, and CMQ stickers. I wonder if I'd still be able to see the coin.
New website: Groovycoins.com Capped Bust Half Dime registry set: Bikergeek CBHD LM Set
Don't forget (((((PQ)))))
Also Everest and ECC.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I know stickers are a touchy subject.
but I wish Doug Winter stickered original gold. I would value that highly!
My YouTube Channel
You forgot MACge.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Maybe in a few years you will be able to get a premium for a coin with no stickers.
Wonder if there are plans to include World Coins
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I’m not opposed to the service. I can’t send my coins to CAC and have been on the waitlist about a year now.
I don't think corporate entities can or would try. It's John Albanese and David Hall that make these (possibly) work. Heritage just sticking a Heritage sticker on a coin without a prominent authority as their finalizer would be a disaster.
I have NEVER met anyone who told me that they didn't like the coin "...but it's PCGS/CAC so..."
People like coins with labels BECAUSE THE LABELS MEAN SOMETHING about the coin.
Honest question: how often do you see a PCGS CAC coin and say "that coin has a problem" or "that coin is overgraded"?
You may not like the "look" because blast white vs toned etc. Only once have I seen a PCGS CAC coin that I thought had a missed problem. And CAC made the owner whole.
There's a lot of people figuring their NONstickered coins will generate proceeds very similar to CAC stickered coins when the time comes that they (or quite likely, their heirs) sell their coins. Maybe I'll be surprised, but I believe they'll be the ones surprised.
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
I understand and agree with your point in general, but just for discussion purposes, if Heritage had @MarkFeld as their finalizer, they should do OK. Yes, his name off of these forums is not as recognizable as JA or Hall, but word would spread.
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
I completely agree with Steve and let me be transparent an state that I am a fan of CAC.
It's John Albanese and David Hall that make these (possibly) work.
That's actually kind of funny to consider. Both graded coins at PCGS which they may then reject at their respective stickering services.
I've reached the point where I am just going to enjoy my Morgan's. The slab and sticker game just fluctuates to much for my liking. What doesn't slab a higher grade today might tomorrow. We've all seen it and been there. What doesn't sticker today might sticker tomorrow. Nothing against any of the services. That's just what they are, services.
I just know that I myself am not interested in the expensive roller coaster ride.
I will of course be happy to buy an already stickered coin at a fair price.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan
TOO many stickers!?
A few months ago I concluded, after many months of thought, that it was time to sell my collection. Machinations and changes in the coin environment, like this, confirm I made the right choice. The coins are what they are. That the market requires you to surround them with expensive plastic, labels, and stickers gets a little over-the-top at some point. YMMV.
..... and you kids get off my lawn!
Everyone is ASSUMING that CAC will stop the stickering business at some point. Fact is the stickering business has a long track history of success and respect in the coin community. Has anyone considered that CACG may not be a successful business enterprise and may eventually cease operations, leaving JA to fall back on his CAC sticker company and continue it for many more years than publicly stated
I don’t know - seems rather like they’re trying to replace CAC. It seems out of place and it definitely seems like “just another sticker company”.
The connection to Stacks leaves me feeling like there’s a conflict of interest here as well.
Coin Photographer.
I totally agree. The timing is much more than a mere coincidence
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Is John Albanese or anyone else working for CAC a coin dealer?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I'm going to start putting gold star stickers on my coins, including 2×2's. If you ever see a coin with a gold star, know that it is Modwriter approved!
I'll withhold final judgement until I see the product, but I'll admit i'm rather disconnected from the idea of a sticker service backed by an AH/retail operation. With CAC I never saw a conflict because John only operates at wholesale levels, but are these stickers going to show up in disproportionate amounts on coins being offered in Stacks auctions?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
@FlyingAl said: The connection to Stacks leaves me feeling like there’s a conflict of interest here as well.
What's the conflict and how is it different from CAC?
At CAC coins are stickered and then the company has offers to buy. At Stack's, I presume they will have some sort of offer to consignors to have coins examined by HRH and "stickered" in accordance to whatever their criteria might be, then those coins will be offered at auction.
Why is one service good and the other held suspect before they've even really done anything?? In a funny way this is starting almost exactly the way CAC started, criticized at the beginning before anything was really known.
From my sense, I understand that CAC buys coins after they are put in the open market, not as coins are submitted. CAC would also not earn a commission from any sale of their coins through their own sponsored selling platform (which they do not have but Stacks does).
Coin Photographer.
Apples and oranges imo. One would have vested interest in a coins performance on the auction block, which in theory could be dramatically changed by the application of their own sticker. The other buys wholesale and sells wholesale behind the scenes, acting as a market maker. These are all just first impressions of course, as I said my conclusions are TBD in the future.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
JA does operate as a dealer, but in the wholesale side of the market. He doesn't operate a retail coin selling operation (that I know of) and he doesn't operate an auction company. As others have said I see this as a potential conflict of interest.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
earn a commission from any sale of their coins through their own sponsored selling platform.
One would have vested interest in a coins performance on the auction block.
From what I have read, Stack's/HRH will be functioning the same as CAC: coins can be submitted and then will be returned to the submitter. What I posted about consignors is what I said, a presumption. To believe that Stack's/HRH would "sticker" coins to influence their auction performance seems pretty cynical. It's the same line of thinking that supposes certain submitters at PCGS receive preferential grading.
Remember that time when you looked at a coin and decided **for yourself ** if it was "quality for the grade?" I'm probably just being a grumpy old man here, but all of these stickering companies seem to be dumbing down the collector. Rather than looking at multiple examples of a coin, collectors are basically being told "just look for the sticker! You'll be fine!" Takes some of the educational component away, IMHO.
All that being said, I will not be utilizing a Stack's/David Hall service, nor will I care if they deem the coin "quality."
Numismatic Asset Management
"helping rare coin buyers avoid critical mistakes"
Read some more:
I may be mistaken but I do not believe that CAC/JA makes offers before sending the coins back to the submitter. Sure this may save the submitter some postage, but.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
And.......................
Only if Heritage is willing to put bids under the coins. Otherwise, it's just another marketing scheme meant primarily to increase values at auction, and people will see through it. Just like they do with any other retailer stickering coins to indicate PQ.
As great as Mark Feld is, he's no JA or David Hall, and doesn't have a bankroll to put behind his opinions. If Heritage would be willing to place competitive bids under his opinions, and take coins into inventory to sell for its own account, then we'd be cooking with gas.
Otherwise, if they were to do it, even with a Mark Feld, it would be no different than any of the other stickers mentioned in this thread. David Hall, AND the stated intention to make markets in the coins, is what makes this look like CAC.
Cynicism has served me well over the years. That aside, think about how GC does business with CAC. When you consign, they will send coins to CAC they feel will help add value. If Stacks has the same model with CMQ, that's a conflict of interest. Even if they encourage consignors to submit (wink, wink) on their own to CMQ, that's still a problem. If Stacks has zero direct or indirect business with CMQ, then fine. We'll just have to hope for the best.
I wouldn't say they "let the standards slowly fall." In fact, I do believe the standards stay the same as they are published, but the adherence waivers of time. Regardless, I think that over time there will be an appearance of "letting standards fall" as the number of outliers become more prevalent. Just think if there are 3% of "bad" grades and our hose has graded 45M coins, that's 1.3M coins with "bad" grades out there and your chance of encountering one is significant.
I expect the premiums will be like CAC premiums if the opinions are respected similarly. I'd like to think that a 2-sticker premium won't be significant but I am surprised constantly by the market.> @johnny010 said:
I'm also thrilled to have another option since JA hasn't been able to figure out how to add more members. I too am on that waitlist.
I'm very happy about the pricing. $20 for coins up to $10k.
I'm interested to send in some CAC rejects and see what happens.
I believe that CAC's statement of "coins are solid for the grade" is inaccurate because CAC rejects many coins that are "solid" for the grade.
Super cool that they will do a "Coin In Motion" for $20 also.
A distinction without a difference!
You’re the first person I’ve met in this hobby that rejects the notion of gradeflation! Why do you think there is such a preference for old holders?
Nostalgia and Perception. I see plenty of undergraded examples in modern holders.
The standards haven't changed (has PCGS updated any photo grade contents since it was published?). That doesn't mean that implementation of the standards hasn't changed though which may result in differences between "then" and "now." For example, we know that lighting is probably different and the grading process has been modernized. For better or worse, I don't know, but they don't do things the same today as they did 30-40 years ago. My point above is that I don't believe anyone at PCGS "let" the standards fall, but that they waiver over time for different reasons. But if PCGS's standard is published in photo grade, the only way you can claim the standard has changed is if they swap out any of those images.
A distinction without a difference.
Perception is reality - as evidenced by premiums for old holders - the market feels they are good candidates for upgrade. Because of gradeflation.
I don't disagree. But, as I said or tried to, corporate entities can't do it. They need a recognized expert.
No. CAC said they were going to phase it out. It is not an assumption.