I must admit I am slightly confused after reading this thread.....
Why would you NOT try to crossover regular PCGS coins (non +, non-stickered) to CACG if you think those coins are choice for the grade? IMO, CACG will/should bring a premium over PCGS coins. Is anyone saying it's better to try to get PCGS coins CAC stickered than submitted to CACG? If so, why? Thx in advance.
@FrankH said:
This whole matter is steamrollering to where the history and knowledge of versions of PLASTIC will supercede the history and knowledge of the coins... IN ...that plastic.
Something evil this way comes.
Someday, there will be a special section near the back of the room at coin shows just for those who collect coins.
@SellStock said:
I must admit I am slightly confused after reading this thread.....
Why would you NOT try to crossover regular PCGS coins (non +, non-stickered) to CACG if you think those coins are choice for the grade? IMO, CACG will/should bring a premium over PCGS coins. Is anyone saying it's better to try to get PCGS coins CAC stickered than submitted to CACG? If so, why? Thx in advance.
My thought is let’s say you submitted 5 pcgs ms65 Morgans for cac stickers, and none of them stickered. Are you now going to cross those 5 pcgs Morgans over to cacg to potentially have them all downgrade to ms64s? I would be hesitant to start dropping grades in my collection.
Yes, I am saying it’s better to get pcgs coins with cac stickers versus cacg slabs. Bigger/stronger collector base for that material, and 2 sets of eyes on that coin brings reassurances.
@alaura22 said:
What am I missing here? Can someone please tell me why would you want to send in a PCGS coin with a CAC sticker to CACG?
And to boot, not be able to add that coin in the PCGS registries. And if anybody says to get the + upgrade you can do that by resubmitting it to PCGS for reconsideration.
I'm not getting it, please someone explain it to me because I'm confused
You don't play the registry game and you believe the CACG premium will be higher than the PCGS/CAC price.
Not playing the registry game is fine. But, thinking 6 is really somehow better than half a dozen is just insane.
If they'd cross 'em for free and you like the slabs, that's one thing. But, paying good money to cross from a very well respected TPG, with a CAC sticker to boot, to put it in a CACG slab, in the hope that the market will somehow come to value 6 more highly than half a dozen is not economically rational.
It will be even crazier if CACG slabs do actually become worth more than the exact same coin in a PCGS holder, with the same exact grade and a CAC sticker. But then again, a company comes out of nowhere, puts limited edition labels on common modern coins in PCGS holders, and people pay stupid money chasing the label, so I guess anything is possible.
@alaura22 said:
What am I missing here? Can someone please tell me why would you want to send in a PCGS coin with a CAC sticker to CACG?
And to boot, not be able to add that coin in the PCGS registries. And if anybody says to get the + upgrade you can do that by resubmitting it to PCGS for reconsideration.
I'm not getting it, please someone explain it to me because I'm confused
You don't play the registry game and you believe the CACG premium will be higher than the PCGS/CAC price.
Not playing the registry game is fine. But, thinking 6 is really somehow better than half a dozen is just insane.
If they'd cross 'em for free and you like the slabs, that's one thing. But, paying good money to cross from a very well respected TPG, with a CAC sticker to boot, to put it in a CACG slab, in the hope that the market will somehow come to value 6 more highly than half a dozen is not economically rational.
It will be even crazier if CACG slabs do actually become worth more than the exact same coin in a PCGS holder, with the same exact grade and a CAC sticker. But then again, a company comes out of nowhere, puts limited edition labels on common modern coins in PCGS holders, and people pay stupid money chasing the label, so I guess anything is possible.
Do you feel the same way regarding values with NGC CAC stickered coins?
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
My thought is let’s say you submitted 5 pcgs ms65 Morgans for cac stickers, and none of them stickered. Are you now going to cross those 5 pcgs Morgans over to cacg to potentially have them all downgrade to ms64s? I would be hesitant to start dropping grades in my collection.
Yes, I am saying it’s better to get pcgs coins with cac stickers versus cacg slabs. Bigger/stronger collector base for that material, and 2 sets of eyes on that coin brings reassurances.
I would never submit 5 PCGS MS65 Morgans to CACG if none of them stickered. Clearly a waste of $, so we agree on that point. However, I am talking about submitting to CACG FIRST and, according to the email I received yesterday from CACG, seeing if they cross "without a risk of downgrade." IF there was a risk of downgrade, I wouldn't do it.
Perhaps non-stickered PCGS coins will do better than CACG slabbed coins in the short run due to lack of market depth, but in the long-run I would bet market depth with CACG coins will grow significantly. I remember very well talking to many dealers 15 years ago about CAC-stickered coins.....they were all concerned about market depth and tended to dismiss them.
@alaura22 said:
What am I missing here? Can someone please tell me why would you want to send in a PCGS coin with a CAC sticker to CACG?
And to boot, not be able to add that coin in the PCGS registries. And if anybody says to get the + upgrade you can do that by resubmitting it to PCGS for reconsideration.
I'm not getting it, please someone explain it to me because I'm confused
You don't play the registry game and you believe the CACG premium will be higher than the PCGS/CAC price.
Not playing the registry game is fine. But, thinking 6 is really somehow better than half a dozen is just insane.
If they'd cross 'em for free and you like the slabs, that's one thing. But, paying good money to cross from a very well respected TPG, with a CAC sticker to boot, to put it in a CACG slab, in the hope that the market will somehow come to value 6 more highly than half a dozen is not economically rational.
It will be even crazier if CACG slabs do actually become worth more than the exact same coin in a PCGS holder, with the same exact grade and a CAC sticker. But then again, a company comes out of nowhere, puts limited edition labels on common modern coins in PCGS holders, and people pay stupid money chasing the label, so I guess anything is possible.
Do you feel the same way regarding values with NGC CAC stickered coins?
Ultimately if CACG is successful I believe the goal is to be acquired and that's where the real money lies.
Become a popular TPG with lots of revenue then sell it and ride off into the sunset.
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 MWallace logger7
@Morgan13 said:
Ultimately if CACG is successful I believe the goal is to be acquired and that's where the real money lies.
Become a popular TPG with lots of revenue then sell it and ride off into the sunset.
A proven plan that worked well for Hall with PCGS.
Never forget the ANA grading seminar in Dalton... Our table was given NGC coins to grade and then Bill Fivaz gave his opinion. I thought NGC was a bit loose and Bill a bit too conservative. To win the competition the table group discussion went like this...
" I think it is Y... you think it is Z? NGC will probably grade it Z but Bill will think it is X... so we agree it is X!"
Loved the experience, but we fudged our standards to win.
From the GSA and Redfield holders... thankfully thru NGC/PCGS and now to CAC... this is marketing perfected.
A secure and needed service for sure, but alot of clever marketing.
A grade equals monetary value.
Learn to grade to a high standard, and you will win.
I prefer our host for many reasons.... the others useful tools.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
@Cougar1978 said:
I don’t believe most people are going to pay the extra money (for CAC, CACG whatever).
Don't hold back, tell us what you really think
Statics would prove that a coin of the same grade with a CAC sticker will sell for more at auction. Meaning that people (me included) WILL pay more for the CAC stickered coin and their professional opinion. I don't think they are going to "crash & burn" at ANY time!
Back in February I was advised by JA himself to collect the coins you want and not to spend thousands of dollars trying to get coins in the holders you want them in. This during a discussion at CAC in Bedminster where I was fully expecting a sales pitch for CACG. What can I say? The guy’s a straight shooter.
@alaura22 said:
What am I missing here? Can someone please tell me why would you want to send in a PCGS coin with a CAC sticker to CACG?
And to boot, not be able to add that coin in the PCGS registries. And if anybody says to get the + upgrade you can do that by resubmitting it to PCGS for reconsideration.
I'm not getting it, please someone explain it to me because I'm confused
You don't play the registry game and you believe the CACG premium will be higher than the PCGS/CAC price.
Not playing the registry game is fine. But, thinking 6 is really somehow better than half a dozen is just insane.
If they'd cross 'em for free and you like the slabs, that's one thing. But, paying good money to cross from a very well respected TPG, with a CAC sticker to boot, to put it in a CACG slab, in the hope that the market will somehow come to value 6 more highly than half a dozen is not economically rational.
It will be even crazier if CACG slabs do actually become worth more than the exact same coin in a PCGS holder, with the same exact grade and a CAC sticker. But then again, a company comes out of nowhere, puts limited edition labels on common modern coins in PCGS holders, and people pay stupid money chasing the label, so I guess anything is possible.
Do you feel the same way regarding values with NGC CAC stickered coins?
Steve
Nope. PCGS clearly carries a premium to NGC. But, what does CACG promise to offer above and beyond what PCGS CAC already offers in terms of market value?
@alaura22 said:
What am I missing here? Can someone please tell me why would you want to send in a PCGS coin with a CAC sticker to CACG?
And to boot, not be able to add that coin in the PCGS registries. And if anybody says to get the + upgrade you can do that by resubmitting it to PCGS for reconsideration.
I'm not getting it, please someone explain it to me because I'm confused
You don't play the registry game and you believe the CACG premium will be higher than the PCGS/CAC price.
Not playing the registry game is fine. But, thinking 6 is really somehow better than half a dozen is just insane.
If they'd cross 'em for free and you like the slabs, that's one thing. But, paying good money to cross from a very well respected TPG, with a CAC sticker to boot, to put it in a CACG slab, in the hope that the market will somehow come to value 6 more highly than half a dozen is not economically rational.
It will be even crazier if CACG slabs do actually become worth more than the exact same coin in a PCGS holder, with the same exact grade and a CAC sticker. But then again, a company comes out of nowhere, puts limited edition labels on common modern coins in PCGS holders, and people pay stupid money chasing the label, so I guess anything is possible.
Do you feel the same way regarding values with NGC CAC stickered coins?
Steve
Please don't confuse him with facts.
Facts? 😂 Your post very, extremely clearly referenced PCGS/CAC.
No one mentioned NGC until @winesteven asked about it. And, as someone else suggested, the whole idea might be to get NGC coins into CACG holders. It just doesn't make sense to spend money to replace PCGS/CAC holders with CACG, since they will functionally be the same, and there will no reason to value one differently from the other.
If I'm wrong, as with VB, just put your money where your mouth is, and cross all your PCGS/CAC coins to CACG at, what, $39 a pop. Be my guest. While you're at it, see if Freddie wants to do the same with his VB treasures.
@alaura22 said:
What am I missing here? Can someone please tell me why would you want to send in a PCGS coin with a CAC sticker to CACG?
And to boot, not be able to add that coin in the PCGS registries. And if anybody says to get the + upgrade you can do that by resubmitting it to PCGS for reconsideration.
I'm not getting it, please someone explain it to me because I'm confused
You don't play the registry game and you believe the CACG premium will be higher than the PCGS/CAC price.
Not playing the registry game is fine. But, thinking 6 is really somehow better than half a dozen is just insane.
If they'd cross 'em for free and you like the slabs, that's one thing. But, paying good money to cross from a very well respected TPG, with a CAC sticker to boot, to put it in a CACG slab, in the hope that the market will somehow come to value 6 more highly than half a dozen is not economically rational.
It will be even crazier if CACG slabs do actually become worth more than the exact same coin in a PCGS holder, with the same exact grade and a CAC sticker. But then again, a company comes out of nowhere, puts limited edition labels on common modern coins in PCGS holders, and people pay stupid money chasing the label, so I guess anything is possible.
Do you feel the same way regarding values with NGC CAC stickered coins?
Steve
Nope. PCGS clearly carries a premium to NGC. But, what does CACG promise to offer above and beyond what PCGS CAC already offers in terms of market value?
And that’s why I’ve said many times on other threads on this forum that since the PCGS Registry is important to me, I won’t be crossing my PCGS CAC coins. My only crosses would be my PCGS CAC dupes in whole grades to cross ONLY if they cross with a plus or better.
I don’t own any NGC graded coins, but if I did, and if the NGC Registry was not important to me (and if it was and NGC chooses to allow in their Registry CACG graded coins like they allow PCGS coins), I’d cross my NGC CAC coins to CACG at the SAME grade or better.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
I have a small group of PCGS coins that have not previously been submitted to CAC. I plan on submitting them to CACG rather than CAC. The value of these coins will increase even if they downgrade one point in a CACG holder. Intuitively I think it will be easier for them to cross into a CACG non details holder than getting a sticker at CAC. I (perhaps wrongly) think JA wants coins sent to CACG rather than CAC so there perhaps may be some bias.
@skier07 said:
I have a small group of PCGS coins that have not previously been submitted to CAC. I plan on submitting them to CACG rather than CAC. The value of these coins will increase even if they downgrade one point in a CACG holder. Intuitively I think it will be easier for them to cross into a CACG non details holder than getting a sticker at CAC. I (perhaps wrongly) think JA wants coins sent to CACG rather than CAC so there perhaps may be some bias.
I’m guessing your coins are all pcgs fa-02 grades, where dropping to cacg po-01 will cause the increase in value? That would be a smart downgrade
Downgrading by a point is a winning strategy? Not my deal. MS64 to 63? Then adding grading / shipping cost on top of that? WB shooting myself in the foot.
@Project Numismatics said:
It’s a bad look to offer a special that will incentivize extra demand when you have a long prospective member waitlist that’s been on hold due to production limitations.
Is it a "bad look" to charge a membership fee in order to be able to submit? All PCGS specials are useless to non-members.
No, there’s a big distinction from PCGS charging a membership fee that’s open to any and all who are willing to pay.
My issue is with the exclusivity that CAC has cultivated around who gets to be in the club. Of course that is their prerogative and I understand the urge to reward “early” backers. But I don’t like it.
To be clear, I’m a huge CAC fan and own many CAC coins. I admire what JA has done for the hobby but I still have criticisms of CAC/CACG and believe they should rethink some of their practices.
It's not "early backers". It's any CAC member. I got the offer just because I've been a member from the sticker days.
They've always gradually added new, free members in a controlled fashion. I don't think it has anything to do with "exclusivity". It has been a way to control the flow of submissions so that the membership doesn't grow faster than the infrastructure.
You just proved my point! It was precisely early backers - investors were first and generally consisted of industry insiders and early backers of the sticker. Then, and only very recently, sticker members.
Can you provide any evidence to support your spurious claim that CAC or CACG has added any “new free members” in at least a year?
If this is to control the flow of submission, why are they doing a special?
While I don't have "proof" until some of those speak up here, CAC/CACG has announced on their forum that roughly 180 or more people on their Wait List will be added to membership by the end of this year!
Steve
I truly hope that is accurate and that is definitely their intent. This is a quote from an email I sent them:
We are hoping to begin letting new members in by the end of the year.
@Project Numismatics said:
It’s a bad look to offer a special that will incentivize extra demand when you have a long prospective member waitlist that’s been on hold due to production limitations.
Is it a "bad look" to charge a membership fee in order to be able to submit? All PCGS specials are useless to non-members.
No, there’s a big distinction from PCGS charging a membership fee that’s open to any and all who are willing to pay.
My issue is with the exclusivity that CAC has cultivated around who gets to be in the club. Of course that is their prerogative and I understand the urge to reward “early” backers. But I don’t like it.
To be clear, I’m a huge CAC fan and own many CAC coins. I admire what JA has done for the hobby but I still have criticisms of CAC/CACG and believe they should rethink some of their practices.
It's not "early backers". It's any CAC member. I got the offer just because I've been a member from the sticker days.
They've always gradually added new, free members in a controlled fashion. I don't think it has anything to do with "exclusivity". It has been a way to control the flow of submissions so that the membership doesn't grow faster than the infrastructure.
You just proved my point! It was precisely early backers - investors were first and generally consisted of industry insiders and early backers of the sticker. Then, and only very recently, sticker members.
Can you provide any evidence to support your spurious claim that CAC or CACG has added any “new free members” in at least a year?
If this is to control the flow of submission, why are they doing a special?
While I don't have "proof" until some of those speak up here, CAC/CACG has announced on their forum that roughly 180 or more people on their Wait List will be added to membership by the end of this year!
Steve
I truly hope that is accurate and that is definitely their intent. This is a quote from an email I sent them:
We are hoping to begin letting new members in by the end of the year.
@Project Numismatics said:
It’s a bad look to offer a special that will incentivize extra demand when you have a long prospective member waitlist that’s been on hold due to production limitations.
Is it a "bad look" to charge a membership fee in order to be able to submit? All PCGS specials are useless to non-members.
No, there’s a big distinction from PCGS charging a membership fee that’s open to any and all who are willing to pay.
My issue is with the exclusivity that CAC has cultivated around who gets to be in the club. Of course that is their prerogative and I understand the urge to reward “early” backers. But I don’t like it.
To be clear, I’m a huge CAC fan and own many CAC coins. I admire what JA has done for the hobby but I still have criticisms of CAC/CACG and believe they should rethink some of their practices.
It's not "early backers". It's any CAC member. I got the offer just because I've been a member from the sticker days.
They've always gradually added new, free members in a controlled fashion. I don't think it has anything to do with "exclusivity". It has been a way to control the flow of submissions so that the membership doesn't grow faster than the infrastructure.
You just proved my point! It was precisely early backers - investors were first and generally consisted of industry insiders and early backers of the sticker. Then, and only very recently, sticker members.
Can you provide any evidence to support your spurious claim that CAC or CACG has added any “new free members” in at least a year?
If this is to control the flow of submission, why are they doing a special?
While I don't have "proof" until some of those speak up here, CAC/CACG has announced on their forum that roughly 180 or more people on their Wait List will be added to membership by the end of this year!
Steve
I truly hope that is accurate and that is definitely their intent. This is a quote from an email I sent them:
We are hoping to begin letting new members in by the end of the year.
I received no such message from CAC - congrats.
Rumor has it that there will be a link on the website later this week where you can add your name to the waitlist.
@alaura22 said:
What am I missing here? Can someone please tell me why would you want to send in a PCGS coin with a CAC sticker to CACG?
And to boot, not be able to add that coin in the PCGS registries. And if anybody says to get the + upgrade you can do that by resubmitting it to PCGS for reconsideration.
I'm not getting it, please someone explain it to me because I'm confused
I think you may be forgetting that coins in holders also exist without a CAC sticker. This crossover special sounds like it is aimed at them, not coins already CAC approved since they automatically cross and get the legacy identification or whatever it is..
It also seems others believe that every coin has already been to CAC.
This place is very strange lately.
@Project Numismatics said:
It’s a bad look to offer a special that will incentivize extra demand when you have a long prospective member waitlist that’s been on hold due to production limitations.
Is it a "bad look" to charge a membership fee in order to be able to submit? All PCGS specials are useless to non-members.
No, there’s a big distinction from PCGS charging a membership fee that’s open to any and all who are willing to pay.
My issue is with the exclusivity that CAC has cultivated around who gets to be in the club. Of course that is their prerogative and I understand the urge to reward “early” backers. But I don’t like it.
To be clear, I’m a huge CAC fan and own many CAC coins. I admire what JA has done for the hobby but I still have criticisms of CAC/CACG and believe they should rethink some of their practices.
It's not "early backers". It's any CAC member. I got the offer just because I've been a member from the sticker days.
They've always gradually added new, free members in a controlled fashion. I don't think it has anything to do with "exclusivity". It has been a way to control the flow of submissions so that the membership doesn't grow faster than the infrastructure.
You just proved my point! It was precisely early backers - investors were first and generally consisted of industry insiders and early backers of the sticker. Then, and only very recently, sticker members.
Can you provide any evidence to support your spurious claim that CAC or CACG has added any “new free members” in at least a year?
If this is to control the flow of submission, why are they doing a special?
While I don't have "proof" until some of those speak up here, CAC/CACG has announced on their forum that roughly 180 or more people on their Wait List will be added to membership by the end of this year!
Steve
I truly hope that is accurate and that is definitely their intent. This is a quote from an email I sent them:
We are hoping to begin letting new members in by the end of the year.
I received no such message from CAC - congrats.
I got the email and my account has been created. However, when I log in it tells me I am still on the wait list at number "44". Not sure what to make of this? False hope or perhaps they will admit the next 100 people on the wait list tomorrow? We shall see.
@Project Numismatics said:
It’s a bad look to offer a special that will incentivize extra demand when you have a long prospective member waitlist that’s been on hold due to production limitations.
Is it a "bad look" to charge a membership fee in order to be able to submit? All PCGS specials are useless to non-members.
No, there’s a big distinction from PCGS charging a membership fee that’s open to any and all who are willing to pay.
My issue is with the exclusivity that CAC has cultivated around who gets to be in the club. Of course that is their prerogative and I understand the urge to reward “early” backers. But I don’t like it.
To be clear, I’m a huge CAC fan and own many CAC coins. I admire what JA has done for the hobby but I still have criticisms of CAC/CACG and believe they should rethink some of their practices.
It's not "early backers". It's any CAC member. I got the offer just because I've been a member from the sticker days.
They've always gradually added new, free members in a controlled fashion. I don't think it has anything to do with "exclusivity". It has been a way to control the flow of submissions so that the membership doesn't grow faster than the infrastructure.
You just proved my point! It was precisely early backers - investors were first and generally consisted of industry insiders and early backers of the sticker. Then, and only very recently, sticker members.
Can you provide any evidence to support your spurious claim that CAC or CACG has added any “new free members” in at least a year?
If this is to control the flow of submission, why are they doing a special?
While I don't have "proof" until some of those speak up here, CAC/CACG has announced on their forum that roughly 180 or more people on their Wait List will be added to membership by the end of this year!
Steve
I truly hope that is accurate and that is definitely their intent. This is a quote from an email I sent them:
We are hoping to begin letting new members in by the end of the year.
I received no such message from CAC - congrats.
I got the email and my account has been created. However, when I log in it tells me I am still on the wait list at number "44". Not sure what to make of this? False hope or perhaps they will admit the next 100 people on the wait list tomorrow? We shall see.
I remember reading on the other forum that someone around # 180 was told that he will likely get in before the end of this year. As such, since you are #44, I'd suggest you start thinking about which coins you'll be submitting once you get the good news!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@Project Numismatics said:
It’s a bad look to offer a special that will incentivize extra demand when you have a long prospective member waitlist that’s been on hold due to production limitations.
Is it a "bad look" to charge a membership fee in order to be able to submit? All PCGS specials are useless to non-members.
No, there’s a big distinction from PCGS charging a membership fee that’s open to any and all who are willing to pay.
My issue is with the exclusivity that CAC has cultivated around who gets to be in the club. Of course that is their prerogative and I understand the urge to reward “early” backers. But I don’t like it.
To be clear, I’m a huge CAC fan and own many CAC coins. I admire what JA has done for the hobby but I still have criticisms of CAC/CACG and believe they should rethink some of their practices.
It's not "early backers". It's any CAC member. I got the offer just because I've been a member from the sticker days.
They've always gradually added new, free members in a controlled fashion. I don't think it has anything to do with "exclusivity". It has been a way to control the flow of submissions so that the membership doesn't grow faster than the infrastructure.
You just proved my point! It was precisely early backers - investors were first and generally consisted of industry insiders and early backers of the sticker. Then, and only very recently, sticker members.
Can you provide any evidence to support your spurious claim that CAC or CACG has added any “new free members” in at least a year?
If this is to control the flow of submission, why are they doing a special?
While I don't have "proof" until some of those speak up here, CAC/CACG has announced on their forum that roughly 180 or more people on their Wait List will be added to membership by the end of this year!
Steve
I truly hope that is accurate and that is definitely their intent. This is a quote from an email I sent them:
We are hoping to begin letting new members in by the end of the year.
I received no such message from CAC - congrats.
I got the email and my account has been created. However, when I log in it tells me I am still on the wait list at number "44". Not sure what to make of this? False hope or perhaps they will admit the next 100 people on the wait list tomorrow? We shall see.
I remember reading on the other forum that someone around # 180 was told that he will likely get in before the end of this year. As such, since you are #44, I'd suggest you start thinking about which coins you'll be submitting once you get the good news!
@alaura22 said:
What am I missing here? Can someone please tell me why would you want to send in a PCGS coin with a CAC sticker to CACG?
And to boot, not be able to add that coin in the PCGS registries. And if anybody says to get the + upgrade you can do that by resubmitting it to PCGS for reconsideration.
I'm not getting it, please someone explain it to me because I'm confused
I think you may be forgetting that coins in holders also exist without a CAC sticker. This crossover special sounds like it is aimed at them, not coins already CAC approved since they automatically cross and get the legacy identification or whatever it is..
It also seems others believe that every coin has already been to CAC.
This place is very strange lately.
I am not a member over there, but I stumbled onto the CAC forums this morning after DeplorableDan mentioned that CACG might add a link for the wait list to their website. They have a thread postulating that CAC legacy coins with the "L" designation on the CACG slab may be seen as inferior/less desirable to regular CACG coins. The reasons being as I understand them, one current CACG standards are so tight that legacy coins would never make the same grade if submitted raw, and two the majority of coins being crossed are NGC/CAC (gasp) so they must be low quality. I'm using a little bit of hyperbole here, but not really.
First, let me preface my comments with the fact that I am fully aware that PCGS/CAC coins bring more money in the marketplace than NGC/CAC coins, which I believe is driven mostly by brand loyalty and registry sets. As a result I do assume that the majority of legacy coins crossed to CACG will be NGC coins. However, to think that CACG "L" legacy coins will be seen as inferior, because they would never cross raw or because they have the NGC taint on them seems preposterous IMHO. That would mean that either JA is inconsistent or constantly wrong, which is tantamount to numismatic blasphemy.
The reasons being as I understand them, one current CACG standards are so tight that legacy coins would never make the same grade if submitted raw, and two the majority of coins being crossed are NGC/CAC (gasp) so they must be low quality. I'm using a little bit of hyperbole here, but not really.
Very good points, however, as you may have noticed some of the members of the CAC forum are also members here or former members here. And the kool-aid is like an intravenous drug for some, those are the folks out to spread the panic that all legacy holders have to former NGC as nobody in their right mind would ever cross a PCGS/CAC coin. Obviously that sort of talk is driven by complete fear, fear that their precious PCGS graded coins will drop in value.
The problem with all this nonsense is that is just how you sway a market, and it is really part of how we got to the current situation of higher prices for PCGS/CAC vs NGC/CAC. Major dealers and collectors that continue to push one brand because of monetary investment. And with the ease of social media it is not difficult to spread any sort of misconception or lie if one is so inclined with virtually no way to stop it.
@UpGrayedd said:
I am not a member over there, but I stumbled onto the CAC forums this morning after DeplorableDan mentioned that CACG might add a link for the wait list to their website. They have a thread postulating that CAC legacy coins with the "L" designation on the CACG slab may be seen as inferior/less desirable to regular CACG coins. The reasons being as I understand them, one current CACG standards are so tight that legacy coins would never make the same grade if submitted raw, and two the majority of coins being crossed are NGC/CAC (gasp) so they must be low quality. I'm using a little bit of hyperbole here, but not really.
First, let me preface my comments with the fact that I am fully aware that PCGS/CAC coins bring more money in the marketplace than NGC/CAC coins, which I believe is driven mostly by brand loyalty and registry sets. As a result I do assume that the majority of legacy coins crossed to CACG will be NGC coins. However, to think that CACG "L" legacy coins will be seen as inferior, because they would never cross raw or because they have the NGC taint on them seems preposterous IMHO. That would mean that either JA is inconsistent or constantly wrong, which is tantamount to numismatic blasphemy.
You make very great points, but allow me to point out that most participants in that thread weren't really postulating that logic, even the OP said that he didn't buy it. The thread was based on a single comment from another member in a different thread, but we have to keep in mind that the perspective of a full-time dealer traveling the show circuit will differ from that of a purebred collector. The NGC market bias is real, and it's undeniable that most of the L coins will be NCAC crossovers in the beginning, so following that logic I don't think it's completely outlandish to discuss the possibility that the market bias could extend itself through the legacy designation. Speaking for myself, I will own several coins with an L and I couldn't care less about what the market thinks because I enjoy them and the coins stand on their own merit, but again it's all about perspective.
@UpGrayedd said:
I am not a member over there, but I stumbled onto the CAC forums this morning after DeplorableDan mentioned that CACG might add a link for the wait list to their website. They have a thread postulating that CAC legacy coins with the "L" designation on the CACG slab may be seen as inferior/less desirable to regular CACG coins. The reasons being as I understand them, one current CACG standards are so tight that legacy coins would never make the same grade if submitted raw, and two the majority of coins being crossed are NGC/CAC (gasp) so they must be low quality. I'm using a little bit of hyperbole here, but not really.
First, let me preface my comments with the fact that I am fully aware that PCGS/CAC coins bring more money in the marketplace than NGC/CAC coins, which I believe is driven mostly by brand loyalty and registry sets. As a result I do assume that the majority of legacy coins crossed to CACG will be NGC coins. However, to think that CACG "L" legacy coins will be seen as inferior, because they would never cross raw or because they have the NGC taint on them seems preposterous IMHO. That would mean that either JA is inconsistent or constantly wrong, which is tantamount to numismatic blasphemy.
You make very great points, but allow me to point out that most participants in that thread weren't really postulating that logic, even the OP said that he didn't buy it. The thread was based on a single comment from another member in a different thread, but we have to keep in mind that the perspective of a full-time dealer traveling the show circuit will differ from that of a purebred collector. The NGC market bias is real, and it's undeniable that most of the L coins will be NCAC crossovers in the beginning, so following that logic I don't think it's completely outlandish to discuss the possibility that the market bias could extend itself through the legacy designation. Speaking for myself, I will own several coins with an L and I couldn't care less about what the market thinks because I enjoy them and the coins stand on their own merit, but again it's all about perspective.
I agree it is an interesting topic to discuss. I posted it over here in case there are others like me who don't frequent the CAC boards. I would like to get their perspectives.
To your point there is no doubt that an NGC bias exists in the marketplace place and probably for good reason with some non-CAC NGC coins. Although I do think it provides a good buying opportunity in some cases for those of us that don't discriminate against plastic.
With that said, I find it illogical that NGC/CAC coins are seen as inferior. I understand the price discrepancy (somewhat) based on registry players, but that is a different argument. I think a CAC coin is a CAC coin, meaning it is solid for the grade no matter what plastic it is in. Accordingly, to say that CACG legacy coins might be inferior seems completely irrational to me. However, we both know that markets can be irrational, so once again I hope to get others perspectives.
On a side note I did recently pick up a CACG "L" legacy coin that I actually paid more for than I normally would, but the dealer wouldn't budge much and I wanted an example for my slab collection. I also picked up a CACG details coin with the registry value printed on the slab that I paid non-details money for so maybe I'm the irrational one, quien sabe.
This thread title "CACG now offering current members a crossover special!" amazes me in that our hosts permit this thread to survive. While I like to discuss current numismatic topics as much as anybody (well, maybe not as much as @jmlanzaf ), it seems very inappropriate for this board. Anyway, carry on!
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@Catbert said:
This thread title "CACG now offering current members a crossover special!" amazes me in that our hosts permit this thread to survive. While I like to discuss current numismatic topics as much as anybody (well, maybe not as much as @jmlanzaf ), it seems very inappropriate for this board. Anyway, carry on!
While I do understand your point, we are discussing coins, the coin market, and coin grading. Compared to some topics that are posted here I think we are on-point.
On a side note I did recently pick up a CACG "L" legacy coin that I actually paid more for than I normally would, but the dealer wouldn't budge much and I wanted an example for my slab collection. I also picked up a CACG details coin with the registry value printed on the slab that I paid non-details money for so maybe I'm the irrational one, quien sabe.
>
I think we are very much in agreement CAC approved coins should be seen as equal regardless of the plastic, however, I see this market dysfunction as a way to acquire great coins at a discount and let the plastic collectors pay the stiff premium for a P holder. I will eventually send a coin in for crossover (it will have to be a PCGS coin just because ) to add a legacy holder to the holder collection, and like you find an inexpensive early version with the registry value on the label.
Comments
I must admit I am slightly confused after reading this thread.....
Why would you NOT try to crossover regular PCGS coins (non +, non-stickered) to CACG if you think those coins are choice for the grade? IMO, CACG will/should bring a premium over PCGS coins. Is anyone saying it's better to try to get PCGS coins CAC stickered than submitted to CACG? If so, why? Thx in advance.
Someday, there will be a special section near the back of the room at coin shows just for those who collect coins.
My thought is let’s say you submitted 5 pcgs ms65 Morgans for cac stickers, and none of them stickered. Are you now going to cross those 5 pcgs Morgans over to cacg to potentially have them all downgrade to ms64s? I would be hesitant to start dropping grades in my collection.
Yes, I am saying it’s better to get pcgs coins with cac stickers versus cacg slabs. Bigger/stronger collector base for that material, and 2 sets of eyes on that coin brings reassurances.
Not playing the registry game is fine. But, thinking 6 is really somehow better than half a dozen is just insane.
If they'd cross 'em for free and you like the slabs, that's one thing. But, paying good money to cross from a very well respected TPG, with a CAC sticker to boot, to put it in a CACG slab, in the hope that the market will somehow come to value 6 more highly than half a dozen is not economically rational.
It will be even crazier if CACG slabs do actually become worth more than the exact same coin in a PCGS holder, with the same exact grade and a CAC sticker. But then again, a company comes out of nowhere, puts limited edition labels on common modern coins in PCGS holders, and people pay stupid money chasing the label, so I guess anything is possible.
Do you feel the same way regarding values with NGC CAC stickered coins?
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
This discussion needs to be on the cac boards… Just my opinion..
I would never submit 5 PCGS MS65 Morgans to CACG if none of them stickered. Clearly a waste of $, so we agree on that point. However, I am talking about submitting to CACG FIRST and, according to the email I received yesterday from CACG, seeing if they cross "without a risk of downgrade." IF there was a risk of downgrade, I wouldn't do it.
Perhaps non-stickered PCGS coins will do better than CACG slabbed coins in the short run due to lack of market depth, but in the long-run I would bet market depth with CACG coins will grow significantly. I remember very well talking to many dealers 15 years ago about CAC-stickered coins.....they were all concerned about market depth and tended to dismiss them.
Please don't confuse him with facts.
Ultimately if CACG is successful I believe the goal is to be acquired and that's where the real money lies.
Become a popular TPG with lots of revenue then sell it and ride off into the sunset.
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 MWallace logger7
A proven plan that worked well for Hall with PCGS.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Never forget the ANA grading seminar in Dalton... Our table was given NGC coins to grade and then Bill Fivaz gave his opinion. I thought NGC was a bit loose and Bill a bit too conservative. To win the competition the table group discussion went like this...
" I think it is Y... you think it is Z? NGC will probably grade it Z but Bill will think it is X... so we agree it is X!"
Loved the experience, but we fudged our standards to win.
From the GSA and Redfield holders... thankfully thru NGC/PCGS and now to CAC... this is marketing perfected.
A secure and needed service for sure, but alot of clever marketing.
A grade equals monetary value.
Learn to grade to a high standard, and you will win.
I prefer our host for many reasons.... the others useful tools.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
I don’t believe most people are going to pay the extra money (for CAC, CACG whatever).
Don't hold back, tell us what you really think
Statics would prove that a coin of the same grade with a CAC sticker will sell for more at auction. Meaning that people (me included) WILL pay more for the CAC stickered coin and their professional opinion. I don't think they are going to "crash & burn" at ANY time!
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
Pay all you want (hey be the end user). Are you gonna get in bid war for them…..
Back in February I was advised by JA himself to collect the coins you want and not to spend thousands of dollars trying to get coins in the holders you want them in. This during a discussion at CAC in Bedminster where I was fully expecting a sales pitch for CACG. What can I say? The guy’s a straight shooter.
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
That's why they go for more, people bid them up.
It helps to get out of your own head every now and then and see there are other people out there who behave differently.
……and many times, it’s for legitimate reasons that are good!
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 have 10 CAC stickered, double Eagles on E-Bay.
The 4 NGC/ CAC aren't selling.
Should I send the 4 to CACG?
WTS, The 6 PCGS/CAC aren't selling either.
I'm thinking, maybe CAC lost it's allure?
My wife says, I could be the problem. "if you want to sell them, lower the price".
She doesn't understand the coin biz.
Link?
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
Not the correct thread.
You've got a lot of competition. There are 286 CAC $20 Double Eagle for sale on eBay.
Nope. PCGS clearly carries a premium to NGC. But, what does CACG promise to offer above and beyond what PCGS CAC already offers in terms of market value?
Facts? 😂 Your post very, extremely clearly referenced PCGS/CAC.
No one mentioned NGC until @winesteven asked about it. And, as someone else suggested, the whole idea might be to get NGC coins into CACG holders. It just doesn't make sense to spend money to replace PCGS/CAC holders with CACG, since they will functionally be the same, and there will no reason to value one differently from the other.
If I'm wrong, as with VB, just put your money where your mouth is, and cross all your PCGS/CAC coins to CACG at, what, $39 a pop. Be my guest. While you're at it, see if Freddie wants to do the same with his VB treasures.
eBay has been slow for a lot of people. It has nothing to do with the sticker game. Many people simply broke, insecure in their future, etc.
I believe more people are financially challenged these days. They simply don’t have the money.
Lol. I agree with your wife.
And that’s why I’ve said many times on other threads on this forum that since the PCGS Registry is important to me, I won’t be crossing my PCGS CAC coins. My only crosses would be my PCGS CAC dupes in whole grades to cross ONLY if they cross with a plus or better.
I don’t own any NGC graded coins, but if I did, and if the NGC Registry was not important to me (and if it was and NGC chooses to allow in their Registry CACG graded coins like they allow PCGS coins), I’d cross my NGC CAC coins to CACG at the SAME grade or better.
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 have a small group of PCGS coins that have not previously been submitted to CAC. I plan on submitting them to CACG rather than CAC. The value of these coins will increase even if they downgrade one point in a CACG holder. Intuitively I think it will be easier for them to cross into a CACG non details holder than getting a sticker at CAC. I (perhaps wrongly) think JA wants coins sent to CACG rather than CAC so there perhaps may be some bias.
I’m guessing your coins are all pcgs fa-02 grades, where dropping to cacg po-01 will cause the increase in value? That would be a smart downgrade
Suggest putting minimum grade on form.
Downgrading by a point is a winning strategy? Not my deal. MS64 to 63? Then adding grading / shipping cost on top of that? WB shooting myself in the foot.
I received no such message from CAC - congrats.
Rumor has it that there will be a link on the website later this week where you can add your name to the waitlist.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I'm looking forward to not using their service.
I agreed with you ONLY because WHO HAS THE TIME???
Most of the people I know my age just don't have the time Or the energy..
AND the anxiety... I'm going nuts just waiting for grades from our host...
How do you do it?
I think you may be forgetting that coins in holders also exist without a CAC sticker. This crossover special sounds like it is aimed at them, not coins already CAC approved since they automatically cross and get the legacy identification or whatever it is..
It also seems others believe that every coin has already been to CAC.
This place is very strange lately.
Collector, occasional seller
coins already CAC approved since they automatically cross and get the legacy identification or whatever it is..
Actually + coins will not automatically cross nor will coins seeking a + or a coin designation improvement.
I got the email and my account has been created. However, when I log in it tells me I am still on the wait list at number "44". Not sure what to make of this? False hope or perhaps they will admit the next 100 people on the wait list tomorrow? We shall see.
I remember reading on the other forum that someone around # 180 was told that he will likely get in before the end of this year. As such, since you are #44, I'd suggest you start thinking about which coins you'll be submitting once you get the good news!
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
As #116, I already have half a box just waiting!
No thanks would rather spend it on PCGS coins. Especially ASE and AGE.
Here we go again..................
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
Valid point
Thanks for your imput
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
I am not a member over there, but I stumbled onto the CAC forums this morning after DeplorableDan mentioned that CACG might add a link for the wait list to their website. They have a thread postulating that CAC legacy coins with the "L" designation on the CACG slab may be seen as inferior/less desirable to regular CACG coins. The reasons being as I understand them, one current CACG standards are so tight that legacy coins would never make the same grade if submitted raw, and two the majority of coins being crossed are NGC/CAC (gasp) so they must be low quality. I'm using a little bit of hyperbole here, but not really.
First, let me preface my comments with the fact that I am fully aware that PCGS/CAC coins bring more money in the marketplace than NGC/CAC coins, which I believe is driven mostly by brand loyalty and registry sets. As a result I do assume that the majority of legacy coins crossed to CACG will be NGC coins. However, to think that CACG "L" legacy coins will be seen as inferior, because they would never cross raw or because they have the NGC taint on them seems preposterous IMHO. That would mean that either JA is inconsistent or constantly wrong, which is tantamount to numismatic blasphemy.
Philippians 4:4-7
The reasons being as I understand them, one current CACG standards are so tight that legacy coins would never make the same grade if submitted raw, and two the majority of coins being crossed are NGC/CAC (gasp) so they must be low quality. I'm using a little bit of hyperbole here, but not really.
Very good points, however, as you may have noticed some of the members of the CAC forum are also members here or former members here. And the kool-aid is like an intravenous drug for some, those are the folks out to spread the panic that all legacy holders have to former NGC as nobody in their right mind would ever cross a PCGS/CAC coin. Obviously that sort of talk is driven by complete fear, fear that their precious PCGS graded coins will drop in value.
The problem with all this nonsense is that is just how you sway a market, and it is really part of how we got to the current situation of higher prices for PCGS/CAC vs NGC/CAC. Major dealers and collectors that continue to push one brand because of monetary investment. And with the ease of social media it is not difficult to spread any sort of misconception or lie if one is so inclined with virtually no way to stop it.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
You make very great points, but allow me to point out that most participants in that thread weren't really postulating that logic, even the OP said that he didn't buy it. The thread was based on a single comment from another member in a different thread, but we have to keep in mind that the perspective of a full-time dealer traveling the show circuit will differ from that of a purebred collector. The NGC market bias is real, and it's undeniable that most of the L coins will be NCAC crossovers in the beginning, so following that logic I don't think it's completely outlandish to discuss the possibility that the market bias could extend itself through the legacy designation. Speaking for myself, I will own several coins with an L and I couldn't care less about what the market thinks because I enjoy them and the coins stand on their own merit, but again it's all about perspective.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I agree it is an interesting topic to discuss. I posted it over here in case there are others like me who don't frequent the CAC boards. I would like to get their perspectives.
To your point there is no doubt that an NGC bias exists in the marketplace place and probably for good reason with some non-CAC NGC coins. Although I do think it provides a good buying opportunity in some cases for those of us that don't discriminate against plastic.
With that said, I find it illogical that NGC/CAC coins are seen as inferior. I understand the price discrepancy (somewhat) based on registry players, but that is a different argument. I think a CAC coin is a CAC coin, meaning it is solid for the grade no matter what plastic it is in. Accordingly, to say that CACG legacy coins might be inferior seems completely irrational to me. However, we both know that markets can be irrational, so once again I hope to get others perspectives.
On a side note I did recently pick up a CACG "L" legacy coin that I actually paid more for than I normally would, but the dealer wouldn't budge much and I wanted an example for my slab collection. I also picked up a CACG details coin with the registry value printed on the slab that I paid non-details money for so maybe I'm the irrational one, quien sabe.
Philippians 4:4-7
This thread title "CACG now offering current members a crossover special!" amazes me in that our hosts permit this thread to survive. While I like to discuss current numismatic topics as much as anybody (well, maybe not as much as @jmlanzaf
), it seems very inappropriate for this board. Anyway, carry on!
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
While I do understand your point, we are discussing coins, the coin market, and coin grading. Compared to some topics that are posted here I think we are on-point.
>
I think we are very much in agreement CAC approved coins should be seen as equal regardless of the plastic, however, I see this market dysfunction as a way to acquire great coins at a discount and let the plastic collectors pay the stiff premium for a P holder. I will eventually send a coin in for crossover (it will have to be a PCGS coin just because
) to add a legacy holder to the holder collection, and like you find an inexpensive early version with the registry value on the label.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.