@FrankH said:
Everything's fine and dandy with 4 and 5 figure coins....
..................until.....
.................................................it's not.
So please share your thoughts on the issues/problems with collecting four figure coins?
Full disclosure - My collection is 100% PCGS holders, broken down as follows, based on PCGS Price Guide values:
1. Two figure coins - 9.2%.
2. Three figure coins - 23.7%.
3. Four figure coins - 59.2%.
4. Five figure coins - ALL in the bottom half, most of these between $10K - $20K - 7.9%.
I had no idea of the above numbers until I just determined the actual breakdown using the PCGS Active Inventory, sorted by current value. But I'm not surprised by this breakdown of my collection.
So........?????
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@BillJones said:
Maybe because CACG does not issue coins in details holders?
At any rate, if I had these coins, I would not have bothered to submit any of them except for maybe the Trade Dollar because counterfeits a such a problem with those pieces.
Bill: This is not correct. They now do so.
Also, I had a small submission to PCGS this weekend and Baltimore, and I ended up trying out CACG. I also submitted a bunch for stickering as well, as I have been a CAC member for a number of years now. Among other reasons for CAC, they are faster, at least now. I still really like our host's holders, however.
@FrankH said:
Everything's fine and dandy with 4 and 5 figure coins....
..................until.....
.................................................it's not.
So please share your thoughts on the issues/problems with collecting four figure coins?
Full disclosure - My collection is 100% PCGS holders, broken down as follows, based on PCGS Price Guide values:
1. Two figure coins - 9.2%.
2. Three figure coins - 23.7%.
3. Four figure coins - 59.2%.
4. Five figure coins - ALL in the bottom half, most of these between $10K - $20K - 7.9%.
I had no idea of the above numbers until I just determined the actual breakdown using the PCGS Active Inventory, sorted by current value. But I'm not surprised by this breakdown of my collection.
Yikes! That was my fear when I read that reply that something real bad is going to happen to the collections of those of us with a bunch of four figure coins! That’s why I requested clarification, so maybe I can be proactive and take some type of action NOW.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
Yikes! That was my fear when I read that reply that something real bad is going to happen to the collections of those of us with a bunch of four figure coins! That’s why I requested clarification, so maybe I can be proactive and take some type of action NOW.
Steve
Why Steve - get rid of all of those nice four and five figure coins! Sell them to me at $100 apiece, and I'll take that HUGE problem off your hands!
@FrankH said:
Everything's fine and dandy with 4 and 5 figure coins....
..................until.....
.................................................it's not.
I’ve given this a LOT of thought over the last three hours, wringing my hands, and I think I finally figured out this puzzle!
I believe one just has to add the followings words in between the two words “figure” and “coins” in that original sentence: “raw or CAC failed”!
For those that have difficulty understanding my point, it would read, “Everything’s fine and dandy with 4 and 5 figure raw or CAC failed coins…until…..it’s not!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
I think the point that @FrankH is making is that expensive trophy coins aren't immune to market corrections.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@Cougar1978 said:
Good for them. How in the world would a sticker improve the marketability of a details coin?
then why does CACG have a printed CAC sticker facsimile on their label - even for the details coins?
especially since they will also have B and C coins at every grade, and they have engrained the thought in consumers that CAC stickers are solid for the grade?
@Cougar1978 said:
Good for them. How in the world would a sticker improve the marketability of a details coin?
then why does CACG have a printed CAC sticker facsimile on their label - even for the details coins?
especially since they will also have B and C coins at every grade, and they have engrained the thought in consumers that CAC stickers are solid for the grade?
Either way it attracts bourse room customers. One guy looked at them, asked a price on one then wanted look thru junk box of coins $10 and under and spent $12. So even if they don’t buy the CACG material….
In my scenario, I have not submitted many PCGS coins for reconsideration due to five main reasons:
1) I possibly have the most gold stickered PCGS slabs.
2) I probably have the most NGC 1.0 black holdered coins which are at least green stickered if not gold stickered by CAC.
3) I definitely have the most NGC 2.1 and 2.0 white label holdered coins which all of them have at least a green if not gold CAC sticker.
4) Most of my PCGS slabs are OGH or older generation. Over 99% are stickered.
5) I am too lazy.
"Lazy?" Aren't you the guy who is having a ball avidity seeking out and submitting coins for gold stickers as well as finding NGC "black" AND "white" labels that you highly value?
then why does CACG have a printed CAC sticker facsimile on their label - even for the details coins?
especially since they will also have B and C coins at every grade, and they have engrained the thought in consumers that CAC stickers are solid for the grade?
Rather than considering any coin in a CACG holder as "solid" for the grade, think of a details coin in a CACG holder as being "correctly" graded.
then why does CACG have a printed CAC sticker facsimile on their label - even for the details coins?
especially since they will also have B and C coins at every grade, and they have engrained the thought in consumers that CAC stickers are solid for the grade?
@JimTyler said:
Does the coin inside have anything to do with it ?
I wonder if it matters to many.
It DOES matter to many, even to those of us that prefer to buy coins that in the opinion of CAC or CACG are solid for the grade AND have not had surface treatments applied that are acceptable to the other TPG's but unacceptable to CAC and CACG! While many lower priced coins have not been submitted to CAC for stickering, I wonder about that question posed to those collectors that choose to buy higher priced coins that failed CAC - Does the coin inside the holder that failed CAC matter?
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
I wonder about that question posed to those collectors that choose to buy higher priced coins that failed CAC - Does the coin inside the holder that failed CAC matter?
Most certainly, and I might argue it matters even more. The most expensive coin I own I bought knowing it’d failed CAC. I liked the coin that much.
@winesteven said:
I wonder about that question posed to those collectors that choose to buy higher priced coins that failed CAC - Does the coin inside the holder that failed CAC matter?
Most certainly, and I might argue it matters even more. The most expensive coin I own I bought knowing it’d failed CAC. I liked the coin that much.
And that's good!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I would think though that you might want to know WHY it failed, and with that coin, you might know that. If you then decide you're ok with that, then I fully agree that's all that matters, as you're making an informed decision!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
I wonder about that question posed to those collectors that choose to buy higher priced coins that failed CAC - Does the coin inside the holder that failed CAC matter?
Most certainly, and I might argue it matters even more. The most expensive coin I own I bought knowing it’d failed CAC. I liked the coin that much.
@JimTyler said:
Does the coin inside have anything to do with it ?
I wonder if it matters to many.
It DOES matter to many, even to those of us that prefer to buy coins that in the opinion of CAC or CACG are solid for the grade AND have not had surface treatments applied that are acceptable to the other TPG's but unacceptable to CAC and CACG!. While many lower priced coins have not been submitted to CAC for stickering, I wonder about that question posed to those collectors that choose to buy higher priced coins that failed CAC - Does the coin inside the holder that failed CAC matter?
Steve
I think it depends on the attractiveness of the coin, the relative price, and WHY it failed CAC.
My first "big" coin is not a CAC coin. I bought it from John Dannreuther and discussed the various characteristics of the coin. It is a gorgeous coin that, if it were CACed, would have cost nearly twice as much. I did send it in to CAC and asked for JA's opinion. He said that other than the issue it was "perfect, perfect". I can live with the issue but that is up to everyone to decide for themselves.
The issue is that there is a contact mark under RT. JA thinks it was tooled rather than a contact mark. I'm undecided if I agree or not but it doesn't bother me and so the coin is mine to own and enjoy. It is my only non-CAC US gold coin.
Three of us replied around the same time, crossing electronically.
As I indicated in my most recent comment, I fully agree that if one knows WHY it failed, and is OK with that for that coin, then all is perfectly good!
I believe though there are times buyers of failed CAC coins DON'T know why it failed. Perhaps in the opinion of the buyer, the coin is solid for the grade, but if they knew in the opinion of CAC it was not (or maybe even overgraded due to rubs, etc.) it may give them second thoughts about their own grading abilities. I'm not saying CAC does not make errors - they do, as they are not machines. But in my opinion the grading opinions of the people at CAC are usually recognized as more accurate than those of many collectors.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@JimTyler said:
Does the coin inside have anything to do with it ?
I wonder if it matters to many.
It DOES matter to many, even to those of us that prefer to buy coins that in the opinion of CAC or CACG are solid for the grade AND have not had surface treatments applied that are acceptable to the other TPG's but unacceptable to CAC and CACG!. While many lower priced coins have not been submitted to CAC for stickering, I wonder about that question posed to those collectors that choose to buy higher priced coins that failed CAC - Does the coin inside the holder that failed CAC matter?
Steve
I think it depends on the attractiveness of the coin, the relative price, and WHY it failed CAC.
My first "big" coin is not a CAC coin. I bought it from John Dannreuther and discussed the various characteristics of the coin. It is a gorgeous coin that, if it were CACed, would have cost nearly twice as much. I did send it in to CAC and asked for JA's opinion. He said that other than the issue it was "perfect, perfect". I can live with the issue but that is up to everyone to decide for themselves.
The issue is that there is a contact mark under RT. JA thinks it was tooled rather than a contact mark. I'm undecided if I agree or not but it doesn't bother me and so the coin is mine to own and enjoy. It is my only non-CAC US gold coin.
I think this is well stated. That is what I meant to only with my question above. A coin that failed CAC is not necessarily a problem coin. So a 66 no CAC for 65 or 65+ money might be awesome if the failure to CAC was for being slightly overgraded. On the other hand, if it has a problem, you either need to stay away our discount it further. Ultimately, CAC is about pricing more than collectability.
JA will fail a coin if it has friction on the cheek whereas I consider that a net item. We agree to disagree and I have no problem buying the right non CAC MS63 coins with slight friction on the cheek
@JimTyler said:
Does the coin inside have anything to do with it ?
I wonder if it matters to many.
It DOES matter to many, even to those of us that prefer to buy coins that in the opinion of CAC or CACG are solid for the grade AND have not had surface treatments applied that are acceptable to the other TPG's but unacceptable to CAC and CACG! While many lower priced coins have not been submitted to CAC for stickering, I wonder about that question posed to those collectors that choose to buy higher priced coins that failed CAC - Does the coin inside the holder that failed CAC matter?
Steve
Yes. In appropriate cases, if purchased right you can downgrade a coin, get it stickered, and voila you now have a potentially more salable coin. I have noticed several large coin dealers including Legend over the years take nice NGC coins that are lower end or minimally over graded and downgrade them to a PCGS plus grade for the interval below. The coin now CACs, and the dealer enjoys a nice payout. Those that won’t even look at non CAC coins will never experience the joy of the resulting pay day.
Correct, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a "C" coin, which after all, is just a coin that falls on the unlucky part of the grading spectrum that JA refuses to recognize. There are many collectors that have jumped on that bandwagon and eschew these coins for what I feel is a fairly arbitrary reason.
@ProofCollection said:
Correct, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a "C" coin, which after all, is just a coin that falls on the unlucky part of the grading spectrum that JA refuses to recognize. There are money collectors that have jumped on that bandwagon and eschew these coins for what I feel is a fairly arbitrary reason.
As I said above, I agree there’s nothing wrong with a “C” coin, as long as the buyer knows it’s a “C” coin! Unfortunately, that’s not always the case.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@tradedollarnut said:
JA will fail a coin if it has friction on the cheek whereas I consider that a net item. We agree to disagree and I have no problem buying the right non CAC MS63 coins with slight friction on the cheek
A lot depends on whether you paid a MS 63 price or an AU price for the coin. Would you be happy if the original grade missed the "friction on the cheek" and buyers in the future become more sophisticated and refer to the coin as overgraded?
@ProofCollection said:
Correct, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a "C" coin, which after all, is just a coin that falls on the unlucky part of the grading spectrum that JA refuses to recognize. There are money collectors that have jumped on that bandwagon and eschew these coins for what I feel is a fairly arbitrary reason.
Technically speaking.a perfect C coin is a next grade below "+" coin. Again, it's a question of whether you paid the price for the grade or the plus grade below.
I have noticed several large coin dealers including Legend over the years take nice NGC coins that are lower end or minimally over graded and downgrade them to a PCGS plus grade for the interval below. The coin now CACs, and the dealer enjoys a nice payout. Those that won’t even look at non CAC coins will never experience the joy of the resulting pay day.
If you are an extremely sophisticated grader, that's a fun game to play with perfect C coins.
@ProofCollection said:
Correct, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a "C" coin, which after all, is just a coin that falls on the unlucky part of the grading spectrum that JA refuses to recognize. There are money collectors that have jumped on that bandwagon and eschew these coins for what I feel is a fairly arbitrary reason.
Technically speaking.a perfect C coin is a next grade below "+" coin. Again, it's a question of whether you paid the price for the grade or the plus grade below.
No, + grades fall in the A spectrum. But I agree that all that matters is that an appropriate price is paid, which is also subjective.
The plus grades will be designated on the insert of the firms' holders with a "+" and will apply to high end examples of the grades 40 thru 68 (excluding grades 60 and 61).
The high end for any particular grade represents the top 30 percent of the scale within a grade and I estimate that the plus designation would apply to approximately 15 percent to 20 percent of the coins within any individual grade.
@ProofCollection said:
Correct, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a "C" coin, which after all, is just a coin that falls on the unlucky part of the grading spectrum that JA refuses to recognize. There are money collectors that have jumped on that bandwagon and eschew these coins for what I feel is a fairly arbitrary reason.
Technically speaking.a perfect C coin is a next grade below "+" coin. Again, it's a question of whether you paid the price for the grade or the plus grade below.
No, + grades fall in the A spectrum. But I agree that all that matters is that an appropriate price is paid, which is also subjective.
The plus grades will be designated on the insert of the firms' holders with a "+" and will apply to high end examples of the grades 40 thru 68 (excluding grades 60 and 61).
The high end for any particular grade represents the top 30 percent of the scale within a grade and I estimate that the plus designation would apply to approximately 15 percent to 20 percent of the coins within any individual grade.
@ProofCollection said:
Correct, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a "C" coin, which after all, is just a coin that falls on the unlucky part of the grading spectrum that JA refuses to recognize. There are money collectors that have jumped on that bandwagon and eschew these coins for what I feel is a fairly arbitrary reason.
Technically speaking.a perfect C coin is a next grade below "+" coin. Again, it's a question of whether you paid the price for the grade or the plus grade below.
No, + grades fall in the A spectrum. But I agree that all that matters is that an appropriate price is paid, which is also subjective.
The plus grades will be designated on the insert of the firms' holders with a "+" and will apply to high end examples of the grades 40 thru 68 (excluding grades 60 and 61).
The high end for any particular grade represents the top 30 percent of the scale within a grade and I estimate that the plus designation would apply to approximately 15 percent to 20 percent of the coins within any individual grade.
Clearly, per PCGS, plus is the high end of a grade not the low end of the next grade.
I think he’s talking about the plus grade (A), of the next LOWER grade. For example, I believe his point is he’s equating a 65C to a 64A.
Steve
I understand that. But if PCGS clearly distinguishes 64+'s and 65's, even if they are low end 65s. PCGS does not equate them, and neither does the marketplace.
@ProofCollection said:
Correct, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a "C" coin, which after all, is just a coin that falls on the unlucky part of the grading spectrum that JA refuses to recognize. There are money collectors that have jumped on that bandwagon and eschew these coins for what I feel is a fairly arbitrary reason.
Technically speaking.a perfect C coin is a next grade below "+" coin. Again, it's a question of whether you paid the price for the grade or the plus grade below.
No, + grades fall in the A spectrum. But I agree that all that matters is that an appropriate price is paid, which is also subjective.
The plus grades will be designated on the insert of the firms' holders with a "+" and will apply to high end examples of the grades 40 thru 68 (excluding grades 60 and 61).
The high end for any particular grade represents the top 30 percent of the scale within a grade and I estimate that the plus designation would apply to approximately 15 percent to 20 percent of the coins within any individual grade.
Clearly, per PCGS, plus is the high end of a grade not the low end of the next grade.
I think he’s talking about the plus grade (A), of the next LOWER grade. For example, I believe his point is he’s equating a 65C to a 64A.
Steve
I understand that. But if PCGS clearly distinguishes 64+'s and 65's, even if they are low end 65s. PCGS does not equate them, and neither does the marketplace.
Understood, although CACG does appear to equate them. I recall reading on the CAC forum that if a problem-free PCGS 65 coin is submitted to cross at CACG, and if CACG deems the problem-free coin not solid at the 65 grade (what many would call 65C), if no minimum grade is indicated on the cross submission), that coin is then likely to cross at a 64+, if not lower. That’s where I think @DisneyFan is coming from.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@JimTyler said:
Does the coin inside have anything to do with it ?
I wonder if it matters to many.
It DOES matter to many, even to those of us that prefer to buy coins that in the opinion of CAC or CACG are solid for the grade AND have not had surface treatments applied that are acceptable to the other TPG's but unacceptable to CAC and CACG! While many lower priced coins have not been submitted to CAC for stickering, I wonder about that question posed to those collectors that choose to buy higher priced coins that failed CAC - Does the coin inside the holder that failed CAC matter?
Steve
You just got promoted to Director of Marketing at CACG/CAC!
@JimTyler said:
Does the coin inside have anything to do with it ?
I wonder if it matters to many.
It DOES matter to many, even to those of us that prefer to buy coins that in the opinion of CAC or CACG are solid for the grade AND have not had surface treatments applied that are acceptable to the other TPG's but unacceptable to CAC and CACG! While many lower priced coins have not been submitted to CAC for stickering, I wonder about that question posed to those collectors that choose to buy higher priced coins that failed CAC - Does the coin inside the holder that failed CAC matter?
Steve
You just got promoted to Director of Marketing at CACG/CAC!
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@ProofCollection said:
Correct, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a "C" coin, which after all, is just a coin that falls on the unlucky part of the grading spectrum that JA refuses to recognize. There are money collectors that have jumped on that bandwagon and eschew these coins for what I feel is a fairly arbitrary reason.
Technically speaking.a perfect C coin is a next grade below "+" coin. Again, it's a question of whether you paid the price for the grade or the plus grade below.
No, + grades fall in the A spectrum. But I agree that all that matters is that an appropriate price is paid, which is also subjective.
The plus grades will be designated on the insert of the firms' holders with a "+" and will apply to high end examples of the grades 40 thru 68 (excluding grades 60 and 61).
The high end for any particular grade represents the top 30 percent of the scale within a grade and I estimate that the plus designation would apply to approximately 15 percent to 20 percent of the coins within any individual grade.
Clearly, per PCGS, plus is the high end of a grade not the low end of the next grade.
I think he’s talking about the plus grade (A), of the next LOWER grade. For example, I believe his point is he’s equating a 65C to a 64A.
Steve
I understand that. But if PCGS clearly distinguishes 64+'s and 65's, even if they are low end 65s. PCGS does not equate them, and neither does the marketplace.
Understood, although CACG does appear to equate them. I recall reading on the CAC forum that if a problem-free PCGS 65 coin is submitted to cross at CACG, and if CACG deems the problem-free coin not solid at the 65 grade (what many would call 65C), if no minimum grade is indicated on the cross submission), that coin is then likely to cross at a 64+, if not lower. That’s where I think @DisneyFan is coming from.
Well that's not what he said, and, it is a controversial stance to say the least and I'll leave it at that to avoid beating that dead horse.
@tradedollarnut said:
JA will fail a coin if it has friction on the cheek whereas I consider that a net item. We agree to disagree and I have no problem buying the right non CAC MS63 coins with slight friction on the cheek
A lot depends on whether you paid a MS 63 price or an AU price for the coin. Would you be happy if the original grade missed the "friction on the cheek" and buyers in the future become more sophisticated and refer to the coin as overgraded?
Doesn’t matter what I paid. IMO an MS63 can have friction on the cheek
I recall reading on the CAC forum that if a problem-free PCGS 65 coin is submitted to cross at CACG, and if CACG deems the problem-free coin not solid at the 65 grade (what many would call 65C), if no minimum grade is indicated on the cross submission), that coin is then likely to cross at a 64+, if not lower. That’s where I think @DisneyFan is coming from.
Steve
This is my experience in crossing over coins at CACG. Among the coins submitted, eight problem free coins had their grade evaluated. Only one coin was considered correctly graded. It appears that "half grade" adjustments are rare. The adjustments I received were as follows:
MS63 to MS64 - One - Two Cent
MS66 to MS65+ - Two
MS66 to MS65 - Three
MS64 to MS64 - One
MS64 to MS63 - One - $2 1/2 Gold Liberty
The other six were silver Classic Commemoratives
@tradedollarnut said:
JA will fail a coin if it has friction on the cheek whereas I consider that a net item. We agree to disagree and I have no problem buying the right non CAC MS63 coins with slight friction on the cheek
A lot depends on whether you paid a MS 63 price or an AU price for the coin. Would you be happy if the original grade missed the "friction on the cheek" and buyers in the future become more sophisticated and refer to the coin as overgraded?
Doesn’t matter what I paid. IMO an MS63 can have friction on the cheek
Understood. But shouldn't my pricing always be based on the Market opinion? Just because I don't mind certain defects doesn't mean I should pay the same price as a coin that didn't have those defects.
Of course, the "cabinet friction" issue isn't exactly definitive in the Market which is the bigger point here.
I recall reading on the CAC forum that if a problem-free PCGS 65 coin is submitted to cross at CACG, and if CACG deems the problem-free coin not solid at the 65 grade (what many would call 65C), if no minimum grade is indicated on the cross submission), that coin is then likely to cross at a 64+, if not lower. That’s where I think @DisneyFan is coming from.
Steve
This is my experience in crossing over coins at CACG. Among the coins submitted, eight problem free coins had their grade evaluated. Only one coin was considered correctly graded. It appears that "half grade" adjustments are rare. The adjustments I received were as follows:
MS63 to MS64 - One
MS66 to MS65+ - Two
MS66 to MS65 - Three
MS64 to MS64 - One
MS64 to MS63 - One
@PerryHall said:
I think the point that @FrankH is making is that expensive trophy coins aren't immune to market corrections.
Very few Trophy Coins appreciate at even competitive levels to stocks over the long term. For many of the ones I've time-tested, it seems to be about 5-7%. The recent Bass 1850 Proof Liberty Head DE was the exception as it was purchased before the price of gold rose in the 1970's at about $2,000. It returned about 12% a year until it was recently sold.
Having 3 out of 5 downgraded would not be for me. Can’t make any money that way. Can you specify minimum grade on form with them? Even then increase in MV vs grading costs can be iffy (positive result). Our offense based on positive yardage not pitch back then lose yardage.
@Cougar1978 said:
Having 3 out of 5 downgraded would not be for me. Can’t make any money that way. Can you specify minimum grade on form with them? Even then increase in MV vs grading costs can be iffy (positive result). Our offense based on positive yardage not pitch back then lose yardage.
Yes, you absolutely can indicate the minimum grade to cross, and that can be the grade on the holder, a lower grade than the holder, or even a higher grade than on the holder!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@Cougar1978 said:
Having 3 out of 5 downgraded would not be for me. Can’t make any money that way. Can you specify minimum grade on form with them? Even then increase in MV vs grading costs can be iffy (positive result). Our offense based on positive yardage not pitch back then lose yardage.
Actually it was six out of eight that were downgraded. The coins were bought long ago. They were not in PCGS holders so rather than submitting them to PCGS and then CAC I felt it was more cost effective to send them to CACG. I'm not a dealer so I was more concerned that my heirs would ultimately learn of my poor judgement.
Comments
Everything's fine and dandy with 4 and 5 figure coins....
..................until.....
.................................................it's not.
So please share your thoughts on the issues/problems with collecting four figure coins?
Full disclosure - My collection is 100% PCGS holders, broken down as follows, based on PCGS Price Guide values:
1. Two figure coins - 9.2%.
2. Three figure coins - 23.7%.
3. Four figure coins - 59.2%.
4. Five figure coins - ALL in the bottom half, most of these between $10K - $20K - 7.9%.
I had no idea of the above numbers until I just determined the actual breakdown using the PCGS Active Inventory, sorted by current value. But I'm not surprised by this breakdown of my collection.
So........?????
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
Bill: This is not correct. They now do so.
Also, I had a small submission to PCGS this weekend and Baltimore, and I ended up trying out CACG. I also submitted a bunch for stickering as well, as I have been a CAC member for a number of years now. Among other reasons for CAC, they are faster, at least now. I still really like our host's holders, however.
Tom
So... you're SCREWED!
😉
Yikes! That was my fear when I read that reply that something real bad is going to happen to the collections of those of us with a bunch of four figure coins! That’s why I requested clarification, so maybe I can be proactive and take some type of action NOW.
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
Maybe a reduction act of 2024..............
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
Why Steve - get rid of all of those nice four and five figure coins! Sell them to me at $100 apiece, and I'll take that HUGE problem off your hands!
Coin Photographer.
I’ve given this a LOT of thought over the last three hours, wringing my hands, and I think I finally figured out this puzzle!
I believe one just has to add the followings words in between the two words “figure” and “coins” in that original sentence: “raw or CAC failed”!
For those that have difficulty understanding my point, it would read, “Everything’s fine and dandy with 4 and 5 figure raw or CAC failed coins…until…..it’s not!
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 think the point that @FrankH is making is that expensive trophy coins aren't immune to market corrections.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Oh, his point is so profound! All coins, like all collectibles, are subject to market corrections.
So…….who said otherwise????
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
Good for them. How in the world would a sticker improve the marketability of a details coin?
then why does CACG have a printed CAC sticker facsimile on their label - even for the details coins?
especially since they will also have B and C coins at every grade, and they have engrained the thought in consumers that CAC stickers are solid for the grade?
It's NOT a sticker. It's the corporate logo.
CACG's corporate logo is a CAC sticker facsimile?
Either way it attracts bourse room customers. One guy looked at them, asked a price on one then wanted look thru junk box of coins $10 and under and spent $12. So even if they don’t buy the CACG material….
"Lazy?" Aren't you the guy who is having a ball avidity seeking out and submitting coins for gold stickers as well as finding NGC "black" AND "white" labels that you highly value?
Rather than considering any coin in a CACG holder as "solid" for the grade, think of a details coin in a CACG holder as being "correctly" graded.
Source: https://www.cacgrading.com/cac-labels
Edited: changed to a different quote from @davewesen to be more on point.
No. The CAC sticker is the CAC corporate logo in sticker form.
I wonder if it matters to many.
It DOES matter to many, even to those of us that prefer to buy coins that in the opinion of CAC or CACG are solid for the grade AND have not had surface treatments applied that are acceptable to the other TPG's but unacceptable to CAC and CACG! While many lower priced coins have not been submitted to CAC for stickering, I wonder about that question posed to those collectors that choose to buy higher priced coins that failed CAC - Does the coin inside the holder that failed CAC matter?
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
Most certainly, and I might argue it matters even more. The most expensive coin I own I bought knowing it’d failed CAC. I liked the coin that much.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
And that's good!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I would think though that you might want to know WHY it failed, and with that coin, you might know that. If you then decide you're ok with that, then I fully agree that's all that matters, as you're making an informed decision!
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
Do you know why it failed?
I think it depends on the attractiveness of the coin, the relative price, and WHY it failed CAC.
My first "big" coin is not a CAC coin. I bought it from John Dannreuther and discussed the various characteristics of the coin. It is a gorgeous coin that, if it were CACed, would have cost nearly twice as much. I did send it in to CAC and asked for JA's opinion. He said that other than the issue it was "perfect, perfect". I can live with the issue but that is up to everyone to decide for themselves.
The issue is that there is a contact mark under RT. JA thinks it was tooled rather than a contact mark. I'm undecided if I agree or not but it doesn't bother me and so the coin is mine to own and enjoy. It is my only non-CAC US gold coin.
Three of us replied around the same time, crossing electronically.
As I indicated in my most recent comment, I fully agree that if one knows WHY it failed, and is OK with that for that coin, then all is perfectly good!
I believe though there are times buyers of failed CAC coins DON'T know why it failed. Perhaps in the opinion of the buyer, the coin is solid for the grade, but if they knew in the opinion of CAC it was not (or maybe even overgraded due to rubs, etc.) it may give them second thoughts about their own grading abilities. I'm not saying CAC does not make errors - they do, as they are not machines. But in my opinion the grading opinions of the people at CAC are usually recognized as more accurate than those of many collectors.
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 think this is well stated. That is what I meant to only with my question above. A coin that failed CAC is not necessarily a problem coin. So a 66 no CAC for 65 or 65+ money might be awesome if the failure to CAC was for being slightly overgraded. On the other hand, if it has a problem, you either need to stay away our discount it further. Ultimately, CAC is about pricing more than collectability.
JA will fail a coin if it has friction on the cheek whereas I consider that a net item. We agree to disagree and I have no problem buying the right non CAC MS63 coins with slight friction on the cheek
Yes. In appropriate cases, if purchased right you can downgrade a coin, get it stickered, and voila you now have a potentially more salable coin. I have noticed several large coin dealers including Legend over the years take nice NGC coins that are lower end or minimally over graded and downgrade them to a PCGS plus grade for the interval below. The coin now CACs, and the dealer enjoys a nice payout. Those that won’t even look at non CAC coins will never experience the joy of the resulting pay day.
Correct, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a "C" coin, which after all, is just a coin that falls on the unlucky part of the grading spectrum that JA refuses to recognize. There are many collectors that have jumped on that bandwagon and eschew these coins for what I feel is a fairly arbitrary reason.
As I said above, I agree there’s nothing wrong with a “C” coin, as long as the buyer knows it’s a “C” coin! Unfortunately, that’s not always the case.
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
A lot depends on whether you paid a MS 63 price or an AU price for the coin. Would you be happy if the original grade missed the "friction on the cheek" and buyers in the future become more sophisticated and refer to the coin as overgraded?
Technically speaking.a perfect C coin is a next grade below "+" coin. Again, it's a question of whether you paid the price for the grade or the plus grade below.
I have noticed several large coin dealers including Legend over the years take nice NGC coins that are lower end or minimally over graded and downgrade them to a PCGS plus grade for the interval below. The coin now CACs, and the dealer enjoys a nice payout. Those that won’t even look at non CAC coins will never experience the joy of the resulting pay day.
If you are an extremely sophisticated grader, that's a fun game to play with perfect C coins.
No, + grades fall in the A spectrum. But I agree that all that matters is that an appropriate price is paid, which is also subjective.
https://www.pcgs.com/news/two-leading-grading-services-announce-plus-grading
Clearly, per PCGS, plus is the high end of a grade not the low end of the next grade.
I think he’s talking about the plus grade (A), of the next LOWER grade. For example, I believe his point is he’s equating a 65C to a 64A.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
I understand that. But if PCGS clearly distinguishes 64+'s and 65's, even if they are low end 65s. PCGS does not equate them, and neither does the marketplace.
Understood, although CACG does appear to equate them. I recall reading on the CAC forum that if a problem-free PCGS 65 coin is submitted to cross at CACG, and if CACG deems the problem-free coin not solid at the 65 grade (what many would call 65C), if no minimum grade is indicated on the cross submission), that coin is then likely to cross at a 64+, if not lower. That’s where I think @DisneyFan is coming from.
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
You just got promoted to Director of Marketing at CACG/CAC!
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
Well that's not what he said, and, it is a controversial stance to say the least and I'll leave it at that to avoid beating that dead horse.
Doesn’t matter what I paid. IMO an MS63 can have friction on the cheek
I recall reading on the CAC forum that if a problem-free PCGS 65 coin is submitted to cross at CACG, and if CACG deems the problem-free coin not solid at the 65 grade (what many would call 65C), if no minimum grade is indicated on the cross submission), that coin is then likely to cross at a 64+, if not lower. That’s where I think @DisneyFan is coming from.
This is my experience in crossing over coins at CACG. Among the coins submitted, eight problem free coins had their grade evaluated. Only one coin was considered correctly graded. It appears that "half grade" adjustments are rare. The adjustments I received were as follows:
MS63 to MS64 - One - Two Cent
MS66 to MS65+ - Two
MS66 to MS65 - Three
MS64 to MS64 - One
MS64 to MS63 - One - $2 1/2 Gold Liberty
The other six were silver Classic Commemoratives
Understood. But shouldn't my pricing always be based on the Market opinion? Just because I don't mind certain defects doesn't mean I should pay the same price as a coin that didn't have those defects.
Of course, the "cabinet friction" issue isn't exactly definitive in the Market which is the bigger point here.
What type of coin?
Very few Trophy Coins appreciate at even competitive levels to stocks over the long term. For many of the ones I've time-tested, it seems to be about 5-7%. The recent Bass 1850 Proof Liberty Head DE was the exception as it was purchased before the price of gold rose in the 1970's at about $2,000. It returned about 12% a year until it was recently sold.
Having 3 out of 5 downgraded would not be for me. Can’t make any money that way. Can you specify minimum grade on form with them? Even then increase in MV vs grading costs can be iffy (positive result). Our offense based on positive yardage not pitch back then lose yardage.
I have no problem buying "c" coins.
In fact, I've proven to be an expert at it.
It works real well if I can pay C- prices.
When my wife asks why I bought the somewhat unattractive coin I don't get mad since this is the business I've chosen.
Yes, you absolutely can indicate the minimum grade to cross, and that can be the grade on the holder, a lower grade than the holder, or even a higher grade than on the holder!
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
Actually it was six out of eight that were downgraded. The coins were bought long ago. They were not in PCGS holders so rather than submitting them to PCGS and then CAC I felt it was more cost effective to send them to CACG. I'm not a dealer so I was more concerned that my heirs would ultimately learn of my poor judgement.