@johnny010 said:
As I’ve built my Morgan set a few coins did not CAC. No matter how hard I’ve tried to justify the coins “should have stickered”, each time I’ve paid more attention and re-louped / learned and realized “I was wrong”.
Now I fully understand buying a coin two hundred plus years ago due to limited availability but most coins if you’re honest with yourself….. have been cleaned and retoned, aren’t suited for their grades etc
I’m sure there are good reasons and I dont expect all positive replies but how many of you have come to the same realization that a non-CAC coin is worth less and is an inferior coin for the grade award.
I guess I would flip the question and ask, why would you buy only CAC stickered coins? I get that for the unconfident or beginner collector having a second opinion on the grade is reassuring and valuable. But otherwise, why arbitrarily dismiss/ignore/eschew coins that fall into the "C" spectrum? There are likely coins out there where the top pop is something like MS68 pop 1, but that coin is barely an MS68. Why would you not want to own it just because it won't qualify for a sticker? If you want the top best specimen, you'll have to accept the one without a sticker.
Ultra rare, no issues to own without. Dealers typically buy back of bid so a coin that failed CAC likely sells for the same price to a dealer as one that has not been to CAC. Now do you see it?
Furthermore, I’ve used CAC grading in my Morgan’s to learn, and now I can clearly see in person on blast white coins which will and will not pass with a high degree of confidence. I do not want to pay 65 money for a 65 C coin that should really be in a 64 holder. It’s just math.
Maybe I missed some of the conversation on this thread, but the question was binary, would you buy a non-CAC coin (yes or no)? Not, 'would you buy a non-CAC coin for CAC money?' Clearly the price guides are just guides. but for the most part I assume that the posted price for coins that trade regularly is the price for a B coin which is also CAC worthy although CAC stickered coins do tend to get an additional premium. An A coin probably should be priced above guide and a C coin or a coin with issues would be pried below guide. No rocket science here.
The philosophy I disagree with is those collectors will not buy the 65 "C" coin with no sticker and no other surface or quality issues simply for the lack of a sticker even if priced accordingly and even if it is nicer than the 64 CAC in the case right next to it
Coin: dealer acquired price $200
Coin: dealer sales price $225 Coin: did not pass CAC = not solid for the grade = downgrade one point = bad purchase
Coin: passes CAC worth $250
Spread keeps getting worse for non-cac coin owners, not better.
Agree not rocket science.
You left a few details out like guide price, but "Not solid for the grade" does not mean improperly graded. JA has made that very clear. Why does that equal to "downgrade one point" if PCGS got it right?
And if you're saying a non-CAC coin is a bad purchase, why'd you start the thread if you already had the answer?
When you make a purchase do you consider price? I do and I’m sure most people here do, so you definitely have to infer a few underlying thoughts.
My post is to understand why you’d knowingly make a decision to buy an overgraded coin intentionally if you know it did not pass CAC. As almost everyone agrees, the market has adopted CAC. Maybe you can explain that or maybe this topic gives way for new thinking.
Adding**
Yes he had to back off that idea, but it’s still relevant. Using 65 as an example, just call it a 64+ otherwise it’s been cleaned or has some other issue. If you keep a 65 low grade coin chances are you overpaid for what you received and thus my question of why?
@johnny010 said:
As I’ve built my Morgan set a few coins did not CAC. No matter how hard I’ve tried to justify the coins “should have stickered”, each time I’ve paid more attention and re-louped / learned and realized “I was wrong”.
Now I fully understand buying a coin two hundred plus years ago due to limited availability but most coins if you’re honest with yourself….. have been cleaned and retoned, aren’t suited for their grades etc
I’m sure there are good reasons and I dont expect all positive replies but how many of you have come to the same realization that a non-CAC coin is worth less and is an inferior coin for the grade award.
I guess I would flip the question and ask, why would you buy only CAC stickered coins? I get that for the unconfident or beginner collector having a second opinion on the grade is reassuring and valuable. But otherwise, why arbitrarily dismiss/ignore/eschew coins that fall into the "C" spectrum? There are likely coins out there where the top pop is something like MS68 pop 1, but that coin is barely an MS68. Why would you not want to own it just because it won't qualify for a sticker? If you want the top best specimen, you'll have to accept the one without a sticker.
Ultra rare, no issues to own without. Dealers typically buy back of bid so a coin that failed CAC likely sells for the same price to a dealer as one that has not been to CAC. Now do you see it?
Furthermore, I’ve used CAC grading in my Morgan’s to learn, and now I can clearly see in person on blast white coins which will and will not pass with a high degree of confidence. I do not want to pay 65 money for a 65 C coin that should really be in a 64 holder. It’s just math.
Maybe I missed some of the conversation on this thread, but the question was binary, would you buy a non-CAC coin (yes or no)? Not, 'would you buy a non-CAC coin for CAC money?' Clearly the price guides are just guides. but for the most part I assume that the posted price for coins that trade regularly is the price for a B coin which is also CAC worthy although CAC stickered coins do tend to get an additional premium. An A coin probably should be priced above guide and a C coin or a coin with issues would be pried below guide. No rocket science here.
The philosophy I disagree with is those collectors will not buy the 65 "C" coin with no sticker and no other surface or quality issues simply for the lack of a sticker even if priced accordingly and even if it is nicer than the 64 CAC in the case right next to it
Coin: dealer acquired price $200
Coin: dealer sales price $225 Coin: did not pass CAC = not solid for the grade = downgrade one point = bad purchase
Coin: passes CAC worth $250
Spread keeps getting worse for non-cac coin owners, not better.
Agree not rocket science.
You left a few details out like guide price, but "Not solid for the grade" does not mean improperly graded. JA has made that very clear. Why does that equal to "downgrade one point" if PCGS got it right?
And if you're saying a non-CAC coin is a bad purchase, why'd you start the thread if you already had the answer?
When you make a purchase do you consider price? I do and I’m sure most people here do, so you definitely have to infer a few underlying thoughts.
My post is to understand why you’d knowingly make a decision to buy an overgraded coin intentionally if you know it did not pass CAC. As almost everyone agrees, the market has adopted CAC. Maybe you can explain that or maybe this topic gives way for new thinking.
And my question is why you insist a coin is overgraded if it doesn't have a sticker? Is the CAC FAQ outdated? "He" (I assume JA) had to back off of that idea but he didn't change his website? Where do you see that he "backed off of the idea?" He's explained his criteria ad nauseum, this has not changed. https://www.cacgrading.com/doc/why-smart-watch-is-important/
Adding**
Yes he had to back off that idea, but it’s still relevant. Using 65 as an example, just call it a 64+ otherwise it’s been cleaned or has some other issue. If you keep a 65 low grade coin chances are you overpaid for what you received and thus my question of why?
Why do you ASSume I or any experienced collector overpay for a "C" coin? Like I said above, you pay over guide for exceptional coins. At guide for decent coins, and below guide for below average stuff. I'll take a 65 C over a 64 A coin any day if priced appropriately. the 65C by definition is a better coin.
@johnny010 said:
As I’ve built my Morgan set a few coins did not CAC. No matter how hard I’ve tried to justify the coins “should have stickered”, each time I’ve paid more attention and re-louped / learned and realized “I was wrong”.
Now I fully understand buying a coin two hundred plus years ago due to limited availability but most coins if you’re honest with yourself….. have been cleaned and retoned, aren’t suited for their grades etc
I’m sure there are good reasons and I dont expect all positive replies but how many of you have come to the same realization that a non-CAC coin is worth less and is an inferior coin for the grade award.
I guess I would flip the question and ask, why would you buy only CAC stickered coins? I get that for the unconfident or beginner collector having a second opinion on the grade is reassuring and valuable. But otherwise, why arbitrarily dismiss/ignore/eschew coins that fall into the "C" spectrum? There are likely coins out there where the top pop is something like MS68 pop 1, but that coin is barely an MS68. Why would you not want to own it just because it won't qualify for a sticker? If you want the top best specimen, you'll have to accept the one without a sticker.
Ultra rare, no issues to own without. Dealers typically buy back of bid so a coin that failed CAC likely sells for the same price to a dealer as one that has not been to CAC. Now do you see it?
Furthermore, I’ve used CAC grading in my Morgan’s to learn, and now I can clearly see in person on blast white coins which will and will not pass with a high degree of confidence. I do not want to pay 65 money for a 65 C coin that should really be in a 64 holder. It’s just math.
And that's why the question has no meaning without the price. What if the 65 no CAC is selling for 64 money while the 65 CAC. Is selling for 66 money?
@johnny010 said:
As I’ve built my Morgan set a few coins did not CAC. No matter how hard I’ve tried to justify the coins “should have stickered”, each time I’ve paid more attention and re-louped / learned and realized “I was wrong”.
Now I fully understand buying a coin two hundred plus years ago due to limited availability but most coins if you’re honest with yourself….. have been cleaned and retoned, aren’t suited for their grades etc
I’m sure there are good reasons and I dont expect all positive replies but how many of you have come to the same realization that a non-CAC coin is worth less and is an inferior coin for the grade award.
I guess I would flip the question and ask, why would you buy only CAC stickered coins? I get that for the unconfident or beginner collector having a second opinion on the grade is reassuring and valuable. But otherwise, why arbitrarily dismiss/ignore/eschew coins that fall into the "C" spectrum? There are likely coins out there where the top pop is something like MS68 pop 1, but that coin is barely an MS68. Why would you not want to own it just because it won't qualify for a sticker? If you want the top best specimen, you'll have to accept the one without a sticker.
Ultra rare, no issues to own without. Dealers typically buy back of bid so a coin that failed CAC likely sells for the same price to a dealer as one that has not been to CAC. Now do you see it?
Furthermore, I’ve used CAC grading in my Morgan’s to learn, and now I can clearly see in person on blast white coins which will and will not pass with a high degree of confidence. I do not want to pay 65 money for a 65 C coin that should really be in a 64 holder. It’s just math.
Maybe I missed some of the conversation on this thread, but the question was binary, would you buy a non-CAC coin (yes or no)? Not, 'would you buy a non-CAC coin for CAC money?' Clearly the price guides are just guides. but for the most part I assume that the posted price for coins that trade regularly is the price for a B coin which is also CAC worthy although CAC stickered coins do tend to get an additional premium. An A coin probably should be priced above guide and a C coin or a coin with issues would be pried below guide. No rocket science here.
The philosophy I disagree with is those collectors will not buy the 65 "C" coin with no sticker and no other surface or quality issues simply for the lack of a sticker even if priced accordingly and even if it is nicer than the 64 CAC in the case right next to it
Coin: dealer acquired price $200
Coin: dealer sales price $225 Coin: did not pass CAC = not solid for the grade = downgrade one point = bad purchase
Coin: passes CAC worth $250
Spread keeps getting worse for non-cac coin owners, not better.
Agree not rocket science.
You left a few details out like guide price, but "Not solid for the grade" does not mean improperly graded. JA has made that very clear. Why does that equal to "downgrade one point" if PCGS got it right?
And if you're saying a non-CAC coin is a bad purchase, why'd you start the thread if you already had the answer?
When you make a purchase do you consider price? I do and I’m sure most people here do, so you definitely have to infer a few underlying thoughts.
My post is to understand why you’d knowingly make a decision to buy an overgraded coin intentionally if you know it did not pass CAC. As almost everyone agrees, the market has adopted CAC. Maybe you can explain that or maybe this topic gives way for new thinking.
And my question is why you insist a coin is overgraded if it doesn't have a sticker? Is the CAC FAQ outdated? "He" (I assume JA) had to back off of that idea but he didn't change his website? Where do you see that he "backed off of the idea?" He's explained his criteria ad nauseum, this has not changed. https://www.cacgrading.com/doc/why-smart-watch-is-important/
Adding**
Yes he had to back off that idea, but it’s still relevant. Using 65 as an example, just call it a 64+ otherwise it’s been cleaned or has some other issue. If you keep a 65 low grade coin chances are you overpaid for what you received and thus my question of why?
Why do you ASSume I or any experienced collector overpay for a "C" coin? Like I said above, you pay over guide for exceptional coins. At guide for decent coins, and below guide for below average stuff. I'll take a 65 C over a 64 A coin any day if priced appropriately. the 65C by definition is a better coin.
@johnny010 said:
When you make a purchase do you consider price? I do and I’m sure most people here do, so you definitely have to infer a few underlying thoughts.
My post is to understand why you’d knowingly make a decision to buy an overgraded coin intentionally if you know it did not pass CAC. As almost everyone agrees, the market has adopted CAC. Maybe you can explain that or maybe this topic gives way for new thinking.
Adding**
Yes he had to back off that idea, but it’s still relevant. Using 65 as an example, just call it a 64+ otherwise it’s been cleaned or has some other issue. If you keep a 65 low grade coin chances are you overpaid for what you received and thus my question of why?
Assumes facts not in evidence. No sticker does not mean overgraded necessarily. The pricing issue is exactly what we’re telling you. As long as the price paid is commensurate with quality and value the sticker is irrelevant. I won’t pay 65 A money for a 65C coin regardless of CAC sticker. Cf. 1936 PF65 CAM CAC half with noticeable design elements lacking frost.
@johnny010 said:
When you make a purchase do you consider price? I do and I’m sure most people here do, so you definitely have to infer a few underlying thoughts.
My post is to understand why you’d knowingly make a decision to buy an overgraded coin intentionally if you know it did not pass CAC. As almost everyone agrees, the market has adopted CAC. Maybe you can explain that or maybe this topic gives way for new thinking.
Adding**
Yes he had to back off that idea, but it’s still relevant. Using 65 as an example, just call it a 64+ otherwise it’s been cleaned or has some other issue. If you keep a 65 low grade coin chances are you overpaid for what you received and thus my question of why?
Assumes facts not in evidence. No sticker does not mean overgraded necessarily. The pricing issue is exactly what we’re telling you. As long as the price paid is commensurate with quality and value the sticker is irrelevant. I won’t pay 65 A money for a 65C coin regardless of CAC sticker. Cf. 1936 PF65 CAM CAC half with notice design elements lacking frost.
Furthermore, I’ve used CAC grading in my Morgan’s to learn, and now I can clearly see in person on blast white coins which will and will not pass with a high degree of confidence. I do not want to pay 65 money for a 65 C coin that should really be in a 64 holder. It’s just math.
Just curious, now that you’ve gone through the learning curve and have a high degree of confidence, would you pass on either a raw Morgan or an un-stickered Morgan if an old time collector offered to sell you one that he’s had in his collection since the 90s that you needed and it looked like a solid 65 to you?
@johnny010 said:
My initial post should have defined non-CAC which to me is a coin that was sent and failed vs a coin that has never been sent.
And how does one know that?
Because I just explained I made a mistake in not clarifying. I’ll make sure to add this thought at the correct post count number for reference.
I appreciate that this was a timely and well-intentioned clarification. My question was, if you see a coin that is slabbed but not stickered, how do you know if it was submitted to a stickering firm or not?
You do not BUT I make a point every time to ask and the believe it or not, the dealers are transparent and a majority of the time will respond
1) I’ve never sent it
2) I was planning to send it since I was told it was not sent
3) it did not pass CAC
I’ve yet to run into a single dealer who I felt was being dishonest on this topic.
When I ask collectors I feel I get the same honest answers and for my rattlers there’s even been a few times where older collectors have asked me, “What is CAC” in response to my question.
Well, I think you are very unfairly condemning EVERY non-CAC coin with your thread title. I ask that you change it to express which coins you are talking about.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I will put my money where my mouth is and say yes. Great Collections just auctioned off a large set of Seated Dimes. A large number of those coins had CAC stickers. It is safe to say that the owner, Ian at G.C and CAC probably looked at every coin in that collection. Not one of the three coins I won has a sticker.
It is also safe to say that the CAC stickers only played a small role in my bidding; based on how much more I had to bid. And yes I also bid on some CAC coins but lost.
There were coins in this group that I have been interested in since the Fortin Online reference book came out in 2012 but this was my first chance to get one.
There were many varieties that were in the R-5 and R-6 range. Which might make you wonder if there is even a CAC coin out there.
Having said all that. If my collecting ran in the 3 thousand to 5 thousand range rather than the 3 hundred to 5 hundred range I bet my emphasis on a sticker might rocked way up there. James
For the OP: If I take coin X and it fails CAC the first time but passes upon resubmission, is it dreck, half-dreck, or accurately graded/solid for the grade? If you vote not dreck or half dreck, at what time did the coin itself change?
CAC occasionally changes its opinion. Everyone can and does. It’s human nature.
@johnny010 said:
As I’ve built my Morgan set a few coins did not CAC. No matter how hard I’ve tried to justify the coins “should have stickered”, each time I’ve paid more attention and re-louped / learned and realized “I was wrong”.
Now I fully understand buying a coin two hundred plus years ago due to limited availability but most coins if you’re honest with yourself….. have been cleaned and retoned, aren’t suited for their grades etc
I’m sure there are good reasons and I dont expect all positive replies but how many of you have come to the same realization that a non-CAC coin is worth less and is an inferior coin for the grade award.
I guess I would flip the question and ask, why would you buy only CAC stickered coins? I get that for the unconfident or beginner collector having a second opinion on the grade is reassuring and valuable. But otherwise, why arbitrarily dismiss/ignore/eschew coins that fall into the "C" spectrum? There are likely coins out there where the top pop is something like MS68 pop 1, but that coin is barely an MS68. Why would you not want to own it just because it won't qualify for a sticker? If you want the top best specimen, you'll have to accept the one without a sticker.
Ultra rare, no issues to own without. Dealers typically buy back of bid so a coin that failed CAC likely sells for the same price to a dealer as one that has not been to CAC. Now do you see it?
Furthermore, I’ve used CAC grading in my Morgan’s to learn, and now I can clearly see in person on blast white coins which will and will not pass with a high degree of confidence. I do not want to pay 65 money for a 65 C coin that should really be in a 64 holder. It’s just math.
And that's why the question has no meaning without the price. What if the 65 no CAC is selling for 64 money while the 65 CAC. Is selling for 66 money?
And aesthetics matter too. A common date 62 monster toned Morgan in a 64 holder will always bring more than a 65 C coin or even a 65A coin even without a sticker. Is the buyer an idiot for buying a sticker less attractive coin with a fantasy label grade?
I think some of you have been drinking Laura’s Kool-Aid far too much. Don’t get me wrong; CAC offers a useful service but it is not the end all/be all of numismatics.
@cameonut2011 said:
For the OP: If I take coin X and it fails CAC the first time but passes upon resubmission, is it dreck, half-dreck, or accurately graded/solid for the grade? If you vote not dreck or half dreck, at what time did the coin itself change?
CAC occasionally changes its opinion. Everyone can and does. It’s human nature.
And to follow up on this, how many resubmissions are required to solidify that a coin is in fact dreck?
@cameonut2011 said:
For the OP: If I take coin X and it fails CAC the first time but passes upon resubmission, is it dreck, half-dreck, or accurately graded/solid for the grade? If you vote not dreck or half dreck, at what time did the coin itself change?
CAC occasionally changes its opinion. Everyone can and does. It’s human nature.
And to follow up on this, how many resubmissions are required to solidify that a coin is in fact dreck?
2? 15? 200?
Definitely 200. Maybe the CMQ and PQ people will bless it too so you know it truly has been anointed. 😈😉
Edited: Sorry I read that as to solidify that it is NOT dreck. Oops.
I remember breaking my coins out of PCGS holders early 2000's. I thought holdering was a waste of time and diminished the experience of owning a coin and actually being able to hold it.
I also thought that the CAC sticker, when it first arrived on the scene was superflous and mostly a gimmick to get additional grading fees and status for a coin.
Now I can see that both graded and CAC coins definitely fetch much higher prices than non CAC and especially non holdered coins. I get it. The market is showing that the highest prices are for PCGS/CAC coins.
For me now, CAC coins mean that not only must the coin be near perfect to validate the price, but that you will probably overpay for that coin in a retail market place because sellers are demanding the highest premiums for PCGS/CAC.
I don't want to buy any coins that I am already upside down 20% or more after I buy them. From my experience, those are CAC graded coins. I don't get excited anymore to be a coin bagholder.
P.S. I just bought a raw 1912-S XF45 Barber Half on Ebay. I paid half of what holdered/cac coins are selling for. I pick up the coin every five minutes and admire it. What a damn good feeling. Just how it felt when I first starting collecting.
@BillJones said:
I’ll turn the question around. Why should you allow one man’s opinion determine which coins get into your collection?
I bought many coins before CAC came along. It’s not worth my time, expense and risk of loosing those coins in transit to have them anointed until it’s time to sell, if then. I have bought CAC coins when I liked the piece and I thought the price was fair. And I have a picture file full of CAC approved coins that didn’t make the grade in my opinion. And I had a couple CAC approved coins which I now view as mistakes.
I don’t need to have my hand held every time I buy a coin.
I support CAC’s entry into the full service certification industry. It’s good for collectors to have more competition. As for the stickers, that’s a mixed bag.
Bill said it better than I can. Part of numismatics is a hobby, part of it is appreciation of artistic talent and history, and part of it is marketing. As long as people are evaluating any item, you are going to have different opinions, and some people do a better job of evaluating said items over time. People make mistakes.
I buy what I like at a price I think is reasonable. I have someone who knows more about a potential purchase than I, look it over and give me an opinion before I buy it. That is all.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
@cameonut2011 said:
For the OP: If I take coin X and it fails CAC the first time but passes upon resubmission, is it dreck, half-dreck, or accurately graded/solid for the grade? If you vote not dreck or half dreck, at what time did the coin itself change?
CAC occasionally changes its opinion. Everyone can and does. It’s human nature.
And to follow up on this, how many resubmissions are required to solidify that a coin is in fact dreck?
2? 15? 200?
.
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie-Pop?
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
@cameonut2011 said:
For the OP: If I take coin X and it fails CAC the first time but passes upon resubmission, is it dreck, half-dreck, or accurately graded/solid for the grade? If you vote not dreck or half dreck, at what time did the coin itself change?
CAC occasionally changes its opinion. Everyone can and does. It’s human nature.
And to follow up on this, how many resubmissions are required to solidify that a coin is in fact dreck?
2? 15? 200?
.
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie-Pop?
I’ll never be able to answer that as I bite into it!
@ARCO said:
P.S. I just bought a raw 1912-S XF45 Barber Half on Ebay. I paid half of what holdered/cac coins are selling for. I pick up the coin every five minutes and admire it. What a damn good feeling. Just how it felt when I first starting collecting.
I miss that. Like a lemming, I joined the PCGS registry, and both my wallet and my Dansco have been drained.
@FlyingAl said:
Failing CAC does NOT mean a coin is not solid for the grade.
It means JA doesn't feel it's solid for the grade. That is a significant difference.
It's also important to note CAC gets it wrong too.
But while a coin may be "solid for the grade", it could still fail CAC due to surface treatments that in the opinion of CAC are not acceptable, but are acceptable to the other TPG's. These surface treatments may or may not be acceptable to collectors, Each collector sets their own standards.
For ME, I prefer the coins I buy to not have had surface treatments that are not acceptable to CAC. But perhaps talking out of the other side of my mouth, I'm perfectly fine with having had silver coins that are bright and highly lustrous having been gently and quickly dipped in a way that CAC will still sticker, lol.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@johnny010 said:
As I’ve built my Morgan set a few coins did not CAC. No matter how hard I’ve tried to justify the coins “should have stickered”, each time I’ve paid more attention and re-louped / learned and realized “I was wrong”.
Now I fully understand buying a coin two hundred plus years ago due to limited availability but most coins if you’re honest with yourself….. have been cleaned and retoned, aren’t suited for their grades etc
I’m sure there are good reasons and I dont expect all positive replies but how many of you have come to the same realization that a non-CAC coin is worth less and is an inferior coin for the grade award.
I guess I would flip the question and ask, why would you buy only CAC stickered coins? I get that for the unconfident or beginner collector having a second opinion on the grade is reassuring and valuable. But otherwise, why arbitrarily dismiss/ignore/eschew coins that fall into the "C" spectrum? There are likely coins out there where the top pop is something like MS68 pop 1, but that coin is barely an MS68. Why would you not want to own it just because it won't qualify for a sticker? If you want the top best specimen, you'll have to accept the one without a sticker.
Ultra rare, no issues to own without. Dealers typically buy back of bid so a coin that failed CAC likely sells for the same price to a dealer as one that has not been to CAC. Now do you see it?
Furthermore, I’ve used CAC grading in my Morgan’s to learn, and now I can clearly see in person on blast white coins which will and will not pass with a high degree of confidence. I do not want to pay 65 money for a 65 C coin that should really be in a 64 holder. It’s just math.
And that's why the question has no meaning without the price. What if the 65 no CAC is selling for 64 money while the 65 CAC. Is selling for 66 money?
And aesthetics matter too. A common date 62 monster toned Morgan in a 64 holder will always bring more than a 65 C coin or even a 65A coin even without a sticker. Is the buyer an idiot for buying a sticker less attractive coin with a fantasy label grade?
I think some of you have been drinking Laura’s Kool-Aid far too much. Don’t get me wrong; CAC offers a useful service but it is not the end all/be all of numismatics.
Is the "Monster toning" due to having been artificially toned? I believe that matters. So if a coin failed CAC due to AT, is that a coin you want? If so, you can always bring your collection over to Sherwin-Williams, and they'll paint it with gorgeous rainbow colors - BOTH sides too, lol.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@johnny010 said:
As I’ve built my Morgan set a few coins did not CAC. No matter how hard I’ve tried to justify the coins “should have stickered”, each time I’ve paid more attention and re-louped / learned and realized “I was wrong”.
Now I fully understand buying a coin two hundred plus years ago due to limited availability but most coins if you’re honest with yourself….. have been cleaned and retoned, aren’t suited for their grades etc
I’m sure there are good reasons and I dont expect all positive replies but how many of you have come to the same realization that a non-CAC coin is worth less and is an inferior coin for the grade award.
I guess I would flip the question and ask, why would you buy only CAC stickered coins? I get that for the unconfident or beginner collector having a second opinion on the grade is reassuring and valuable. But otherwise, why arbitrarily dismiss/ignore/eschew coins that fall into the "C" spectrum? There are likely coins out there where the top pop is something like MS68 pop 1, but that coin is barely an MS68. Why would you not want to own it just because it won't qualify for a sticker? If you want the top best specimen, you'll have to accept the one without a sticker.
Ultra rare, no issues to own without. Dealers typically buy back of bid so a coin that failed CAC likely sells for the same price to a dealer as one that has not been to CAC. Now do you see it?
Furthermore, I’ve used CAC grading in my Morgan’s to learn, and now I can clearly see in person on blast white coins which will and will not pass with a high degree of confidence. I do not want to pay 65 money for a 65 C coin that should really be in a 64 holder. It’s just math.
And that's why the question has no meaning without the price. What if the 65 no CAC is selling for 64 money while the 65 CAC. Is selling for 66 money?
And aesthetics matter too. A common date 62 monster toned Morgan in a 64 holder will always bring more than a 65 C coin or even a 65A coin even without a sticker. Is the buyer an idiot for buying a sticker less attractive coin with a fantasy label grade?
I think some of you have been drinking Laura’s Kool-Aid far too much. Don’t get me wrong; CAC offers a useful service but it is not the end all/be all of numismatics.
Is the "Monster toning" due to having been artificially toned? I believe that matters. So if a coin failed CAC due to AT, is that a coin you want? If so, you can always bring your collection over to Sherwin-Williams, and they'll paint it with gorgeous rainbow colors - BOTH sides too, lol.
Steve
That becomes a question of whether you trust PCGS on the AT. Personally, when a lot of toning is "questionable" rather than decidedly "artificial", the more opinions you get, the more likely that one of them will slap a QT on the coin.
Sometimes asking PCGS 3 times will get you three different toning opinions.
CAC just says it is better for the grade. With rare coins some of which are only known examples CAC would not matter much. I own a 1/1 seated half and it is not CAC. I had to wait 15 years for it to come up for sale and the CAC sticker or lack thereof made exactly zero difference to me in buying it.
@FlyingAl said:
Failing CAC does NOT mean a coin is not solid for the grade.
It means JA doesn't feel it's solid for the grade. That is a significant difference.
It's also important to note CAC gets it wrong too.
But while a coin may be "solid for the grade", it could still fail CAC due to surface treatments that in the opinion of CAC are not acceptable, but are acceptable to the other TPG's. These surface treatments may or may not be acceptable to collectors, Each collector sets their own standards.
For ME, I prefer the coins I buy to not have had surface treatments that are not acceptable to CAC. But perhaps talking out of the other side of my mouth, I'm perfectly fine with having had silver coins that are bright and highly lustrous having been gently and quickly dipped in a way that CAC will still sticker, lol.
Steve
Steve, I was more referring to the coins where I disagree with CACs decision to apply, or not apply, a sticker.
Because I like it, there really is not another reason that matters. You could rephrase this question to why do you only buy PCGS and reject NGC graded coins. The replies will basically be the same, some have to have PCGS plastic for various reasons, some don't. Face it people are weird.
@pursuitofliberty said:
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie-Pop?
"How exactly does a posi-trac rear-end on a Plymouth work? It just does."
Lol!
>
.
Well, as funny as I can find that, all things considered, the mechanics of posi-trac are much more definable than the opinion of a single person reviewing the accuracy of a subjective grade of a coin by another company.
Unlike the posi-trac, I can count the licks, but I bet it changes almost every time!
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
@Morgan13 said:
I do not have any CAC stickered coins. I know that most of them have not been sent in because I had them slabbed.
I think collecting using the CAC service is smart.
The way the coin market is structured now you could almost sell a coin sight unseen with a CAC sticker.
Someday I should send in my core collection in and give them a shot.
They sure move the needle on the price that's for sure.
People can and do sell coins with (and without) stickers on a daily basis. Some of those coins are 4, 5 and 6 figures.
I believe it.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7
@johnny010 said:
As I’ve built my Morgan set a few coins did not CAC. No matter how hard I’ve tried to justify the coins “should have stickered”, each time I’ve paid more attention and re-louped / learned and realized “I was wrong”.
Now I fully understand buying a coin two hundred plus years ago due to limited availability but most coins if you’re honest with yourself….. have been cleaned and retoned, aren’t suited for their grades etc
I’m sure there are good reasons and I dont expect all positive replies but how many of you have come to the same realization that a non-CAC coin is worth less and is an inferior coin for the grade award.
I guess I would flip the question and ask, why would you buy only CAC stickered coins? I get that for the unconfident or beginner collector having a second opinion on the grade is reassuring and valuable. But otherwise, why arbitrarily dismiss/ignore/eschew coins that fall into the "C" spectrum? There are likely coins out there where the top pop is something like MS68 pop 1, but that coin is barely an MS68. Why would you not want to own it just because it won't qualify for a sticker? If you want the top best specimen, you'll have to accept the one without a sticker.
Ultra rare, no issues to own without. Dealers typically buy back of bid so a coin that failed CAC likely sells for the same price to a dealer as one that has not been to CAC. Now do you see it?
Furthermore, I’ve used CAC grading in my Morgan’s to learn, and now I can clearly see in person on blast white coins which will and will not pass with a high degree of confidence. I do not want to pay 65 money for a 65 C coin that should really be in a 64 holder. It’s just math.
And that's why the question has no meaning without the price. What if the 65 no CAC is selling for 64 money while the 65 CAC. Is selling for 66 money?
And aesthetics matter too. A common date 62 monster toned Morgan in a 64 holder will always bring more than a 65 C coin or even a 65A coin even without a sticker. Is the buyer an idiot for buying a sticker less attractive coin with a fantasy label grade?
I think some of you have been drinking Laura’s Kool-Aid far too much. Don’t get me wrong; CAC offers a useful service but it is not the end all/be all of numismatics.
Is the "Monster toning" due to having been artificially toned? I believe that matters. So if a coin failed CAC due to AT, is that a coin you want? If so, you can always bring your collection over to Sherwin-Williams, and they'll paint it with gorgeous rainbow colors - BOTH sides too, lol.
Steve
No. I’m referring to coins that were egregiously color bumped that are natural by CAC’s admission. CAC is absolutely correct in not stickering them. That doesn’t make them trash.
I sent a few monster toned coins to test CAC’s acceptance of color bumping - the practice of awarding a higher grade to a coin for exceptional color. Anecdotally he seems to be willing to go a half point to point. Kudos to him for placing a limit on the egregious practice of 2 and some times 3 point swings. I don’t have access to my photo archive right now, but I bought a monster common date Morgan that was freshly graded as a 64. I personally graded it a 62. CAC said he would have stickered it as a 63. I agree with CAC’s rejection of the grade. It was submitted to flush out CAC’s treatment of toned coins. I bought it for the eye appeal and the grade was meaningless to me, and the multiple offers I received for it on eBay before selling it for north of $2k.
An artificially toned coin does not belong in a straight graded holder period and should trade as problem coins. We can all agree on that.
@Morgan13 said:
I do not have any CAC stickered coins. I know that most of them have not been sent in because I had them slabbed.
I think collecting using the CAC service is smart.
The way the coin market is structured now you could almost sell a coin sight unseen with a CAC sticker.
Someday I should send in my core collection in and give them a shot.
They sure move the needle on the price that's for sure.
People can and do sell coins with (and without) stickers on a daily basis. Some of those coins are 4, 5 and 6 figures.
I believe it.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7
Furthermore, I’ve used CAC grading in my Morgan’s to learn, and now I can clearly see in person on blast white coins which will and will not pass with a high degree of confidence. I do not want to pay 65 money for a 65 C coin that should really be in a 64 holder. It’s just math.
Just curious, now that you’ve gone through the learning curve and have a high degree of confidence, would you pass on either a raw Morgan or an un-stickered Morgan if an old time collector offered to sell you one that he’s had in his collection since the 90s that you needed and it looked like a solid 65 to you?
I would definitely buy the coin in the scenario presented. I bought eight Morgan’s from a gentleman that was moving on from his collection. Two ended up gold CAC and I believe four others green CAC. The ones that did not CAC I learned from and wouldn’t buy again for the money I paid which was market price for a 65
@FlyingAl said:
Failing CAC does NOT mean a coin is not solid for the grade.
It means JA doesn't feel it's solid for the grade. That is a significant difference.
It's also important to note CAC gets it wrong too.
This reads nice but you are incorrect. The industry has adopted CAC. Even though it might be run by one person it’s much bigger than JA. Presumably you’ve sat at a dealer table and discussed a coin and if it will CAC or not? If you haven’t that’s ok you’re at the upper end of being able to grade but I can assure you’ve I’ve heard this conversation over and over again at EVERY show I’ve been to in the last few years.
@cameonut2011 said:
For the OP: If I take coin X and it fails CAC the first time but passes upon resubmission, is it dreck, half-dreck, or accurately graded/solid for the grade? If you vote not dreck or half dreck, at what time did the coin itself change?
CAC occasionally changes its opinion. Everyone can and does. It’s human nature.
I have only one coin that I think “might pass” if I send it back, and it’s not a cheap coin. I told a friend last week even if it passed upon reconsideration I wouldn’t feel right about adding it to my set since I would always know it didn’t pass the first time.
Now that the question is different, there's a new answer. So likewise I have also sent most of my Morgan collection to CAC and received feedback and learned tons and now I feel I have a good CAC eye. A few coins have been denied CAC for some very minor reason such as small abrasions in non-prime locations. So if the choice is a CAC stickered coin for $1200 or a CAC-denied coin with a minor abrasion but otherwise solid-for-the-grade for $1000, I would have no problem buying the non-CAC coin and saving the money. Just like some will be happy with a $500 discount when buying a new car because it already has a scratch on the bumper. I'd never pay full price for a new car with a scratch, but discount it appropriately and there's no reason not to buy it unless it would really bug you that much. I expect most of us feel this way.
@ProofCollection said:
Now that the question is different, there's a new answer. So likewise I have also sent most of my Morgan collection to CAC and received feedback and learned tons and now I feel I have a good CAC eye. A few coins have been denied CAC for some very minor reason such as small abrasions in non-prime locations. So if the choice is a CAC stickered coin for $1200 or a CAC-denied coin with a minor abrasion but otherwise solid for $1000, I would have no problem buying the non-CAC coin and saving the money. Just like some will be happy with a $500 discount when buying a new car because it already has a scratch on the bumper. I'd never pay full price for a new car with a scratch, but discount it appropriately and there's no reason not to buy it unless it would really bug you that much. I expect most of us feel this way.
@johnny010 said:
Post title changed @CaptHenway I should have updated when I added my explanation of what I consider a non-CAC coin (DNPC).
Thank you.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@ProofCollection said:
Now that the question is different, there's a new answer. So likewise I have also sent most of my Morgan collection to CAC and received feedback and learned tons and now I feel I have a good CAC eye. A few coins have been denied CAC for some very minor reason such as small abrasions in non-prime locations. So if the choice is a CAC stickered coin for $1200 or a CAC-denied coin with a minor abrasion but otherwise solid for $1000, I would have no problem buying the non-CAC coin and saving the money. Just like some will be happy with a $500 discount when buying a new car because it already has a scratch on the bumper. I'd never pay full price for a new car with a scratch, but discount it appropriately and there's no reason not to buy it unless it would really bug you that much. I expect most of us feel this way.
So a coin would be solid for the grade other than for the (minor) abrasion(s) in a non-prime area?
That reminds me of the reporter who interviewed First Lady Mrs. Lincoln at Ford’s Theater. He asked, “So, other than the assassination, how was the play?”
For me, in your example, my choice is to pay the $1,200 for the problem-free coin that is solid for the grade, rather than saving $200 for a coin that is not solid for the grade due to problem(s).
I fully agree there is no right and wrong here, just personal preferences. Collectors SHOULD collect what they want!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@ProofCollection said:
Now that the question is different, there's a new answer. So likewise I have also sent most of my Morgan collection to CAC and received feedback and learned tons and now I feel I have a good CAC eye. A few coins have been denied CAC for some very minor reason such as small abrasions in non-prime locations. So if the choice is a CAC stickered coin for $1200 or a CAC-denied coin with a minor abrasion but otherwise solid for $1000, I would have no problem buying the non-CAC coin and saving the money. Just like some will be happy with a $500 discount when buying a new car because it already has a scratch on the bumper. I'd never pay full price for a new car with a scratch, but discount it appropriately and there's no reason not to buy it unless it would really bug you that much. I expect most of us feel this way.
So a coin would be solid for the grade other than for the (minor) abrasion(s) in a non-prime area?
That reminds me of the reporter who interviewed First Lady Mrs. Lincoln at Ford’s Theater. He asked, “So, other than the assassination, how was the play?”
For me, in your example, my choice is to pay the $1,200 for the problem-free coin that is solid for the grade, rather than saving $200 for a coin that is not solid for the grade due to problem(s).
I fully agree there is no right and wrong here, just personal preferences. Collectors SHOULD collect what they want!
Steve
Ok, since this has come up before let’s not pretend that an actual reporter asked this question. Also, the general phrasing of the line doesn’t include the word “assassination” as leaving it left unsaid is a better joke.
Now, for the CAC question:
I have bought coins I know failed CAC for a price I thought was commensurate with the quality I received. I don’t believe I have ever known the specific reason why a coin failed although I think I can usually guess. As others have mentioned, great toning (or otherwise excellent eye appeal) can carry the day more than the grade on the holder. For example, I might like a super-deep better-date DMPL Morgan even if it is not solid for the grade. Or, maybe I’ll buy a flashy 66 if it’s the same price as a 65+ CAC would be.
@FlyingAl said:
Failing CAC does NOT mean a coin is not solid for the grade.
It means JA doesn't feel it's solid for the grade. That is a significant difference.
It's also important to note CAC gets it wrong too.
This reads nice but you are incorrect. The industry has adopted CAC. Even though it might be run by one person it’s much bigger than JA. Presumably you’ve sat at a dealer table and discussed a coin and if it will CAC or not? If you haven’t that’s ok you’re at the upper end of being able to grade but I can assure you’ve I’ve heard this conversation over and over again at EVERY show I’ve been to in the last few years.
Even if the industry has adopted CAC, it doesn't mean I have to.
People make huge sums of money playing the game with plastic and stickers. I've seen it done by others, and done it myself. CAC simply provides a standard.
I could buy a coin that did not CAC for many reasons, but I'd assure you the #1 reason is that I like the coin. For example, take the below. It failed for spots as a PR67, but is one of the most heavily frosted 1938 nickels in existence, likely in the top three. Should I sell it immediately since it didn't CAC and go buy a PR67 without frost? There are some coins that simply do not come with stickers.
@ProofCollection said:
Now that the question is different, there's a new answer. So likewise I have also sent most of my Morgan collection to CAC and received feedback and learned tons and now I feel I have a good CAC eye. A few coins have been denied CAC for some very minor reason such as small abrasions in non-prime locations. So if the choice is a CAC stickered coin for $1200 or a CAC-denied coin with a minor abrasion but otherwise solid for $1000, I would have no problem buying the non-CAC coin and saving the money. Just like some will be happy with a $500 discount when buying a new car because it already has a scratch on the bumper. I'd never pay full price for a new car with a scratch, but discount it appropriately and there's no reason not to buy it unless it would really bug you that much. I expect most of us feel this way.
Fair. I’m doing the opposite betting on better long term liquidity and growth.
@ProofCollection said:
Now that the question is different, there's a new answer. So likewise I have also sent most of my Morgan collection to CAC and received feedback and learned tons and now I feel I have a good CAC eye. A few coins have been denied CAC for some very minor reason such as small abrasions in non-prime locations. So if the choice is a CAC stickered coin for $1200 or a CAC-denied coin with a minor abrasion but otherwise solid for $1000, I would have no problem buying the non-CAC coin and saving the money. Just like some will be happy with a $500 discount when buying a new car because it already has a scratch on the bumper. I'd never pay full price for a new car with a scratch, but discount it appropriately and there's no reason not to buy it unless it would really bug you that much. I expect most of us feel this way.
So a coin would be solid for the grade other than for the (minor) abrasion(s) in a non-prime area?
That reminds me of the reporter who interviewed First Lady Mrs. Lincoln at Ford’s Theater. He asked, “So, other than the assassination, how was the play?”
For me, in your example, my choice is to pay the $1,200 for the problem-free coin that is solid for the grade, rather than saving $200 for a coin that is not solid for the grade due to problem(s).
I fully agree there is no right and wrong here, just personal preferences. Collectors SHOULD collect what they want!
Steve
Sorry I should have been clearer, in my example both coins are solid for the grade. Prior post updated.
Comments
When you make a purchase do you consider price? I do and I’m sure most people here do, so you definitely have to infer a few underlying thoughts.
My post is to understand why you’d knowingly make a decision to buy an overgraded coin intentionally if you know it did not pass CAC. As almost everyone agrees, the market has adopted CAC. Maybe you can explain that or maybe this topic gives way for new thinking.
Adding**
Yes he had to back off that idea, but it’s still relevant. Using 65 as an example, just call it a 64+ otherwise it’s been cleaned or has some other issue. If you keep a 65 low grade coin chances are you overpaid for what you received and thus my question of why?
And my question is why you insist a coin is overgraded if it doesn't have a sticker? Is the CAC FAQ outdated? "He" (I assume JA) had to back off of that idea but he didn't change his website? Where do you see that he "backed off of the idea?" He's explained his criteria ad nauseum, this has not changed.
https://www.cacgrading.com/doc/why-smart-watch-is-important/
Why do you ASSume I or any experienced collector overpay for a "C" coin? Like I said above, you pay over guide for exceptional coins. At guide for decent coins, and below guide for below average stuff. I'll take a 65 C over a 64 A coin any day if priced appropriately. the 65C by definition is a better coin.
And that's why the question has no meaning without the price. What if the 65 no CAC is selling for 64 money while the 65 CAC. Is selling for 66 money?
Agree
You two should be locked in a room together.
I’ll reply tomorrow.
Assumes facts not in evidence. No sticker does not mean overgraded necessarily. The pricing issue is exactly what we’re telling you. As long as the price paid is commensurate with quality and value the sticker is irrelevant. I won’t pay 65 A money for a 65C coin regardless of CAC sticker. Cf. 1936 PF65 CAM CAC half with noticeable design elements lacking frost.
I agree
Just curious, now that you’ve gone through the learning curve and have a high degree of confidence, would you pass on either a raw Morgan or an un-stickered Morgan if an old time collector offered to sell you one that he’s had in his collection since the 90s that you needed and it looked like a solid 65 to you?
Mr_Spud
Well, I think you are very unfairly condemning EVERY non-CAC coin with your thread title. I ask that you change it to express which coins you are talking about.
I will put my money where my mouth is and say yes. Great Collections just auctioned off a large set of Seated Dimes. A large number of those coins had CAC stickers. It is safe to say that the owner, Ian at G.C and CAC probably looked at every coin in that collection. Not one of the three coins I won has a sticker.
It is also safe to say that the CAC stickers only played a small role in my bidding; based on how much more I had to bid. And yes I also bid on some CAC coins but lost.
There were coins in this group that I have been interested in since the Fortin Online reference book came out in 2012 but this was my first chance to get one.
There were many varieties that were in the R-5 and R-6 range. Which might make you wonder if there is even a CAC coin out there.
Having said all that. If my collecting ran in the 3 thousand to 5 thousand range rather than the 3 hundred to 5 hundred range I bet my emphasis on a sticker might rocked way up there. James
Why does a person choose to drink a Pepsi instead of a Coke?
Or Kool-Aid
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Failing CAC does NOT mean a coin is not solid for the grade.
It means JA doesn't feel it's solid for the grade. That is a significant difference.
It's also important to note CAC gets it wrong too.
Coin Photographer.
For the OP: If I take coin X and it fails CAC the first time but passes upon resubmission, is it dreck, half-dreck, or accurately graded/solid for the grade? If you vote not dreck or half dreck, at what time did the coin itself change?
CAC occasionally changes its opinion. Everyone can and does. It’s human nature.
And aesthetics matter too. A common date 62 monster toned Morgan in a 64 holder will always bring more than a 65 C coin or even a 65A coin even without a sticker. Is the buyer an idiot for buying a sticker less attractive coin with a fantasy label grade?
I think some of you have been drinking Laura’s Kool-Aid far too much. Don’t get me wrong; CAC offers a useful service but it is not the end all/be all of numismatics.
And to follow up on this, how many resubmissions are required to solidify that a coin is in fact dreck?
2? 15? 200?
Coin Photographer.
Definitely 200. Maybe the CMQ and PQ people will bless it too so you know it truly has been anointed. 😈😉
Edited: Sorry I read that as to solidify that it is NOT dreck. Oops.
I was planning on getting a CAC coin but I liked the Mustang more, so I got a Mustang and skipped the coins. I think I'm ahead.
My current registry sets:
20th Century Type Set
Virtual DANSCO 7070
Slabbed IHC set - Missing the Anacs Slabbed coins
I remember breaking my coins out of PCGS holders early 2000's. I thought holdering was a waste of time and diminished the experience of owning a coin and actually being able to hold it.
I also thought that the CAC sticker, when it first arrived on the scene was superflous and mostly a gimmick to get additional grading fees and status for a coin.
Now I can see that both graded and CAC coins definitely fetch much higher prices than non CAC and especially non holdered coins. I get it. The market is showing that the highest prices are for PCGS/CAC coins.
For me now, CAC coins mean that not only must the coin be near perfect to validate the price, but that you will probably overpay for that coin in a retail market place because sellers are demanding the highest premiums for PCGS/CAC.
I don't want to buy any coins that I am already upside down 20% or more after I buy them. From my experience, those are CAC graded coins. I don't get excited anymore to be a coin bagholder.
P.S. I just bought a raw 1912-S XF45 Barber Half on Ebay. I paid half of what holdered/cac coins are selling for. I pick up the coin every five minutes and admire it. What a damn good feeling. Just how it felt when I first starting collecting.
Bill said it better than I can. Part of numismatics is a hobby, part of it is appreciation of artistic talent and history, and part of it is marketing. As long as people are evaluating any item, you are going to have different opinions, and some people do a better job of evaluating said items over time. People make mistakes.
I buy what I like at a price I think is reasonable. I have someone who knows more about a potential purchase than I, look it over and give me an opinion before I buy it. That is all.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
.
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie-Pop?
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
I’ll never be able to answer that as I bite into it!
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
I miss that. Like a lemming, I joined the PCGS registry, and both my wallet and my Dansco have been drained.
But while a coin may be "solid for the grade", it could still fail CAC due to surface treatments that in the opinion of CAC are not acceptable, but are acceptable to the other TPG's. These surface treatments may or may not be acceptable to collectors, Each collector sets their own standards.
For ME, I prefer the coins I buy to not have had surface treatments that are not acceptable to CAC. But perhaps talking out of the other side of my mouth, I'm perfectly fine with having had silver coins that are bright and highly lustrous having been gently and quickly dipped in a way that CAC will still sticker, lol.
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
Is the "Monster toning" due to having been artificially toned? I believe that matters. So if a coin failed CAC due to AT, is that a coin you want? If so, you can always bring your collection over to Sherwin-Williams, and they'll paint it with gorgeous rainbow colors - BOTH sides too, lol.
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
That becomes a question of whether you trust PCGS on the AT. Personally, when a lot of toning is "questionable" rather than decidedly "artificial", the more opinions you get, the more likely that one of them will slap a QT on the coin.
Sometimes asking PCGS 3 times will get you three different toning opinions.
CAC just says it is better for the grade. With rare coins some of which are only known examples CAC would not matter much. I own a 1/1 seated half and it is not CAC. I had to wait 15 years for it to come up for sale and the CAC sticker or lack thereof made exactly zero difference to me in buying it.
Steve, I was more referring to the coins where I disagree with CACs decision to apply, or not apply, a sticker.
Coin Photographer.
"How exactly does a posi-trac rear-end on a Plymouth work? It just does."
Lol!
My Carson City Morgan Registry Set
Because I like it, there really is not another reason that matters. You could rephrase this question to why do you only buy PCGS and reject NGC graded coins. The replies will basically be the same, some have to have PCGS plastic for various reasons, some don't. Face it people are weird.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
>
.
Well, as funny as I can find that, all things considered, the mechanics of posi-trac are much more definable than the opinion of a single person reviewing the accuracy of a subjective grade of a coin by another company.
Unlike the posi-trac, I can count the licks, but I bet it changes almost every time!
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
I believe it.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7
No. I’m referring to coins that were egregiously color bumped that are natural by CAC’s admission. CAC is absolutely correct in not stickering them. That doesn’t make them trash.
I sent a few monster toned coins to test CAC’s acceptance of color bumping - the practice of awarding a higher grade to a coin for exceptional color. Anecdotally he seems to be willing to go a half point to point. Kudos to him for placing a limit on the egregious practice of 2 and some times 3 point swings. I don’t have access to my photo archive right now, but I bought a monster common date Morgan that was freshly graded as a 64. I personally graded it a 62. CAC said he would have stickered it as a 63. I agree with CAC’s rejection of the grade. It was submitted to flush out CAC’s treatment of toned coins. I bought it for the eye appeal and the grade was meaningless to me, and the multiple offers I received for it on eBay before selling it for north of $2k.
An artificially toned coin does not belong in a straight graded holder period and should trade as problem coins. We can all agree on that.
I believe it.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7
I would definitely buy the coin in the scenario presented. I bought eight Morgan’s from a gentleman that was moving on from his collection. Two ended up gold CAC and I believe four others green CAC. The ones that did not CAC I learned from and wouldn’t buy again for the money I paid which was market price for a 65
This reads nice but you are incorrect. The industry has adopted CAC. Even though it might be run by one person it’s much bigger than JA. Presumably you’ve sat at a dealer table and discussed a coin and if it will CAC or not? If you haven’t that’s ok you’re at the upper end of being able to grade but I can assure you’ve I’ve heard this conversation over and over again at EVERY show I’ve been to in the last few years.
I have only one coin that I think “might pass” if I send it back, and it’s not a cheap coin. I told a friend last week even if it passed upon reconsideration I wouldn’t feel right about adding it to my set since I would always know it didn’t pass the first time.
Love the purchase and the humor.
Post title changed @CaptHenway I should have updated when I added my explanation of what I consider a non-CAC coin (DNPC).
I make my purchases on eye appeal.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
Now that the question is different, there's a new answer. So likewise I have also sent most of my Morgan collection to CAC and received feedback and learned tons and now I feel I have a good CAC eye. A few coins have been denied CAC for some very minor reason such as small abrasions in non-prime locations. So if the choice is a CAC stickered coin for $1200 or a CAC-denied coin with a minor abrasion but otherwise solid-for-the-grade for $1000, I would have no problem buying the non-CAC coin and saving the money. Just like some will be happy with a $500 discount when buying a new car because it already has a scratch on the bumper. I'd never pay full price for a new car with a scratch, but discount it appropriately and there's no reason not to buy it unless it would really bug you that much. I expect most of us feel this way.
Agree
Thank you.
So a coin would be solid for the grade other than for the (minor) abrasion(s) in a non-prime area?
That reminds me of the reporter who interviewed First Lady Mrs. Lincoln at Ford’s Theater. He asked, “So, other than the assassination, how was the play?”
For me, in your example, my choice is to pay the $1,200 for the problem-free coin that is solid for the grade, rather than saving $200 for a coin that is not solid for the grade due to problem(s).
I fully agree there is no right and wrong here, just personal preferences. Collectors SHOULD collect what they want!
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
Ok, since this has come up before let’s not pretend that an actual reporter asked this question. Also, the general phrasing of the line doesn’t include the word “assassination” as leaving it left unsaid is a better joke.
https://boards.straightdope.com/t/phrase-origin-other-than-that-mrs-lincoln/290617/3
Now, for the CAC question:
I have bought coins I know failed CAC for a price I thought was commensurate with the quality I received. I don’t believe I have ever known the specific reason why a coin failed although I think I can usually guess. As others have mentioned, great toning (or otherwise excellent eye appeal) can carry the day more than the grade on the holder. For example, I might like a super-deep better-date DMPL Morgan even if it is not solid for the grade. Or, maybe I’ll buy a flashy 66 if it’s the same price as a 65+ CAC would be.
Even if the industry has adopted CAC, it doesn't mean I have to.
People make huge sums of money playing the game with plastic and stickers. I've seen it done by others, and done it myself. CAC simply provides a standard.
I could buy a coin that did not CAC for many reasons, but I'd assure you the #1 reason is that I like the coin. For example, take the below. It failed for spots as a PR67, but is one of the most heavily frosted 1938 nickels in existence, likely in the top three. Should I sell it immediately since it didn't CAC and go buy a PR67 without frost? There are some coins that simply do not come with stickers.
Coin Photographer.
Because Pepsi tastes better!
Fair. I’m doing the opposite betting on better long term liquidity and growth.
Sorry I should have been clearer, in my example both coins are solid for the grade. Prior post updated.