@SurfinxHI said:
The person is paying a mark up for using the dealers account and likely time.
Yes, I agree that they appear to be paying the dealer a stiff commission to review and submit. However, that was not what was written by the OP. The OP stated the cost and made no mention of the dealer taking a significant payout-
"It cost $674 for postage, insurance, grading fees and insurance"
The two-coin package, valued at just under $10,000, was $136 for Service Tier Fees plus $30 for Shipping and $10 for handling, for a total of $176.
The nine-coin package, valued at just under $10,000, was $198 for Service Tier Fees, plus $40 for S&H, for a total of $238.
He charged me $276 for postage plus insurance.
I agree that $276 is high for that, given that CAC only charges $70 to return the coins to me. But I was there for 2.5 hours while we went through all the coins (during which he explained why he liked or disliked each coin), and he filled out the submission form, did the shipping labels, and paid the postage/insurance. I'll poke about that if he asks for more money after CAC bills him, but I'm not unhappy about the experience; it's really not expensive tuition.
Thank you for the reply and detailed breakdown of fees. It appears that the total cost included the dealer's time and expertise, which the dealer has every right to charge for, but I had not noticed that included in the original post and that was what left me scratching my head.
@TomB said:
Thank you for the reply and detailed breakdown of fees. It appears that the total cost included the dealer's time and expertise, which the dealer has every right to charge for, but I had not noticed that included in the original post and that was what left me scratching my head.
I agree; he should have broken it down, rather than finessing it as postage fees. But I don't think it's an unreasonable amount, given the time and expertise involved.
Can anybody tell me what this is? My understanding is PVC does not affect gold coins.
It might be copper oxidation, I'm not confident that its definitely PVC. @jmlanzaf ?
Anyways, no, PVC doesn't "affect" gold. Gold coins can certainly be contaminated with PVC, but it only lays on the surface and wont actually damage the coin.
I don’t care about how young an expert is. People like @DeplorableDan , and even younger ones like @FlyingAl, have incredible knowledge to share in an unbiased manner! I’ve found they’re both always on target, and I learn a LOT from them!
Thanks for continuing to contribute to this forum!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
Can anybody tell me what this is? My understanding is PVC does not affect gold coins.
It might be copper oxidation, I'm not confident that its definitely PVC. @jmlanzaf ?
Anyways, no, PVC doesn't "affect" gold. Gold coins can certainly be contaminated with PVC, but it only lays on the surface and wont actually damage the coin.
If it’s not PVC, it’s verdigris from copper near the surface. Still not something I would tolerate at that grade level. And the stability of gold notwithstanding, CAC purportedly won’t sticker PVCed coins. The other poster suggested that the lack of CAC sticker was damning for PVC or other surface contaminants. Despite the obvious logic flaw, I offered this as a counter example that not all that is green is always golden (pun intended).
Can anybody tell me what this is? My understanding is PVC does not affect gold coins.
It might be copper oxidation, I'm not confident that its definitely PVC. @jmlanzaf ?
Anyways, no, PVC doesn't "affect" gold. Gold coins can certainly be contaminated with PVC, but it only lays on the surface and wont actually damage the coin.
If it’s not PVC, it’s verdigris from copper near the surface. Still not something I would tolerate at that grade level. And the stability of gold notwithstanding, CAC purportedly won’t sticker PVCed coins. The other poster suggested that the lack of CAC sticker was damning for PVC or other surface contaminants. Despite the obvious logic flaw, I offered this as a counter example that not all that is green is always golden (pun intended).
I'm not diagreeing with you, I wouldnt want pvc or verdigris on a 67+ cac. I was only answering the other posters question about PVC doing harm to gold, which it wont. Its just unsightly and normally prevents a sticker, but it doesnt eat away at the surface like it does with other metals.
Oh my gosh did it go bad in the holder? Numismatic Investment risky huh.
It’s ruined / that green crud……good luck in removing that. To the junk box she goes…..By all means post it there then they can go round n round if it’s Legacy or not.
@Cougar1978 said:
Oh my gosh did it go bad in the holder? Numismatic Investment risky huh.
It’s ruined / that green crud……good luck in removing that. To the junk box she goes…..By all means post it there then they can go round n round if it’s Legacy or not.
The coin isn’t ruined or even harmed. And the “green crud” can be easily removed. Lastly, the coins’ Legacy status will be very easy to determine. If you’d take a few extra seconds reading the posts to which you respond, you’d be doing yourself a huge favor.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Cougar1978 said:
Oh my gosh did it go bad in the holder? Numismatic Investment risky huh.
It’s ruined / that green crud……good luck in removing that. To the junk box she goes…..By all means post it there then they can go round n round if it’s Legacy or not.
The coin isn’t ruined or even harmed. And the “green crud” can be easily removed. Lastly, the coins’ Legacy status will be very easy to determine. If you’d take a few extra seconds reading the posts to which you respond, you’d be doing yourself a huge favor.
I don’t disagree with any of what you wrote. CAC has rejected other coins with similar issues. Why was this particular coin given a free pass? It’s near the date (a focal point) so I doubt it was simply overlooked.
@Cougar1978 said:
Oh my gosh did it go bad in the holder? Numismatic Investment risky huh.
It’s ruined / that green crud……good luck in removing that. To the junk box she goes…..By all means post it there then they can go round n round if it’s Legacy or not.
The coin isn’t ruined or even harmed. And the “green crud” can be easily removed. Lastly, the coins’ Legacy status will be very easy to determine. If you’d take a few extra seconds reading the posts to which you respond, you’d be doing yourself a huge favor.
I don’t disagree with any of what you wrote. CAC has rejected other coins with similar issues. Why was this particular coin given a free pass? It’s near the date (a focal point) so I doubt it was simply overlooked.
I have no way of knowing - maybe the coin looked different at the time CAC examined it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Can anybody tell me what this is? My understanding is PVC does not affect gold coins.
It might be copper oxidation, I'm not confident that its definitely PVC. @jmlanzaf ?
Anyways, no, PVC doesn't "affect" gold. Gold coins can certainly be contaminated with PVC, but it only lays on the surface and wont actually damage the coin.
It doesn't look like PVC or verdigris to me. It's so smooth, it might be a foreign substance on the surface. It might actually be able to be removed.
@Cougar1978 said:
Oh my gosh did it go bad in the holder? Numismatic Investment risky huh.
It’s ruined / that green crud……good luck in removing that. To the junk box she goes…..By all means post it there then they can go round n round if it’s Legacy or not.
The coin isn’t ruined or even harmed. And the “green crud” can be easily removed. Lastly, the coins’ Legacy status will be very easy to determine. If you’d take a few extra seconds reading the posts to which you respond, you’d be doing yourself a huge favor.
I don’t disagree with any of what you wrote. CAC has rejected other coins with similar issues. Why was this particular coin given a free pass? It’s near the date (a focal point) so I doubt it was simply overlooked.
I have no way of knowing - maybe the coin looked different at the time CAC examined it.
Thanks. The photos were from the True View images for the coin.
@Cougar1978 said:
Oh my gosh did it go bad in the holder? Numismatic Investment risky huh.
It’s ruined / that green crud……good luck in removing that. To the junk box she goes…..By all means post it there then they can go round n round if it’s Legacy or not.
The coin isn’t ruined or even harmed. And the “green crud” can be easily removed. Lastly, the coins’ Legacy status will be very easy to determine. If you’d take a few extra seconds reading the posts to which you respond, you’d be doing yourself a huge favor.
I don’t disagree with any of what you wrote. CAC has rejected other coins with similar issues. Why was this particular coin given a free pass? It’s near the date (a focal point) so I doubt it was simply overlooked.
I have no way of knowing - maybe the coin looked different at the time CAC examined it.
Thanks. The photos were from the True View images for the coin.
Then that largely eliminates the possibility I put forth.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I don't listen to any of the posters in this thread. They are pretty well versed in the hobby and know what they are talking about.
Me... I know nothing about grading. If you don't believe me, My CAC result's will vouch for my very limited knowledge.
I only deal in Double eagles and have submitted a couple of hundred over the past half dozen years.
Overall, I probably sticker at a 20% rate (Most coins over 62's were bought in the last 6 years). I mainly buy price (and generics) so I understand and expect my underperformance.
66's = 0
65's 3%
64= 8%
63's 15%
62's 30 % (many bought 8-10 years ago.
My point, if you have the knowledge you'll exceed my numbers. If not... I have presented a look at the possible downside.
Have you asked CAC to indicate when they return your coins WHY the failures occurred? This information may be helpful to you. Was the coin just not solid for the grade? Was there a "rub" on a high point that makes the coin, in their opinion, a high AU? Did they fail it due to what in their opinion was an unacceptable surface treatment applied to the coin? I'm NO expert, but from what I've read, gold coins have a low success rate at CAC often due to this last reason.
My understanding is if you ask for them to indicate a reason for a failure, they will, often with a color coded sticker system.
Thanks for sharing.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
Have you asked CAC to indicate when they return your coins WHY the failures occurred? This information may be helpful to you. Was the coin just not solid for the grade? Was there a "rub" on a high point that makes the coin, in their opinion, a high AU? Did they fail it due to what in their opinion was an unacceptable surface treatment applied to the coin? I'm NO expert, but from what I've read, gold coins have a low success rate at CAC often due to this last reason.
My understanding is if you ask for them to indicate a reason for a failure, they will, often with a color coded sticker system.
Thanks for sharing.
Steve
If directed towards me...????
In truth, I never cared. The sellers were picking the coins. I was buying 62's for 0-$100 over , 63's $0-150 over $50-200 65's $200-300 over spot. Often, I bought "lots" (10-20 coins). I bought E-Bucks specials , so learning the finer points was not truly meaningful. I was buying what I believed to be C coins at what I believe was a good C coin price.
I just sent the 6-2021 Morgan-peace dollars coins to CAC. My cost was $148 plus my shipping cost to send them. These are the 1st coins I have sent to CAC and have been more than happy with their service so far. I will post the results with they are returned from Va Beach, Va. These have been in my safe since receiving them from the USM in 2021, so I thought it would be good to get them graded. Hopefully they will be graded as MS68 or MS69.
USN & USAF retired 1971-1993
Successful Transactions with more than 100 Members
Well, the coins I submitted have been reviewed, and I'm quite disappointed! I had carefully picked what I thought were my strongest candidates, and the dealer through whom I submitted agreed with most of my choices (including and especially the two very expensive coins I submitted).
In the end, three of the eleven coins I submitted were approved. It's a bit frustrating that I can't learn why.
Nominally, the "value" of the coins that were approved increased in value by about the same amount as the process cost me, but I don't really believe that, since the coins themselves don't change; a very strong coin without a CAC sticker still is a very strong coin.
Alas, nothing about this process makes me ever want to do this again; I don't like playing games whose rules aren't transparent to me. I'm now more mystified than ever what "A," "B" and "C" mean, when applied to coins within a grade. I assume that, like me, most people don't randomly send in all their coins for CAC approval, but pre-select their better coins. And CAC advertises a 43% approval rate. So, if one assumes, say, that only the top 75% of coins are submitted (and it's probably a good deal less than that), and they approve only 43% of those, that's 32% of all graded coins. Dividing up each grade into three groups, but the top two groups are only 32% (or, more likely, less) of all the coins, is a strange system.
@124Spider said:
Well, the coins I submitted have been reviewed, and I'm quite disappointed! I had carefully picked what I thought were my strongest candidates, and the dealer through whom I submitted agreed with most of my choices (including and especially the two very expensive coins I submitted).
In the end, three of the eleven coins I submitted were approved. It's a bit frustrating that I can't learn why.
Nominally, the "value" of the coins that were approved increased in value by about the same amount as the process cost me, but I don't really believe that, since the coins themselves don't change; a very strong coin without a CAC sticker still is a very strong coin.
Alas, nothing about this process makes me ever want to do this again; I don't like playing games whose rules aren't transparent to me. I'm now more mystified than ever what "A," "B" and "C" mean, when applied to coins within a grade. I assume that, like me, most people don't randomly send in all their coins for CAC approval, but pre-select their better coins. And CAC advertises a 43% approval rate. So, if one assumes, say, that only the top 75% of coins are submitted (and it's probably a good deal less than that), and they approve only 43% of those, that's 32% of all graded coins. Dividing up each grade into three groups, but the top two groups are only 32% (or, more likely, less) of all the coins, is a strange system.
Forget about the ABC for now, John stickers the coins that dont have issues and that he thinks are solid for the grade, period. The 43% approval rating is all time, so if you were to take a random sampling of 100 unstickered coins on the market today and send them in, youre not gonna get 43 that pass. Most of the low hanging fruit has already been picked, and I dont know when you acquired your coins.
It's a shame that the dealer didnt request feedback, one of the benefits of submitting directly is that you get the colored stickers on the rejections that explain why they failed, which adds to the educational aspect of it. 3/11 isnt that bad, and its probably on par with many others approval ratings lately. For all you know, 3/8 that failed might have been for something silly like pvc. If you want to post pictures of them all and have a discussion about it we might be able to identify why some of them didnt pass, but i understand if thats not something you want to do. Sorry that you werent entirely pleased with the process .
FWIW, I know they are the "same coins" that they were before, but it doesnt matter how strong an unstickered coin is. You simply will not get "sticker money" without the actual sticker being there. I hope the value increase at least covered your sub fees.
Edit- I am a bit curious about the total windfall from the 3 that did sticker, though. If you don't mind, can you add up the difference between CAC cpg and non cac cpg for those 3 coins?
Years ago, I was in your shoes, and would lose money when I’d turn right around and sell the coins that failed. As such, for the past 8 - 10 years or so I only buy coins that have CAC stickers, but ONLY if I really like the eye appeal!
Additionally, if I’m buying at auction, like GC or Heritage, if I really like the coin from the photos, I still ask in advance to have one of their numismatists look at the coin in hand. Surprisingly, more often than not, they have me pass. That unbiased advice is invaluable!
Finally, don’t fool yourself into thinking that when the time comes that you (or your heirs) sell those eye appealing coins that failed, you will achieve the same proceeds as similar eye appealing coins that merit CAC stickers (or CAC Grading). Otherwise, good luck!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
To amplify/clarify my previous post, I fully understand that the same coin with a CAC sticker is worth more than it would be without it. Which is why I went through this unsatisfying process.
But I also don't believe that much of anything in life is truly binary, especially the expected sale price of certified coins, whose wear/condition within a grade is a continuum (at least; I could make a case that it's a 2-dimensional array). I fully believe that my really nice coins that failed, for some reason, are still worth more than a coin of the same grade whose deficits are more obvious.
It's a frustrating situation, to me, which, at least in the immediate aftermath of this experience, leaves a very bad taste in my mouth....
My high degree of dissonance is just over the fact that 90% of the process is some combination of opaque to me, and random (people keep saying something to the effect of "John just decides what coins he likes"). And, as previously noted, I don't gamble when there's a choice, and I don't like games whose rules are opaque to me.
CAC is, of course, entitled to run their shop as they see fit, and they're obviously a rousing success. But I do have dozens of CAC-approved coins, which I compared as I made the decision on what coins to present to the dealer as candidates, and the dealer (who received a call from John at CAC while I was in his office) approved of my choices. And yet, I had a very low batting average, with no way to tell why.
It’s not as opaque as you’re making it out to be. JA is very transparent and if you had the chance to get his feedback he would explain why each and every one of them didn’t pass. Whether or not you agree with it, however, is another matter entirely.
He’s not just making up his own rules, the man is an excellent grader that has been a founder/cofounder of basically all the tpgs. He is just picky, but he is the type of person that would invite you to call him at the office so he could explain his reasoning, that is if he knew he had a disgruntled submitter.
@alaura22 said:
I thought that if a coin failed to sticker then a red dot sticker was applied to the holder explaining why it didn't pass, Is this not true?
My understanding is that happens only when requested. Apparently, the submitting dealer did not ask for that.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@alaura22 said:
I thought that if a coin failed to sticker then a red dot sticker was applied to the holder explaining why it didn't pass, Is this not true?
This is not true in my experience. Occasionally, I will submit a coin with PVC on it that I had not noticed and these coins come back with a little red sticker that says "PVC". Otherwise, I have never had a CAC rejected coin come back with a sticker on it.
I'm truly sorry your experience with the process was so frustrating for you and that you had less success than anticipated. The three coins that you shared images of all appear quite nice and, if I understand correctly, they all received a sticker from CAC.
Some of your posts likely reflect the frustration that you feel at the moment, which is quite human. JA does not apply stickers simply to coins he likes, but instead his bar for grading and what he considers a problem on a coin is slightly different than what we see at NGC and PCGS. In general, it is slightly tighter, but I have noticed over the fourteen-years or so that CAC has been in business that his standards have not really wandered all over the place, in my experience. This is really what we want from CAC or NGC or PCGS or whomever, to be consistent.
I realize you might not want to share either images or information from the coins that did not sticker and I understand that completely. I wouldn't let this experience turn you off to CAC just as I wouldn't tell someone who did poorly on a submission to PCGS or NGC that they should turn their back on that aspect of the hobby, either.
@alaura22 said:
I thought that if a coin failed to sticker then a red dot sticker was applied to the holder explaining why it didn't pass, Is this not true?
This is not true in my experience. Occasionally, I will submit a coin with PVC on it that I had not noticed and these coins come back with a little red sticker that says "PVC". Otherwise, I have never had a CAC rejected coin come back with a sticker on it.
First of all - THANK YOU for sharing your experience with us!
It's not usual for first time submitters to experience what you did. A very experienced collector friend of mine submitted sixteen OGH Buffalo nickels to CAC. These were high value coins totaling $25,000, the maximum for postal insurance. Only four passed. they were the late date Buffalos of minimal value that were put in at the last minute to keep the value at $25,000. When he got the coins back it, was readily apparent why some passed and the others did not. The ones that failed did not have LUSTER.
It's impressive that your three legged passed! PCGS states there are 1179 in XF45 and CAC states 133 passed. That's a 11.28% pass rate on a thousand dollar coin. If that coin went up for auction today, most likely you will receive strong bids beyond the CAC price guide.
Early Walkers are often overgraded and over dipped or have PVC. CAC has only passed 13.5% of the 1928-S AU53 PCGS population, another thousand dollar coin. That percentage would be even less when one includes the NGC population.
When submitting coins to CAC, I would only submit your strongest candidates. With 20th century coins, PVC is a real issue and only the most trained eyes can perceive it - JA does!
I appreciate all the replies. Truly. And, yes, my posts reflect my deep disappointment, but it is not my intention to impugn CAC, only point out the frustrating opacity of the process, to me (and, by extension, to many, many collectors).
I believe that CAC stickers are given on a fairly consistent basis (given the inherently subjective nature of the process). I believe that they do the best they can to make their business respected. And I will continue to buy coins with CAC stickers on them when I find ones I like. And, yes, I certainly understand that, as time goes on, the percentage of premium quality old coins that haven't already been submitted for CAC approval will continue to drop, so that maybe, randomly, 27% wasn't too bad. But my process was far, far from random.
But I know that, whatever the criteria used are, it is to me (and likely always will be) a black box. I have over 150 graded coins, almost all graded by PCGS and NGC, and all at least moderately expensive (and most very expensive, by my standards). I have worked very hard to get pretty good (and conservative) about grading the coins that I collect (in the grades I collect). I have several dozen coins with CAC stickers on them, to which I compared my candidates. I chose the very best of my coins to send into CAC, and those I sent in were seconded by the dealer as very reasonable candidates for CAC approval. I did not expect all, or almost all, to sticker. But I certainly expected more than 27% of them to sticker, given the process I had gone through before submitting them. I don't mind paying "tuition" to learn, but I dislike paying "tuition" and not having an opportunity to learn (well, other than "learning" that submitting to CAC will not be a game for me to play again).
I have no problem with posting photos of the coins that were rejected by CAC. But I cannot believe that I'll learn anything from whatever people may say about them. We examined them with a 3x loupe before submitting them, and I do believe that the dealer is experienced at this process. I expect that people would say, about my rejects, that they are very nice coins, but there must be something about them....
Again, I do appreciate your responses. But sometimes even hobbies can be less than fun.
@124Spider said:
I appreciate all the replies. Truly. And, yes, my posts reflect my deep disappointment, but it is not my intention to impugn CAC, only point out the frustrating opacity of the process, to me (and, by extension, to many, many collectors).
I believe that CAC stickers are given on a fairly consistent basis (given the inherently subjective nature of the process). I believe that they do the best they can to make their business respected. And I will continue to buy coins with CAC stickers on them when I find ones I like. And, yes, I certainly understand that, as time goes on, the percentage of premium quality old coins that haven't already been submitted for CAC approval will continue to drop, so that maybe, randomly, 27% wasn't too bad. But my process was far, far from random.
But I know that, whatever the criteria used are, it is to me (and likely always will be) a black box. I have over 150 graded coins, almost all graded by PCGS and NGC, and all at least moderately expensive (and most very expensive, by my standards). I have worked very hard to get pretty good (and conservative) about grading the coins that I collect (in the grades I collect). I have several dozen coins with CAC stickers on them, to which I compared my candidates. I chose the very best of my coins to send into CAC, and those I sent in were seconded by the dealer as very reasonable candidates for CAC approval. I did not expect all, or almost all, to sticker. But I certainly expected more than 27% of them to sticker, given the process I had gone through before submitting them. I don't mind paying "tuition" to learn, but I dislike paying "tuition" and not having an opportunity to learn (well, other than "learning" that submitting to CAC will not be a game for me to play again).
I have no problem with posting photos of the coins that were rejected by CAC. But I cannot believe that I'll learn anything from whatever people may say about them. We examined them with a 3x loupe before submitting them, and I do believe that the dealer is experienced at this process. I expect that people would say, about my rejects, that they are very nice coins, but there must be something about them....
Again, I do appreciate your responses. But sometimes even hobbies can be less than fun.
Sorry to say I doubt you are as good as you say in picking candidates for CAC, no insult intended. You apparently need more experience in choosing coins for your collection. Most of my coins pass CAC and I am far from a coin expert
I have no problem with posting photos of the coins that were rejected by CAC. But I cannot believe that I'll learn anything from whatever people may say about them. We examined them with a 3x loupe before submitting them, and I do believe that the dealer is experienced at this process. I expect that people would say, about my rejects, that they are very nice coins, but there must be something about them....
It could simply be the coins were not solid for the grade; i. e., a 65 would be a 64+ at CACG.
For example, this coin was downgraded from a 66 to a 65+ by CACG.
Sorry to say I doubt you are as good as you say in picking candidates for CAC, no insult intended. You apparently need more experience in choosing coins for your collection. Most of my coins pass CAC and I am far from a coin expert
Well, that certainly was helpful! Not....
For the record, I certainly never said, anywhere, that "I am good at picking candidates for CAC." Obviously. I said that I am good at grading coins, by which I mean that I can GTG (or, often, I'm conservative at guessing the grade) according to PCGS and NGC standards. Given that CAC feels that only a small minority of graded coins are "solid for the grade," it's evident that CAC is trying (with some success, apparently) to redefine the scale. That's not a game I'm interested in playing.
I have no problem with posting photos of the coins that were rejected by CAC. But I cannot believe that I'll learn anything from whatever people may say about them. We examined them with a 3x loupe before submitting them, and I do believe that the dealer is experienced at this process. I expect that people would say, about my rejects, that they are very nice coins, but there must be something about them....
It could simply be the coins were not solid for the grade; i. e., a 65 would be a 64+ at CACG.
For example, this coin was downgraded from a 66 to a 65+ by CACG.
I agree that that is the case. My issue (among many others), is that "solid for the grade" shouldn't be a small minority of the coins graded by NGC and PCGS. Anyone can start a third-party grading business, and simply grade "harder" than the two premier TPGs, but I seriously question why that is good for the hobby. I agree that gradeflation, if, indeed, it has happened, should be checked. But, de facto, PCGS and NGC define the scale, and CAC is trying to change that; all that does, IMO, is cause confusion.
Perhaps I’m the only one thinking this, but the dealer you submitted through clearly doesn’t know how to grade. He should’ve been more selective to either have you submit only a small handful of the coins (~5), or submit none at all because financially it wouldn’t be worth it on the entire group. He charges a few hundred dollars for his time, and goes 3/11?
While this is subjective, i strongly disagree with you @124Spider"that CAC feels that only a SMALL MINORITY of graded coins are "solid for the grade," (caps placed by me). My sense is most collectors, whether fans of CAC or not, disagree with your perception.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@1madman said:
Perhaps I’m the only one thinking this, but the dealer you submitted through clearly doesn’t know how to grade. He should’ve been more selective to either have you submit only a small handful of the coins (~5), or submit none at all because financially it wouldn’t be worth it on the entire group. He charges a few hundred dollars for his time, and goes 3/11?
Mostly agreed but even quality graders/dealers can make mistakes. I bought an extraordinarily original coin from a well known dealer (& CACG investor). Great luster but under a THICK patina...he didn't bother to submit it because it had no shot in his opinion and you know the rest...
@1madman said:
Perhaps I’m the only one thinking this, but the dealer you submitted through clearly doesn’t know how to grade. He should’ve been more selective to either have you submit only a small handful of the coins (~5), or submit none at all because financially it wouldn’t be worth it on the entire group. He charges a few hundred dollars for his time, and goes 3/11?
Mostly agreed but even quality graders/dealers can make mistakes. I bought an extraordinarily original coin from a well known dealer (& CACG investor). Great luster but under a THICK patina...he didn't bother to submit it because it had no shot in his opinion and you know the rest...
@winesteven said:
While this is subjective, i strongly disagree with you @124Spider"that CAC feels that only a SMALL MINORITY of graded coins are "solid for the grade," (caps placed by me). My sense is most collectors, whether fans of CAC or not, disagree with your perception.
Steve
The number suggest otherwise.
Assume that anyone submitting is going to use some effort to pick his/her better coins for submission. At the very minimum, that will eliminate, say, the bottom 25% of coins in a grade. Of those 75% left (and I would be surprised if the number were as high as 75%), CAC says that they approve 43% of submissions.
That's 32% of all coins (even assuming that a log of coins in the second quartile are submitted, which I don't believe). That's a relatively small minority; no rational meaning of "solid for the grade" should, IMO, mean "only the top third or better."
Comments
Yes, I agree that they appear to be paying the dealer a stiff commission to review and submit. However, that was not what was written by the OP. The OP stated the cost and made no mention of the dealer taking a significant payout-
"It cost $674 for postage, insurance, grading fees and insurance"
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
The two-coin package, valued at just under $10,000, was $136 for Service Tier Fees plus $30 for Shipping and $10 for handling, for a total of $176.
The nine-coin package, valued at just under $10,000, was $198 for Service Tier Fees, plus $40 for S&H, for a total of $238.
He charged me $276 for postage plus insurance.
I agree that $276 is high for that, given that CAC only charges $70 to return the coins to me. But I was there for 2.5 hours while we went through all the coins (during which he explained why he liked or disliked each coin), and he filled out the submission form, did the shipping labels, and paid the postage/insurance. I'll poke about that if he asks for more money after CAC bills him, but I'm not unhappy about the experience; it's really not expensive tuition.
Thank you for the reply and detailed breakdown of fees. It appears that the total cost included the dealer's time and expertise, which the dealer has every right to charge for, but I had not noticed that included in the original post and that was what left me scratching my head.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I agree; he should have broken it down, rather than finessing it as postage fees. But I don't think it's an unreasonable amount, given the time and expertise involved.
Can anybody tell me what this is? My understanding is PVC does not affect gold coins.
It might be copper oxidation, I'm not confident that its definitely PVC. @jmlanzaf ?
Anyways, no, PVC doesn't "affect" gold. Gold coins can certainly be contaminated with PVC, but it only lays on the surface and wont actually damage the coin.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I don’t care about how young an expert is. People like @DeplorableDan , and even younger ones like @FlyingAl, have incredible knowledge to share in an unbiased manner! I’ve found they’re both always on target, and I learn a LOT from them!
Thanks for continuing to contribute to this forum!
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
If it’s not PVC, it’s verdigris from copper near the surface. Still not something I would tolerate at that grade level. And the stability of gold notwithstanding, CAC purportedly won’t sticker PVCed coins. The other poster suggested that the lack of CAC sticker was damning for PVC or other surface contaminants. Despite the obvious logic flaw, I offered this as a counter example that not all that is green is always golden (pun intended).
I'm not diagreeing with you, I wouldnt want pvc or verdigris on a 67+ cac. I was only answering the other posters question about PVC doing harm to gold, which it wont. Its just unsightly and normally prevents a sticker, but it doesnt eat away at the surface like it does with other metals.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Maybe someone could post this picture on the CAC Forum. It would be interesting to see their reaction to it.
Oh my gosh did it go bad in the holder? Numismatic Investment risky huh.
It’s ruined / that green crud……good luck in removing that. To the junk box she goes…..By all means post it there then they can go round n round if it’s Legacy or not.
The coin isn’t ruined or even harmed. And the “green crud” can be easily removed. Lastly, the coins’ Legacy status will be very easy to determine. If you’d take a few extra seconds reading the posts to which you respond, you’d be doing yourself a huge favor.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I was waiting for your opinion, Mark, THANK YOU!
While the coin is beyond my budget, I actually like it. It looks like it's encrusted with emeralds
I don’t disagree with any of what you wrote. CAC has rejected other coins with similar issues. Why was this particular coin given a free pass? It’s near the date (a focal point) so I doubt it was simply overlooked.
I have no way of knowing - maybe the coin looked different at the time CAC examined it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It doesn't look like PVC or verdigris to me. It's so smooth, it might be a foreign substance on the surface. It might actually be able to be removed.
Thanks. The photos were from the True View images for the coin.
Then that largely eliminates the possibility I put forth.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I don't listen to any of the posters in this thread. They are pretty well versed in the hobby and know what they are talking about.
Me... I know nothing about grading. If you don't believe me, My CAC result's will vouch for my very limited knowledge.
I only deal in Double eagles and have submitted a couple of hundred over the past half dozen years.
Overall, I probably sticker at a 20% rate (Most coins over 62's were bought in the last 6 years). I mainly buy price (and generics) so I understand and expect my underperformance.
66's = 0
65's 3%
64= 8%
63's 15%
62's 30 % (many bought 8-10 years ago.
My point, if you have the knowledge you'll exceed my numbers. If not... I have presented a look at the possible downside.
Have you asked CAC to indicate when they return your coins WHY the failures occurred? This information may be helpful to you. Was the coin just not solid for the grade? Was there a "rub" on a high point that makes the coin, in their opinion, a high AU? Did they fail it due to what in their opinion was an unacceptable surface treatment applied to the coin? I'm NO expert, but from what I've read, gold coins have a low success rate at CAC often due to this last reason.
My understanding is if you ask for them to indicate a reason for a failure, they will, often with a color coded sticker system.
Thanks for sharing.
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
If directed towards me...????
In truth, I never cared. The sellers were picking the coins. I was buying 62's for 0-$100 over , 63's $0-150 over $50-200 65's $200-300 over spot. Often, I bought "lots" (10-20 coins). I bought E-Bucks specials , so learning the finer points was not truly meaningful. I was buying what I believed to be C coins at what I believe was a good C coin price.
I just sent the 6-2021 Morgan-peace dollars coins to CAC. My cost was $148 plus my shipping cost to send them. These are the 1st coins I have sent to CAC and have been more than happy with their service so far. I will post the results with they are returned from Va Beach, Va. These have been in my safe since receiving them from the USM in 2021, so I thought it would be good to get them graded. Hopefully they will be graded as MS68 or MS69.
USN & USAF retired 1971-1993
Successful Transactions with more than 100 Members
Well, the coins I submitted have been reviewed, and I'm quite disappointed! I had carefully picked what I thought were my strongest candidates, and the dealer through whom I submitted agreed with most of my choices (including and especially the two very expensive coins I submitted).
In the end, three of the eleven coins I submitted were approved. It's a bit frustrating that I can't learn why.
Nominally, the "value" of the coins that were approved increased in value by about the same amount as the process cost me, but I don't really believe that, since the coins themselves don't change; a very strong coin without a CAC sticker still is a very strong coin.
Alas, nothing about this process makes me ever want to do this again; I don't like playing games whose rules aren't transparent to me. I'm now more mystified than ever what "A," "B" and "C" mean, when applied to coins within a grade. I assume that, like me, most people don't randomly send in all their coins for CAC approval, but pre-select their better coins. And CAC advertises a 43% approval rate. So, if one assumes, say, that only the top 75% of coins are submitted (and it's probably a good deal less than that), and they approve only 43% of those, that's 32% of all graded coins. Dividing up each grade into three groups, but the top two groups are only 32% (or, more likely, less) of all the coins, is a strange system.
Forget about the ABC for now, John stickers the coins that dont have issues and that he thinks are solid for the grade, period. The 43% approval rating is all time, so if you were to take a random sampling of 100 unstickered coins on the market today and send them in, youre not gonna get 43 that pass. Most of the low hanging fruit has already been picked, and I dont know when you acquired your coins.
It's a shame that the dealer didnt request feedback, one of the benefits of submitting directly is that you get the colored stickers on the rejections that explain why they failed, which adds to the educational aspect of it. 3/11 isnt that bad, and its probably on par with many others approval ratings lately. For all you know, 3/8 that failed might have been for something silly like pvc. If you want to post pictures of them all and have a discussion about it we might be able to identify why some of them didnt pass, but i understand if thats not something you want to do. Sorry that you werent entirely pleased with the process
.
FWIW, I know they are the "same coins" that they were before, but it doesnt matter how strong an unstickered coin is. You simply will not get "sticker money" without the actual sticker being there. I hope the value increase at least covered your sub fees.
Edit- I am a bit curious about the total windfall from the 3 that did sticker, though. If you don't mind, can you add up the difference between CAC cpg and non cac cpg for those 3 coins?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Years ago, I was in your shoes, and would lose money when I’d turn right around and sell the coins that failed. As such, for the past 8 - 10 years or so I only buy coins that have CAC stickers, but ONLY if I really like the eye appeal!
Additionally, if I’m buying at auction, like GC or Heritage, if I really like the coin from the photos, I still ask in advance to have one of their numismatists look at the coin in hand. Surprisingly, more often than not, they have me pass. That unbiased advice is invaluable!
Finally, don’t fool yourself into thinking that when the time comes that you (or your heirs) sell those eye appealing coins that failed, you will achieve the same proceeds as similar eye appealing coins that merit CAC stickers (or CAC Grading). Otherwise, good luck!
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
To amplify/clarify my previous post, I fully understand that the same coin with a CAC sticker is worth more than it would be without it. Which is why I went through this unsatisfying process.
But I also don't believe that much of anything in life is truly binary, especially the expected sale price of certified coins, whose wear/condition within a grade is a continuum (at least; I could make a case that it's a 2-dimensional array). I fully believe that my really nice coins that failed, for some reason, are still worth more than a coin of the same grade whose deficits are more obvious.
It's a frustrating situation, to me, which, at least in the immediate aftermath of this experience, leaves a very bad taste in my mouth....
Can you tell us what the 3 coins that stickered are? Pics would be cool too lol
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Nice trio of CAC'd coins
They are, indeed; thanks!
My high degree of dissonance is just over the fact that 90% of the process is some combination of opaque to me, and random (people keep saying something to the effect of "John just decides what coins he likes"). And, as previously noted, I don't gamble when there's a choice, and I don't like games whose rules are opaque to me.
CAC is, of course, entitled to run their shop as they see fit, and they're obviously a rousing success. But I do have dozens of CAC-approved coins, which I compared as I made the decision on what coins to present to the dealer as candidates, and the dealer (who received a call from John at CAC while I was in his office) approved of my choices. And yet, I had a very low batting average, with no way to tell why.
It’s not as opaque as you’re making it out to be. JA is very transparent and if you had the chance to get his feedback he would explain why each and every one of them didn’t pass. Whether or not you agree with it, however, is another matter entirely.
He’s not just making up his own rules, the man is an excellent grader that has been a founder/cofounder of basically all the tpgs. He is just picky, but he is the type of person that would invite you to call him at the office so he could explain his reasoning, that is if he knew he had a disgruntled submitter.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Sorry to hear that your results were less than expected.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I thought that if a coin failed to sticker then a red dot sticker was applied to the holder explaining why it didn't pass, Is this not true?
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
My understanding is that happens only when requested. Apparently, the submitting dealer did not ask for that.
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 is not true in my experience. Occasionally, I will submit a coin with PVC on it that I had not noticed and these coins come back with a little red sticker that says "PVC". Otherwise, I have never had a CAC rejected coin come back with a sticker on it.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I'm truly sorry your experience with the process was so frustrating for you and that you had less success than anticipated. The three coins that you shared images of all appear quite nice and, if I understand correctly, they all received a sticker from CAC.
Some of your posts likely reflect the frustration that you feel at the moment, which is quite human. JA does not apply stickers simply to coins he likes, but instead his bar for grading and what he considers a problem on a coin is slightly different than what we see at NGC and PCGS. In general, it is slightly tighter, but I have noticed over the fourteen-years or so that CAC has been in business that his standards have not really wandered all over the place, in my experience. This is really what we want from CAC or NGC or PCGS or whomever, to be consistent.
I realize you might not want to share either images or information from the coins that did not sticker and I understand that completely. I wouldn't let this experience turn you off to CAC just as I wouldn't tell someone who did poorly on a submission to PCGS or NGC that they should turn their back on that aspect of the hobby, either.
Good luck with the hobby.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Only if you request it.
Best, SH
Live and learn..............
I hope that everyone that submits coins see's this and asks for the reason for failure
I'd surely want to know
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
First of all - THANK YOU for sharing your experience with us!
It's not usual for first time submitters to experience what you did. A very experienced collector friend of mine submitted sixteen OGH Buffalo nickels to CAC. These were high value coins totaling $25,000, the maximum for postal insurance. Only four passed. they were the late date Buffalos of minimal value that were put in at the last minute to keep the value at $25,000. When he got the coins back it, was readily apparent why some passed and the others did not. The ones that failed did not have LUSTER.
It's impressive that your three legged passed! PCGS states there are 1179 in XF45 and CAC states 133 passed. That's a 11.28% pass rate on a thousand dollar coin. If that coin went up for auction today, most likely you will receive strong bids beyond the CAC price guide.
Early Walkers are often overgraded and over dipped or have PVC. CAC has only passed 13.5% of the 1928-S AU53 PCGS population, another thousand dollar coin. That percentage would be even less when one includes the NGC population.
When submitting coins to CAC, I would only submit your strongest candidates. With 20th century coins, PVC is a real issue and only the most trained eyes can perceive it - JA does!
I appreciate all the replies. Truly. And, yes, my posts reflect my deep disappointment, but it is not my intention to impugn CAC, only point out the frustrating opacity of the process, to me (and, by extension, to many, many collectors).
I believe that CAC stickers are given on a fairly consistent basis (given the inherently subjective nature of the process). I believe that they do the best they can to make their business respected. And I will continue to buy coins with CAC stickers on them when I find ones I like. And, yes, I certainly understand that, as time goes on, the percentage of premium quality old coins that haven't already been submitted for CAC approval will continue to drop, so that maybe, randomly, 27% wasn't too bad. But my process was far, far from random.
But I know that, whatever the criteria used are, it is to me (and likely always will be) a black box. I have over 150 graded coins, almost all graded by PCGS and NGC, and all at least moderately expensive (and most very expensive, by my standards). I have worked very hard to get pretty good (and conservative) about grading the coins that I collect (in the grades I collect). I have several dozen coins with CAC stickers on them, to which I compared my candidates. I chose the very best of my coins to send into CAC, and those I sent in were seconded by the dealer as very reasonable candidates for CAC approval. I did not expect all, or almost all, to sticker. But I certainly expected more than 27% of them to sticker, given the process I had gone through before submitting them. I don't mind paying "tuition" to learn, but I dislike paying "tuition" and not having an opportunity to learn (well, other than "learning" that submitting to CAC will not be a game for me to play again).
I have no problem with posting photos of the coins that were rejected by CAC. But I cannot believe that I'll learn anything from whatever people may say about them. We examined them with a 3x loupe before submitting them, and I do believe that the dealer is experienced at this process. I expect that people would say, about my rejects, that they are very nice coins, but there must be something about them....
Again, I do appreciate your responses. But sometimes even hobbies can be less than fun.
Sorry to say I doubt you are as good as you say in picking candidates for CAC, no insult intended. You apparently need more experience in choosing coins for your collection. Most of my coins pass CAC and I am far from a coin expert
It could simply be the coins were not solid for the grade; i. e., a 65 would be a 64+ at CACG.
For example, this coin was downgraded from a 66 to a 65+ by CACG.
Well, that certainly was helpful! Not....
For the record, I certainly never said, anywhere, that "I am good at picking candidates for CAC." Obviously. I said that I am good at grading coins, by which I mean that I can GTG (or, often, I'm conservative at guessing the grade) according to PCGS and NGC standards. Given that CAC feels that only a small minority of graded coins are "solid for the grade," it's evident that CAC is trying (with some success, apparently) to redefine the scale. That's not a game I'm interested in playing.
Most of my coins pass CAC and I am far from a coin expert
Interesting! What types and date ranges are you submitting?
I agree that that is the case. My issue (among many others), is that "solid for the grade" shouldn't be a small minority of the coins graded by NGC and PCGS. Anyone can start a third-party grading business, and simply grade "harder" than the two premier TPGs, but I seriously question why that is good for the hobby. I agree that gradeflation, if, indeed, it has happened, should be checked. But, de facto, PCGS and NGC define the scale, and CAC is trying to change that; all that does, IMO, is cause confusion.
Perhaps I’m the only one thinking this, but the dealer you submitted through clearly doesn’t know how to grade. He should’ve been more selective to either have you submit only a small handful of the coins (~5), or submit none at all because financially it wouldn’t be worth it on the entire group. He charges a few hundred dollars for his time, and goes 3/11?
While this is subjective, i strongly disagree with you @124Spider "that CAC feels that only a SMALL MINORITY of graded coins are "solid for the grade," (caps placed by me). My sense is most collectors, whether fans of CAC or not, disagree with your perception.
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
Mostly agreed but even quality graders/dealers can make mistakes. I bought an extraordinarily original coin from a well known dealer (& CACG investor). Great luster but under a THICK patina...he didn't bother to submit it because it had no shot in his opinion and you know the rest...
Gold cac sticker now?
The number suggest otherwise.
Assume that anyone submitting is going to use some effort to pick his/her better coins for submission. At the very minimum, that will eliminate, say, the bottom 25% of coins in a grade. Of those 75% left (and I would be surprised if the number were as high as 75%), CAC says that they approve 43% of submissions.
That's 32% of all coins (even assuming that a log of coins in the second quartile are submitted, which I don't believe). That's a relatively small minority; no rational meaning of "solid for the grade" should, IMO, mean "only the top third or better."