Home› U.S. Coin Forum

CACG Crossover of PCGS Non CAC

howephowep Posts: 71 ✭✭✭
edited August 5, 2024 8:13AM in U.S. Coin Forum

Just sent in 31 PCGS coins asking for same grade. Half were gold Shield. No rattler or doily holders obviously
Results - Only 5 crossed. Of the 31, 23 were Morgan Dollars. All were either PL or DMPL purchased by me, thinking I could really grade. None were CAC so many may have failed stickering. Only two crossed. CACG will not tell you the grade of the noncrossed coins, but they do tell you if they are DMPL, PL or neither one. Only 3 of the Morgans that did not cross showed the same designation as PCGS. The other 18 were either PCGS DMPL which in CACG eyes were PL or PCGS PL which in CACG eyes deserved no designation
Even though tough to take, I appreciate really knowing the true DMPL or PL designation on my coins is correct in today's standards. Confirms my view that I will only buy PCGS CAC or CACG

«1

Comments

  • howephowep Posts: 71 ✭✭✭

    Thank you. I have been buying dmpl's for 50 years. In fact you auctioned some for me in 1981 at a Steve Ivy Auction in Dallas. Bought my first DMPL direct from Wayne Miller. In my heart of hearts while not every DMPL should look the same given the date characteristics, I knew that many of the PCGS DMPL's which should have had clear, 8 inch mirrors, did not but were still holdered by PCGS as DMPL. That should not happen with CACG and hopefully not with CAC stickers. Laura Sperber gave me the heads up that CACG is very tough on DMPL's. Wanted to see for my self

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,459 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @howep said:
    Thank you. I have been buying dmpl's for 50 years. In fact you auctioned some for me in 1981 at a Steve Ivy Auction in Dallas. Bought my first DMPL direct from Wayne Miller. In my heart of hearts while not every DMPL should look the same given the date characteristics, I knew that many of the PCGS DMPL's which should have had clear, 8 inch mirrors, did not but were still holdered by PCGS as DMPL. That should not happen with CACG and hopefully not with CAC stickers. Laura Sperber gave me the heads up that CACG is very tough on DMPL's. Wanted to see for my self

    It sounds like you were at least somewhat prepared and am glad for that.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • Jacques_LoungecoqueJacques_Loungecoque Posts: 733 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 23, 2024 8:53PM

    Like a Texas Chainsaw Massacre scene. I’m not so sure that CACG is the best representative of “today’s standards.” CAC(G), PCGS, and NGC are all market acceptable. Regardless of personal preference or bias - they are.

    Edit to add: Congratulations on such a lengthy participation in this little niche of the world. The stories you could probably tell…..

    Having fun while switching things up and focusing on a next level PCGS slabbed 1950+ type set, while still looking for great examples for the 7070.

  • DocBenjaminDocBenjamin Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @howep said:
    Thank you. I have been buying dmpl's for 50 years. In fact you auctioned some for me in 1981 at a Steve Ivy Auction in Dallas. Bought my first DMPL direct from Wayne Miller. In my heart of hearts while not every DMPL should look the same given the date characteristics, I knew that many of the PCGS DMPL's which should have had clear, 8 inch mirrors, did not but were still holdered by PCGS as DMPL. That should not happen with CACG and hopefully not with CAC stickers. Laura Sperber gave me the heads up that CACG is very tough on DMPL's. Wanted to see for my self

    Laura should know. She created the industry disrupter.

  • PerryHallPerryHall Posts: 46,111 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @DocBenjamin said:

    @howep said:
    Thank you. I have been buying dmpl's for 50 years. In fact you auctioned some for me in 1981 at a Steve Ivy Auction in Dallas. Bought my first DMPL direct from Wayne Miller. In my heart of hearts while not every DMPL should look the same given the date characteristics, I knew that many of the PCGS DMPL's which should have had clear, 8 inch mirrors, did not but were still holdered by PCGS as DMPL. That should not happen with CACG and hopefully not with CAC stickers. Laura Sperber gave me the heads up that CACG is very tough on DMPL's. Wanted to see for my self

    Laura should know. She created the industry disrupter.

    Does Laura have that much influence in the hobby?

    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

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 34,099 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PerryHall said:

    @DocBenjamin said:

    @howep said:
    Thank you. I have been buying dmpl's for 50 years. In fact you auctioned some for me in 1981 at a Steve Ivy Auction in Dallas. Bought my first DMPL direct from Wayne Miller. In my heart of hearts while not every DMPL should look the same given the date characteristics, I knew that many of the PCGS DMPL's which should have had clear, 8 inch mirrors, did not but were still holdered by PCGS as DMPL. That should not happen with CACG and hopefully not with CAC stickers. Laura Sperber gave me the heads up that CACG is very tough on DMPL's. Wanted to see for my self

    Laura should know. She created the industry disrupter.

    Does Laura have that much influence in the hobby?

    I think he is calling CAC the industry disrupter.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,459 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @PerryHall said:

    @DocBenjamin said:

    @howep said:
    Thank you. I have been buying dmpl's for 50 years. In fact you auctioned some for me in 1981 at a Steve Ivy Auction in Dallas. Bought my first DMPL direct from Wayne Miller. In my heart of hearts while not every DMPL should look the same given the date characteristics, I knew that many of the PCGS DMPL's which should have had clear, 8 inch mirrors, did not but were still holdered by PCGS as DMPL. That should not happen with CACG and hopefully not with CAC stickers. Laura Sperber gave me the heads up that CACG is very tough on DMPL's. Wanted to see for my self

    Laura should know. She created the industry disrupter.

    Does Laura have that much influence in the hobby?

    I think he is calling CAC the industry disrupter.

    I think so too, but Laura certainly didn't create it.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • DocBenjaminDocBenjamin Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @PerryHall said:

    @DocBenjamin said:

    @howep said:
    Thank you. I have been buying dmpl's for 50 years. In fact you auctioned some for me in 1981 at a Steve Ivy Auction in Dallas. Bought my first DMPL direct from Wayne Miller. In my heart of hearts while not every DMPL should look the same given the date characteristics, I knew that many of the PCGS DMPL's which should have had clear, 8 inch mirrors, did not but were still holdered by PCGS as DMPL. That should not happen with CACG and hopefully not with CAC stickers. Laura Sperber gave me the heads up that CACG is very tough on DMPL's. Wanted to see for my self

    Laura should know. She created the industry disrupter.

    Does Laura have that much influence in the hobby?

    I think he is calling CAC the industry disrupter.

    I think so too, but Laura certainly didn't create it.

    Laura was a very vocal critic of "gradeflation" when I got into this hobby/business two decades ago and was a catalyst of fourth party verification (CAC). Her partner was a CAC investor and I believe that Ms. Sperber was as well, at least by proxy.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 34,099 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @PerryHall said:

    @DocBenjamin said:

    @howep said:
    Thank you. I have been buying dmpl's for 50 years. In fact you auctioned some for me in 1981 at a Steve Ivy Auction in Dallas. Bought my first DMPL direct from Wayne Miller. In my heart of hearts while not every DMPL should look the same given the date characteristics, I knew that many of the PCGS DMPL's which should have had clear, 8 inch mirrors, did not but were still holdered by PCGS as DMPL. That should not happen with CACG and hopefully not with CAC stickers. Laura Sperber gave me the heads up that CACG is very tough on DMPL's. Wanted to see for my self

    Laura should know. She created the industry disrupter.

    Does Laura have that much influence in the hobby?

    I think he is calling CAC the industry disrupter.

    I think so too, but Laura certainly didn't create it.

    No. But Legend/Laura was an early investor, wasn't she?

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,459 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @DocBenjamin said:

    @MFeld said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @PerryHall said:

    @DocBenjamin said:

    @howep said:
    Thank you. I have been buying dmpl's for 50 years. In fact you auctioned some for me in 1981 at a Steve Ivy Auction in Dallas. Bought my first DMPL direct from Wayne Miller. In my heart of hearts while not every DMPL should look the same given the date characteristics, I knew that many of the PCGS DMPL's which should have had clear, 8 inch mirrors, did not but were still holdered by PCGS as DMPL. That should not happen with CACG and hopefully not with CAC stickers. Laura Sperber gave me the heads up that CACG is very tough on DMPL's. Wanted to see for my self

    Laura should know. She created the industry disrupter.

    Does Laura have that much influence in the hobby?

    I think he is calling CAC the industry disrupter.

    I think so too, but Laura certainly didn't create it.

    Laura was a very vocal critic of "gradeflation" when I got into this hobby/business two decades ago and was a catalyst of fourth party verification (CAC). Her partner was a CAC investor and I believe that Ms. Sperber was as well, at least by proxy.

    I don't know any of that to be incorrect and being a catalyst is a good thing, as far as I'm concerned. That's not the same thing as creating, however.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • DocBenjaminDocBenjamin Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @DocBenjamin said:

    @MFeld said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @PerryHall said:

    @DocBenjamin said:

    @howep said:
    Thank you. I have been buying dmpl's for 50 years. In fact you auctioned some for me in 1981 at a Steve Ivy Auction in Dallas. Bought my first DMPL direct from Wayne Miller. In my heart of hearts while not every DMPL should look the same given the date characteristics, I knew that many of the PCGS DMPL's which should have had clear, 8 inch mirrors, did not but were still holdered by PCGS as DMPL. That should not happen with CACG and hopefully not with CAC stickers. Laura Sperber gave me the heads up that CACG is very tough on DMPL's. Wanted to see for my self

    Laura should know. She created the industry disrupter.

    Does Laura have that much influence in the hobby?

    I think he is calling CAC the industry disrupter.

    I think so too, but Laura certainly didn't create it.

    Laura was a very vocal critic of "gradeflation" when I got into this hobby/business two decades ago and was a catalyst of fourth party verification (CAC). Her partner was a CAC investor and I believe that Ms. Sperber was as well, at least by proxy.

    I don't know any of that to be incorrect and being a catalyst is a good thing, as far as I'm concerned. That's not the same thing as creating, however.

    I'll consult my thesaurus next time. ;)

  • howephowep Posts: 71 ✭✭✭

    I am waiting on my next round of 11 coins to come back from CACG. Hopefully my luck will be a little better
    Only 1 DMPL and 1 PL. The rest are copper and gold

  • ProofCollectionProofCollection Posts: 6,110 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @howep said:
    Just sent in 31 PCGS coins asking for same grade. Half were gold Shield. No rattler or doily holders obviously
    Results - Only 5 crossed. Of the 31, 23 were Morgan Dollars. All were either PL or DMPL purchased by me, thinking I could really grade. None were CAC so many may have failed stickering. Only two crossed. CACG will not tell you the grade of the noncrossed coins, but they do tell you if they are DMPL, PL or neither one. Only 3 of the Morgans that did not cross showed the same designation as PCGS. The other 18 were either PCGS DMPL which in CACG eyes were PL or PCGS PL which in CACG eyes deserved no designation

    I've submitted most of my PL/DMPL collection to CAC stickering and received feedback so I know about a few that failed due to mirrors being too weak. I was then able to compare my non-CAC coins to the CAC ones and now I believe I have a really good understanding of what CAC is looking for.

    Many collectors and dealers do not understand what the PL/DMPL standard is (PCGS or otherwise). Many just think that clean flashy fields or some device/field contrast make a Morgan PL. There are definitely many rattler and OGH PL/DMPL Morgans that do not deserve their designations (same with older NGC coins too). Many mistake a cameo appearance for determining PL/DMPL but that has little to do with mirror quality.

    Even though tough to take, I appreciate really knowing the true DMPL or PL designation on my coins is correct in today's standards. Confirms my view that I will only buy PCGS CAC or CACG

    The thing about standards is that everyone can have their own. If you want to deem CAC's standards to be "correct" that's certainly your choice but I would not agree. My own standards align with PCGS although I am not blind to the few mistakes they've let slip by. I do know that if I buy a CAC DMPL though that I do not have to worry about mirror quality but they have the luxury of being new and not having any legacy baggage. I think current PCGS practice aligns with the ANA standards as best as I can tell and CAC/CACG has an even stricter implementation. You will have a damn hard time locating some dates/mms with mirrors good enough to satisfy CAC.

  • FredSFredS Posts: 70 ✭✭✭

    @howep said:
    Thank you. I have been buying dmpl's for 50 years. In fact you auctioned some for me in 1981 at a Steve Ivy Auction in Dallas. Bought my first DMPL direct from Wayne Miller. In my heart of hearts while not every DMPL should look the same given the date characteristics, I knew that many of the PCGS DMPL's which should have had clear, 8 inch mirrors, did not but were still holdered by PCGS as DMPL. That should not happen with CACG and hopefully not with CAC stickers. Laura Sperber gave me the heads up that CACG is very tough on DMPL's. Wanted to see for my self

    What a great answer to a somewhat snarky response! Not too many can argue with, I've been doing this 50 years, and you and I have done business way back then! I love it!

  • FredSFredS Posts: 70 ✭✭✭

    So many old holder PL and DMPL are not at all. Many are just PL on the obverse, but they still received the designation. I personally have seen hundreds of Rattlers, OGH, and Fattys, that were not PL at all, much less DMPL.

    Today's standards are definitely stricter, with CAC being tougher still. Clearly proven by this thread, and thanks for sharing all of this @howep

  • Cougar1978Cougar1978 Posts: 8,197 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 3, 2024 4:14AM

    5 out of 31 horrible. Hope u put down minimum grade avoid downgrade.

    For me submission performance is change in MV of items submitted -grading costs. Positive performance is the goal.

    Thanks for sharing your grades.

    Coins & Currency
  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 23,082 ✭✭✭✭✭

    These are still the same 31 coins. Opinions can change and a change of an opinion may not be more valid than what was provided at the time of the prior grade. Coins really do not change unless they are enhanced. Opinions can change and they often do change over time and often reflect the current grading insecurity of the moment

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • leothelyonleothelyon Posts: 8,459 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Two posters here with 50 years of studying coins and one gets only 5 crosses out of 31 coins submitted? Something is up with that. This prompt me to look over/into their website (CACG) for what information they had on their coin grading team.....the site only shows two guys. One looks like he's smiling too much while the other looks like he forgot to say "CHEEZE!" lol But anyway, I couldn't find any info on what experience they might have in grading coins but maybe its there on the site somewhere. For certain, they didn't look old enough to have enough years anywhere near what the two posters have.
    In my World of PL Jefferson nickels, there are Semi Proof-like (SPL) fields, About Semi PL (ASPL) fields, PL fields, Full PL fields (FPL), there are likely others. But anyway, I have a sample of Jefferson nickels that I have accumulated over 34+ years. Bought another sample of 313 Jefferson nickels, many with varying degrees of mirrors or levels of PL fields from a 45 year collector. And from those two samples there are/I have PL, FPL, ASPL, SPL coins. For sure, the ones with the deeper mirrors will always look more stunning than those with less mirrors but that's the way it is! I'm not going to dismiss a coin due to having paler mirrors over another. Coins that will give a collector a level of eye appeal with each coin that leads and encourages the appetite to continue on with the hunt/journey to discover more very fascinating coins for their collections. It's not about someone holding an unreachable bar/standard on what's PL or not, that's ludicrous, to say the least. We've already had to put up with people who can't tell an EDS strike from a mushy one. It's just a matter of time before they come full circle on what a sample of a series grades/looks like. They're not even grading 5 step Jeffersons yet, is another example of inexperience. I wouldn't submit again until they get their act together, like for a couple of years.

    Leo

    The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

    My Jefferson Nickel Collection

  • LeeBoneLeeBone Posts: 4,433 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That was a tough sub.
    I personally am not a fan of CACG

  • TorinoCobra71TorinoCobra71 Posts: 8,050 ✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:
    I like CACG but why do you assume their opinion dictates the “true DMPL or PL designation” of your coins is “correct in today’s standards”?

    its "correct" to CACGs "standards" ;)

    image
  • winestevenwinesteven Posts: 4,508 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 28, 2024 5:32PM

    Deleted - My comment was erroneous.

    Steve

    A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!

    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
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,162 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @winesteven said:
    Tiny point, but higher up is the implication of the CAC investors mentioned that they’ve been investors for many years. No so. The investors were solicited only roughly 2+ years ago or so. But yes, Laura and Bruce have been supporters of CAC since the beginning (or very close to it), roughly 16 years ago.

    Steve

    This is incorrect. There was an early investment round at the inception of CAC and a second investment round at the inception of CACG.

    Early Dollar Set
  • winestevenwinesteven Posts: 4,508 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 28, 2024 5:33PM

    @tradedollarnut said:

    This is incorrect. There was an early investment round at the inception of CAC and a second investment round at the inception of CACG.

    Thank you for this correction. I was not aware there were investors at the inception of CAC about 16 years ago. I will edit/delete my erroneous comment.

    Thanks.

    Steve

    A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!

    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
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • lermishlermish Posts: 2,891 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @lermesh said:
    Ahh man, I feel for you! :/

    But remember the great news that the one thing all grading companies and sticker companies have in common is they're subjective. They're selling another human's opinion of the visual aspect of something at a given time on a given day. By the simple laws of nature this, of course, will always vary. This is why they guarantee nothing.

    So, the key success at what you're trying to accomplish is perseverance. Simply never give up! Not at any cost! Just keep paying them and playing and paying them until you hit them on the right day and obtain that validation you so desperately need. There's no doubt that, once you succeed at your goal, the financial loss you suffer will be completely negated by the pride you have from finally getting the validation you need.

    Jeremy

    Ok EJ, I'll give you credit for being funny this time. You're still a complete waste of space in the numismatic community but I appreciate the rent free space in your head.

    For reference if anyone is curious: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1099812/thank-you-pcgs

    Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase

  • logger7logger7 Posts: 8,512 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I was thinking first a cac sticker submission to NJ paying only for the coins that sticker would have been a better option, subsequently the ones that sticker could be sent to VA. Is the strictness the same in NJ as VA cac?

  • slider23slider23 Posts: 650 ✭✭✭✭

    It appears that CACG is using the same standard on crossovers that CAC is using to sticker PL/DMPL Morgans. The CAC standard for stickering PL/DMPL morgans starts with strong mirrors. It would be interesting if you sent the 26 that did not cross to CAC for stickering. If the standards are the same at CAC and CACG, there should only be at most 1 or 2 that would sticker.

  • howephowep Posts: 71 ✭✭✭

    As a follow up to my original post, I have over 20 CAC DMPL and PL Morgans all grading 64+ thru 66 + which would cross automatically to CACG if I sent. The only thing you could lose would be the + and half of these do have a +. Some I bought CAC and the others were sent in by dealer friends. I did not send those 23 to CAC as I felt many would not sticker and since I could submit directly to CACG I did so. When you collect dmpl's and pl's, three things are important instead of one or two. The grade, the designation and eye appeal. In IMHO most had good eye appeal for the grade and most numerical grades I agreed with from 62 thru 65+. The rub was always going to be depth and quality of mirrors to qualify for either PL or DMPL.
    In my view, given the grade inflation and changing TPC standards both tight and loose, I felt and do even more now that CAC sticker or CACG holder is the way to go. Especially with more expensive coins (more than 2K). I want to know that when and if I sell my coins that are stickered or CACG I can feel confident the the grade and designation is correct and maybe conservative and usually will past scrutiny with any knowledgeable buyer, especially dealers.

  • ProofCollectionProofCollection Posts: 6,110 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @howep said:
    Especially with more expensive coins (more than 2K). I want to know that when and if I sell my coins that are stickered or CACG I can feel confident the the grade and designation is correct and maybe conservative and usually will past scrutiny with any knowledgeable buyer, especially dealers.

    Since grading is an opinion, there is no "correct" grade regardless of who issues it.

  • howephowep Posts: 71 ✭✭✭

    Also I also reported originally that 3 of the 23 CACG did say was dmpl. I asked for all to keep their 64+ grading on the new holder and I am assuming that if I would have allowed 64 without a plus, those 3 would have holdered 64 DMPL

  • oldslaboldslab Posts: 15 ✭

    Have bought about 25 PL and DMPL Morgans over the last few months...started with the lower grades and working up...MS65 is next up...after reading this will only buy DMPL with CACG grading or CAC stickers....

  • orevilleoreville Posts: 11,953 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I suspect that CACG is not questioning the DMPL or PL portion of the grade but instead the numeric half or full grade differential.
    By the way, Wayne Miller had some awesome Morgans. I did not buy any of his collection.

    A Collectors Universe poster since 1997!
  • lermishlermish Posts: 2,891 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JohnBCoins Great to see you over here and thanks for the awesome post. I enjoyed reading that.

    Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase

  • leothelyonleothelyon Posts: 8,459 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm glad you have a sense of humor I don't like smiling for the camera either......if not in an earnest way.....for my grandkids, lest they don't understand. My apologies if you felt offended. But I imagine you had a hand in grading the OP's coins. Perhaps the standards are a bit too high, a suggestion in a way. I have a couple of other matters I'd like to discuss with you if you are open to hear them? But not here because it's not on topic with this thread. I have 3 drafts over at the CACG forum ... I need to finish those,

    Leo

    The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

    My Jefferson Nickel Collection

  • janine05janine05 Posts: 8 ✭

    @leothelyon said:
    I'm glad you have a sense of humor I don't like smiling for the camera either.....

    Leo

    I think its a generational thing. I think my generation at least are born posing for a camera.

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,167 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @oldslab said:
    Have bought about 25 PL and DMPL Morgans over the last few months...started with the lower grades and working up...MS65 is next up...after reading this will only buy DMPL with CACG grading or CAC stickers....

    You would be potentially setting yourself up for disappointment. I’m not sure about CACG but I have seen a lot of weak PL or DMPL coins with green CAC stickers especially on Morgan Dollars.

  • DisneyFanDisneyFan Posts: 2,052 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @cameonut2011 said:

    You would be potentially setting yourself up for disappointment. I’m not sure about CACG but I have seen a lot of weak PL or DMPL coins with green CAC stickers especially on Morgan Dollars.

    Sounds like your standards are even higher than CAC (orCACG) which is the way it should be. That's how one builds a really great collection.

  • SoldiSoldi Posts: 2,177 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 3, 2024 6:51AM

    It's all ballshoot ! So is the cac concept, remember this, never forget it, CAC HAS TO BUY THE COIN. I don't care what it is if it stickers they have to buy it. They make a market so, think about it.

    Furthermore it's just my opinion, but all it does is narrow down the desireablity of a coin(s) limiting the market. It's not good, too subjective to someone liking your coin.

  • winestevenwinesteven Posts: 4,508 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Soldi said:
    It's all ballshoot ! So is the cac concept, remember this, never forget it, CAC HAS TO BUY THE COIN. I don't care what it is if it stickers they have to buy it. They make a market so, think about it.

    Furthermore it's just my opinion, but all it does is narrow down the desireablity of a coin(s) limiting the market. It's not good, too subjective to someone liking your coin.

    Ok, I did think about it, and your comments still make no sense to me. I also get a sense I’m not the only one who disagrees with you.

    To each, his own, and that’s one of the great things about our wonderful hobby!

    Steve

    A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!

    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
  • SoldiSoldi Posts: 2,177 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @winesteven said:

    @Soldi said:
    It's all ballshoot ! So is the cac concept, remember this, never forget it, CAC HAS TO BUY THE COIN. I don't care what it is if it stickers they have to buy it. They make a market so, think about it.

    Furthermore it's just my opinion, but all it does is narrow down the desireablity of a coin(s) limiting the market. It's not good, too subjective to someone liking your coin.

    Ok, I did think about it, and your comments still make no sense to me. I also get a sense I’m not the only one who disagrees with you.

    To each, his own, and that’s one of the great things about our wonderful hobby!

    Steve

    What ?

  • SoldiSoldi Posts: 2,177 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Read the thread or is that your problem? You can't. I make a statement of fact and an opinion I don't need your ja'ka$$ remarks. Neither does anyone else

  • HillbillyCollectorHillbillyCollector Posts: 609 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Soldi said:
    Read the thread or is that your problem? You can't. I make a statement of fact and an opinion I don't need your ja'ka$$ remarks. Neither does anyone else

    >
    Ouch, pretty harsh, no?

This discussion has been closed.