Historical CAC Gold & Green Sticker Rates Across All Series
TomB
Posts: 21,335 ✭✭✭✭✭
This isn't a thread about a particular submission to CAC or a GTG and/or sticker status for a group of coins. Rather, this is about what each of us surmises might be the easiest or toughest series to obtain a gold or green CAC sticker when submitting coins to their service.
CAC offers a searchable database that allows anyone to find the raw numbers of stickered coins for individual coin issues or even entire series. The stickered coins can also be broken down into those receiving green or gold stickers. This is fabulous raw data to be able to have and study. Additionally, CAC has listed on their website the percentage of coins submitted that have passed CAC evaluation (received a sticker) and using these bits of data we can get a rough estimate as to the numbers of coins submitted to the service over the years.
The most recent data for sticker rate on the CAC website shows that "CAC has stickered approximately 43% of the coins received". It would make sense if this "approximately 43%" represented the sum of both gold and green stickers awarded. Recently, I downloaded the data for each series that CAC examines for a sticker and added up the totals for green and gold stickers. The total number of coins CAC stickered is approximately 620,000 and this represents about 98.5% green stickers and 1.5% gold stickers. If the 620,000 stickered coins represent ~43% of the submissions then CAC has received and evaluated around 1,442,000 coins since it opened its doors.
Some of the data from CAC reinforces what I have witnessed in my own submissions while other parts were a surprise. In my experience the following observations have held true-
1) The low hanging fruit for gold stickers has always been proof Franklin halves as well as gem, late date Mercs and Buffalos (especially the 1938-D Buff). I have written for years (literally, years) that if you want to earn a gold CAC sticker then the best way might be to submit a mass of these pieces. The CAC data are consistent with this.
2) Silver commems always seemed to have a relatively high percentage of gold stickers, as well.
3) I have read many times that receiving any CAC sticker on gold coinage is more difficult than other series, though this has not been the case for the pieces I have submitted. I can't comment on the overall success rate for gold coinage, but the CAC data shows that gold CAC stickers are awarded at a lower overall rate than the rate for all coins combined.
4) JA told me directly at one point that early Federal silver likely had the lowest rate of stickers. This would include all silver series prior to the advent of Capped Bust halves. So, essentially, 1807 and earlier.
5) I always assumed that Lincoln cents (specifically Wheat cents) and Morgan dollars would have the highest rates of sticker success and the lowest rates of gold stickers since they are both widely collected series and have been popular for decades. Therefore, the grading standards for those series are more likely to be something akin to "nearly universal", which would make grading outliers less likely. Unfortunately, the CAC data is not complete enough to determine their overall success rate, but the gold sticker rate for each series is low with the Lincoln cent (Wheat cents) being shockingly low for gold stickers.
6) My experience is that CAC is relatively more liberal (or PCGS and NGC relatively more conservative) in grading proof mid-century coinage and the data show a relatively high rate of gold CAC stickers for this niche. This is consistent with my observations.
I'm curious what other folks have noticed in their years of submitting coinage to CAC and/or what they have seen on the bourse or in auctions. Let's see if we can cobble together more observations.
Comments
While, generally, I wouldn't say I like when the first comment in a thread goes off topic, I think it would be a shame for us all not to take a moment to recognize that this is an exceptional example of how discussion threads are supposed to be presented.
Clear and effective thread title that leaves readers with no questions about the content of the thread. Cacmudgeons cant say they thought it would be about something else.
First paragraph expands on the title and gives a direct objective of the discussion.
Body gives context to the topic and uses specific examples of the data they are using. as the basis, as if the readers may or may not have any knowledge of it beforehand.
Author provides their own observations and gathered data sets from their own experience, using precise language to differentiate their (well informed) opinion from any demontratable facts.
Sets an expectation for the type of answers they are hoping to receive, and reminds us again what the objective is, and what we could takeaway from an educational standpoint.
These are the type of threads that typically yield the best discussions, and are the least likely to to devolve into trolling and worthless arguments. When you give your thread the best chance of success, the entire forum benefits and we all learn more as a result. Newer forum members might want to take note of how this topic is presented, and also take note of Tom's reputation here, well-respected and highly regarded as "one of guys you should listen to".
Anyway, I do apologize for the OT tangent but I felt that it was time for a reminder, as threads like this seem less frequent in recent times. PLEASE do not quote me or respond to this comment, as I want Tom's beautiful post to stay on track. If you must, send me a pm or use another thread.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
As to your post Tom, I generally agree with your points but I don’t have enough of my own submission data to compare to. With respect to your points, i can opine based on what I've seen and been told by some prominent members of the industry.
Yup, typically you can find multiples of each with gold stickers all over the bourse. In addition to the “gradeflation” theory, I suppose that the grading standards applied to two issues, specifically, might have had more substantial “adjustments” over the years. I never researched it, but the value of these coins during the old holder time period may also have an effect.
Same as above, presumably compounded with volatile market dynamics during that time period. I don’t know what commems 65/66 were trading for decades ago, but if they were expensive then many were probably held back to 64/65 to protect the populations at the time.
I believe the perceived difficulty of getting a gold coin to sticker has more to do with surface preservation and originality than it does numeric grade. I see the most gold slickers on older holdered MS saints, and circulated $20 libs. For example, Ill often see an OGH that says “VF 25” on a coin thats easily an XF. I do know of many circulated coins that are undergraded but i guess they're not undergraded enough for a gold, IMO getting a gold sticker on a circ coin is substantially harder, in any series
With respect to originality, it seems to me that JA is much more forgiving of conservation on silver than gold old. That makes sense to me, because silver is much more likely to suffer from ugly eye appeal prior to conservation, so it actually is improved afterwards. Conversely, the gold was likely more attractive with its original patina, and was conserved just for the purpose of a possible upgrade. Your unusually high success rate is clearly a testament of your grading knowledge and preferences as a collector, and superior ability to identify unmolested surfaces.
Given the mintages and survival figures, its no surprise that Early Federal coins circulated extensively. These were utility coins that had tough lives, it stands to reason that very few are original enough for his liking.
Another plausible theory for the Morgans is that theryre easier to grade due to the size, and the “standards” haven’t changed all thart much over the years. Your theory seems quite logical as well, but someone whos been in the game for decades like yourself would probably have more insight on this one.
Another spitball to put out there is that those issues have commonplace disqualifications for stickering related to designations. With Lincoln cents, how often is a “Red” from the ’80s (holders poorly sealed) no longer red? With Morgans, how many old DMPL’s and PL’s would not get the designation if resubmitted? Also, how many old holdered Morgans have pvc residue on them?
There is one e IMPORTANT caveat to keep in mind for this topic that can be interpreted as “gradeflation”-
For better or worse, the market dynamics and fluctuating coin values have a tremendous influence on the way coins were graded. Inexpensive coins don’t get much time or attention in the grading room, and are more likely to be given a shortchanged grade if the spread to the next was substantial. If you had a really nice 64/65 liner and submitted it in ’88 (when a common 65 was $500+), you were MUCH less likely to get 65 if you submitted it in the middle of the 90’s (now a ~$100) coin. Any experienced grader/dealer can confirm this. In addition to that, net grading was much more prevalent. We all know the term "market acceptable", which is a good example to illustrate that the demands of the market have an influence on grading practices. Toned coins may have been knocked down a grade because at that time, "market acceptable" for the majority meant WHITE. A solid gem would get knocked back to 64 because the toning was too dark, and ironically that same toning would now add a point with today's standards....gold bean here we come 😅.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
This is exactly the first thought I had as well. I've held the belief for a long time that big money coins get a lot more scrutiny in the grading rooms than your run of this mill 38-D Buffalo.
I also think both PCGS and NGC has it in their interest to protect assigned grade & population value.
LORD KNOWS they under-grade all my submitted coins by AT LEAST one point.
Click on this link to see my ebay listings.
One of the reliable gold sticker areas I found was old holder coins with little upside; say Buffalo nickels, common dates in MS65. They are focused on reinforcing the perception that they are strict so even if the old holder coins are not "A" coins in the next grade up they are willing to give them gold stickers if they are no problem and believable in the next grade up.
If you sent in a large group of "sliders" in AU55 and AU58 holders that is probably going to be a controversial area for them to assign a gold sticker to especially if there is a big spread in the next grade up. And no dice if you have an AU58 with a strong argument being that it is MS60 or better if it has any real problems as they hate abrasions, hairlines or marks that could be seen as turn-offs to connoisseur owners.
I've seen far more late date Mercury dimes with a gold sticker than any other coin type.
Here's a curious gold CAC example from my collection. Curious because a gold CAC sticker on an AU58 coin
should mean that it's a mint state coin. I think it's properly graded as AU58.
PCGS AU58 CAC gold
I don’t think for a minute that CAC would award gold stickers to coins such as common date Buffalo nickels graded MS65 under the circumstances you outlined. In addition to that, such a practice would have the opposite effect from reinforcing the perception that they’re strict.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the excellent analysis. Here are my comments:
The last gold sticker percentage success rate I saw published by CAC was .5% of all coins submitted. Not sure how that translates to your 1.5% of the total.
1 - no argument here. These three series represent the majority of my non-commem gold stickered coins.
2 - yes and no. Some commems have a high percentage of gold stickers (Iowa) while others are virtually impossible to find (Norse - 0, Lafayette - 1, Monroe - 2, Hawaiian - 5).
Thanks,
Tim
*edited to remove the all CAPS cut and paste
Incredible post.
I will say that the data seems to corroborate what has been discussed at length with the trends of what JA likes or dislikes.
@PeakRarities also has a lovely explanation.
As far as mid-century Proof coinage goes, I’ve been of the opinion that CAC awards originality whereas NGC and PCGS are simply more technical graders. That could explain why a lot of these coins sticker.
Coin Photographer.
Thank you for the kind shout-out @PeakRarities.
I had an especially intense night of fencing that ended late, so my initial post was made at around 3:45 AM this morning. I don't normally write threads at that time, which meant there were a few thoughts that I wanted to include that simply slipped my mind. However, the terrific responses to this thread have jogged my memory a bit.
I will expand upon some of my points and will give them the same number as the original post in an attempt to avoid confusion.
1) @PeakRarities has pointed out potential gradeflation and @Meltdown has mentioned that these issues might have gotten less scrutiny (in other words, a less thorough vetting process) in the grading room. I happen to agree that both of these issues are valid to an extent, but of course we don't know how much they affect the data.
My opinion is that proof Franklin halves and gem, late date Mercs and Buffalos had a perfect storm going for them with respect to gold CAC stickers. That is, back in the early years of the TPGs (around 1986-1993 or so) these were popular coins to collect and submit for certification and they had tremendous price compression between certain grades. Things like PR66 to PR67 Franklins or MS65 to MS66 late date Mercs and Buffalos had significant price compression, which meant that these PR66 or MS65 coins weren't attractive candidates for the three decades of grading arbitrage we have seen and, thus, they stayed in their original holders and graded at 1986-1993 standards instead of being broken out and regraded to more modern standards.
Another reason, again in my opinion, for the high rates of gold stickers for these series has to do with CAC policy for its first fifteen or so years in existence. During that time CAC charged pretty darn little per coin (around $10), had an exceptionally quick turnaround and did not charge the collector if the coin failed to sticker. This lessened the potential financial burden on collectors and likely spurred many otherwise low value coins to be included on submission invoices. Of course, many of the really nice coins that might have been submitted to CAC have already been submitted to CAC, which makes me believe that over time we might very well see the gold CAC sticker rate to fall.
2) Everything I wrote about proof Franklin halves and gem, late date Mercs and Buffalos largely holds true for the silver commem series. They were popular when the TPGs were new and then went into a near baseline coma state for several decades afterward. This hammered their values and might have created the greatest price compression we see within the MS grades of any classic series. There was simply little incentive to engage in arbitrage. The only exception to this would be for those wildly toned coins that have received grading bumps and large price increases over the years.
3) Again, @PeakRarities brings up something I meant to touch upon, but simply forgot to write about in the opening post. Whereas dipped silver is completely acceptable to many (most?) collectors, dealers, TPGs and CAC there is not that same level of acceptance for dipped gold. In fact, many (again, most?) folks don't even mention gold as being dipped, but rather as "processed". Processed gold has a look that I avoid like the plague and is also a look that the TPGs turned a blind eye to for decades. Therefore, many older holder gold coins are obviously processed and their details grades might be conservative, but their surfaces are destroyed. CAC falls in line much more closely with how I view gold in that they appear to reward and are looking for original surfaces on gold, which dooms an entire swath of certified gold coinage with respect to a green or gold CAC sticker.
4) JA mentioned the low sticker rate of early Federal silver to me because virtually all the pieces I have submitted have received a green CAC sticker and he was lamenting the lack of such material in any meaningful quantity within today's market.
5) I agree with the idea that a change in color can eliminate the chance of a gold, or even green sticker, for copper coins and this would be most prevalent with Lincoln Wheat cents. A quick look at the CAC numbers as of today shows that the gold sticker rate for BN Lincoln Wheat cents is more than twice the rate as for RB coins and that the rate for RB coins is greater than that for RD coins. This might support the idea of coins turning over the years in their holders and limiting gold sticker candidates.
6) I wrote that mid-century proof coinage might be viewed more liberally (when compared to all series that CAC reviews) by CAC than by NGC and/or PCGS given the gold sticker rates. As mentioned previously, the total gold CAC sticker rate is approximately 1.5% of those coins that received a CAC sticker and @PeakRarities asked for some context. If we look at the gold CAC sticker rate for proof Jefferson nickels, Mercury dimes, Washington quarters and Franklin halves combined then the data reveal a gold sticker rate of ~4.7% vs. the global gold sticker rate of ~1.5% of submitted coins. This is a three-fold increase in the rate of gold stickers handed out and many of the reasons for this are no doubt listed already in point one of this post.
Lastly, @pointfivezero noted a previous statement by CAC that around 0.5% of coins submitted received a gold CAC sticker and the question was how does this correspond to my writing of approximately 1.5% gold stickers for coins that received a sticker. Given the published CAC sticker rate of ~43% this would mean that the current data show about 0.6% of all coins submitted to CAC have been given a gold CAC sticker, which is in pretty darn good agreement to the approximately 0.5% noted from CAC.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
PVC seems to be a knock out factor often seen in rejected coins.
@pointfivezero The last post I saw from JA regarding stats were that gold was awarded to 1.5% of successful submissions.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Awesome thread @TomB! Excellent posts @PeakRarities.
We shouldn't forget original grade assigned when talking about green vs gold stickers. Nor centuries made or value.
Many now gold stickered coins came from rolls. Like Buffs and Mercs. Even Iowa commems. Graded long ago under different standards and low-price points. The 1938d Buff is a perfect example. Many ms65 gold, few 66, and are there are any in 67 or better?
19th century and earlier, especially high grade and value coins, even tougher for a gold sticker. Few exist. Not many classic coins in 66 or better with a gold sticker. Even if a lock for next grade higher. They hopefully would get two successive green beans.
Great discussion.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
The 1938d Buffalo Nickel as one of my favorite coins, and the MS68 a unicorn.
Have not checked the MS68 pop in years, but it seems to have risen sharply.
Any way to track the growth of Buff PCGS MS68 coins in the CAC era?
Assume most would have been crossover beans.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
I have a little old coin shop in San Francisco and submit a lot of coins to CAC. Ive received hundreds of gold CAC stickers over the years. I am going for a 20/20 gold cac submission. My best is 8/20. My experience has been correlated to Tom's assessment.
First category is definitely later date mercs and buffalos, followed by classic commemms, then maybe a tiny tilt towards Morgans in the 64/65 grade range. It's a free for all after that. The common denominator is on the "others" it that the coins how a wow factor with great eye appeal and original surfaces. New holders are very rare to obtain a gold sticker.
>
Thank you for the additional context, I wanted to make sure I was following logic for that one. It's a solid explanation that’s surely true to extent, but From this thread we’ve already gathered that this is not a binary topic and none of these reasons are mutually exclusive.
If the issues you mentioned were submitted in larger numbers because of availability, and affordability for the average collecto. Correct me if you disagree, but an oversimplified version of that theory, in my opinion is this-
The higher the percentage of undergraded examples of a given issue, which are redominantly housed in old holders (Rattlers, OGH, Fattys), the higher the percentage of gold CAC stickers.
I think thats irrefutable to some extent, but I really don’t know how much the populations differ from Morgan’s, walkers, or Lincoln’s. I also don’t know what the difference in affordability was either. I DO know that there were other series that by percentage, were undergraded every bit as often, if not more often as they were. (pioneer gold, for example). The distinction that sets them apart is something you had mentioned, price compression. This removes the financial incentive for resubmissions and presumably helps retain the number of undergraded/ old holdered coins. Regardless of the number of coins started out as “gold stickerable", they would be invariably upgraded before changing hands if the value proposition made sense. The number of gold stickers today is a function of a combo of both these aspects, being undergraded to begin with, and not having enough financial upside to mess around with it.
Sure, these days it can be worth it to gamble a bit and let her rip in a well publicized internet auction, but prior to the advent of marketing and photography, heaps of accessible data, and the market's realization that gold stickers are a finite resource. Prior to the gold sticker mania, however, it would be inexplicably foolish to auction it with substandard photos and hope that two advanced and deep pocketed collectors happened to be in attendance. In addition to loving the coin, they'd either have to have an appreciation for the novelty, and be willing to pay super strong for the next grade up, or find value in the novelty of the OH. Of course, if they had the coin figured as a 2 point undergrade, but in that case it actually could be and you'd be selling yourself short. OR you get the best grade that you're able to get, obviously trying recon with a minimum at first. If the coin really is special, the advanced collectors will likely still want the coin, and now you've significantly broadened the potential customer base. Poor eyesight, risk averse, registry, and dealers who are able to justify the price now. The collector in me dies a little bit inside when truly special coins are removed from GCAC holders and maxed out, but the dealer in me has no opposition.
Occasionally I'll pony up buy them when I think the coin may be at risk if I pass. Only when it's one of those coins that transcends grade. a coin so special that it would be a crime against humanity to crack it. It may cost a new car or two, but In the name of all that is holy, I had to make a sacrifice and take one for the team....
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
@TomB
Speculating on high gold sticker percentages for Franklin halves in PR grades, I wonder if the lack of CAM/DCAM standards for several decades gives the coins in undesignated grades a little “push” if you will. For example, a 1956 in say PR67 with obvious DCAM surfaces might have a little more reason to gold bean if it’s a very solid liner coin.
I have no idea if JA would factor that in to account, and such coins might make a small percentage of actual gold beans.
Coin Photographer.
Indulge us Seth, how about a pic of a gold stickered coin from your PC. Show me yours, I’ll show you mine 🧐.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I'm with @PeakRarities , Seth. You note you have received "hundreds of gold CAC stickers" but they never seem to see the light of your website. Where do they all go?
I will show you both (some) of mine:
Tim
@pointfivezero
🔥💪
@PeakRarities
What type coin do you wanna see from my gold CAC collection? I might have it.
See your last sentence that i made bold when I first replied? That was a subliminal hint for the newer holder gold sticker coin you had at a show, maybe earlier this year or last. Another hint, its numeric grade is 55, and you happened to have two of that variety there. The 55gcac blew away the 61cac, I think you'll remember what it is now.
And any others from that family, if you catch my drift 😅.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Superb post. My experience mirrors the OP and following data points. Older Mercs, most (75%) of my old NGC Whites, and a nice percentage of Morgan Ratts (62-63) have gone Gold. I notice the same thing on Commems and older Type.
There certainly is something to be said for learning from the 'Gold Search'. You start to see the PVC, the slight imperfections, and the possible problems with a much keener eye. CAC has benefits for the masses . . . I believe we all are/can become/becoming better graders when we evaluate and submit for stickers. That benefits all collectors as well as our host.
Thanks Tom . . . and responders. A great discussion that I will keep returning to . . . . . .
Drunner
Great thread.
proof buffalos. I clean swept a set when I submitted my set 12 or so years ago. I was not so fortunate with my business strike set.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
Holy crap is that thing chiseled!
One thing I would note when submitting a coin to CAC, is the condition of the holder. If it's a newer holder, say less than 20 years old, get it reholdered. There are so many holders they have light to heavy scratches. Fix it. It gives the graders a much better opportunity to view your coin.
And that, folks, is what we call a unicorn:
Tim
@SethChandler The price guide says $76k, seems fair...are you going to be in the office on Saturday?
I have a 1872-S H10C PCGS AU58 Gold CAC and wondered the same thing.
Beautiful 53 quarter!
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,...
I used to own both
Sunshine Rare Coins
sunshinecoins.com/store/c1/Featured_Products.html
Dahlonega half eagle…………….
Lnaoooo, all the pioneer guides are always good for a laugh. In fact, I think that you're the only person i know that got their slug relatively near cpg retail. Hell, I haven't seen a choice AU in any variety trade under 100k since pioneer has been my focus.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Thank you for the post.It is a really nice to learn from people with much knowledge about coins. Now I know CAC " a gold coin to sticker has more to do with surface preservation and originality than it does numeric grade " I have few gold coin with cac. The surface and luster on them is always impress me compared to one that failed.
Lmao, I know > @SethChandler said:
Simply remarkable. K-14 is such an awesome variety, even though its the most common to find in UNC (A whopping dozen give or take?. The die pair for this variety produced some high quality coins with great details and a lot of them have actual real luster, unlike many others. The MS-63+ that sold for 500k from the Brown Bros auction I went to in PA was a K-14, and they were the freshest, most lustrous and original surfaces I'd seen on one.
I'd really like to know how exactly they arrived at that grade. More or less, Im curious if it was netted down from 61 or 58/slider. I assume it was the latter, but the coin just looks silly next to ANY other pcgs 55.
Sadly, there has never been any type of consistency with pioneer grading, and I don't see any kinds of improvement. I've been pulling my hair out with some of these results, but your post reminded me that maybe I'm going about this from the wrong direction? Hmmmmm....😅
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Similar to @Crepidodera and @oih82w8 I also have an AU58 with a gold CAC sticker on it.
Mine is a Barber half and it is the only AU58 Barber half to receive a gold CAC sticker. Oddly enough, it pairs quite nicely with my MS66 Barber half, which is also the only MS66 Barber half to receive a gold CAC sticker. Both are PCGS OGH and neither had a CAC sticker when purchased.
I've told the story of my MS66 coin, but might not have written about how I found the AU58 coin. I was walking the floor of a show and noticed a Barber half in a PCGS OGH laying upside down in another dealer's case. For those unaware, this typically means the coin is sold or otherwise off the market, but I asked the dealer to see it anyway and when he handed it to me I immediately thought it was MS even though the cert said AU. I asked if it was for sale and he told me he had just purchased it and wanted to take it back home to put on his website. At that point I asked for a price and said he could treat me just like a collector in terms of pricing the coin if that made him feel better. This was a dealer I knew well and he sold it to me at a small markup. I then sent it to CAC where I expected to get a gold sticker and one afternoon JA called me and told me the coin received a gold CAC sticker. JA told me that he called because he didn't want me to think CAC had gone "soft" in its evaluation, but I told him I agreed the piece was really MS. In the opinion of CAC the coin was likely an MS62 if regraded, but we both agreed that it was worth more in the OGH with gold CAC sticker.
That was in 2011 and I still have the coin. The coin has muted, powdery luster with good luster hidden beneath unbroken patina that is medium depth steely-grey. To me, it's the type of coin that looks AU upon first glance, but when you actually look at it for a moment it then appears MS.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
This 11-D $5 was an NGC 61 CAC. I cracked it out and submitted to PCGS in hopes of a 62 upgrade. It came back AU58. CAC gave it a gold sticker. Just posting to share another example of a modern holdered coin with a gold sticker. These pics are from before it was cracked out.
Great post! The only thing I'll point out that makes it really hard to draw any conclusions from the data is selection bias. Until a few years ago, rejections were free so the data was perhaps more representative of the coin population although still I'm sure collectors and dealers would refrain from submitting obvious "C" material. Now that rejections have a decent fee associated with them, definitely only material that has a chance of stickering is being submitted for the most part or as a general rule.
I think your assumption of dealers is incorrect because I'm aware of many dealers who are not great at grading and submit in hopes of getting lucky.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
$2.5 vs $5 gold indian just hard to grade correctly
NGC MS-64 CAC green:
As 38-D Buffalo Nickels and BU Mercury Dimes being candidates for CAC gold stickers, what about some "MS65" blue Ikes in rattler holders?
being mentioned as candidates. . .
The 38d seems like the poster child for gradeflation.
Pop in 2016 was 20 according to a Stack's auction. No idea about the 68+.
Just glad I held off buying one.
Maybe my memory has faded, but the PCGS pop was much, much, much smaller and the price guide in the $8k+ for MS68
How many golds get cracked and resubmitted?
Making them even more uncommon (across every series)
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
Well, Seth honored his end so I guess it’s my turn-
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
A poster on Instagram who collects Morgan dollars noted the other day that for all the thousands of DMPL designated Morgan Dollars, only 7 have received a CAC gold sticker. PCGS alone has graded 48,028 DMPL Morgan's. That is a surprisingly tiny percentage of Morgan's with DMPL getting a gold sticker.
Charles III Album
Charles III Portrait Set
Charles IV Album
Charles IV Portrait Set
Spanish Colonial Pillar Set
63 gold
Top 10 Cal Fractional Type Set
successful BST with Ankurj, BigAl, Bullsitter, CommemKing, DCW(7), Downtown1974, Elmerfusterpuck, Joelewis, Mach1ne, Minuteman810430, Modcrewman, Nankraut, Nederveit2, Philographer(5), Realgator, Silverpop, SurfinxHI, TomB and Yorkshireman(3)
Turns out there are 991 Gold CAC Morgans that have ever been stickered to date. That number includes 28 PL's and just 7 DMPL's as mentioned above in another post.
The lowest graded gold bean Morgan is a singular VF35 example and the highest are 2 MS67 examples. Only 3 grades maintain a pop of 1 (VF35, XF45, and AU50).
The largest slices of the entire pie are, unsurprisingly, MS63's, with 354 (35.7% of the entire Morgan Gold CAC population -- 340 MS, 10 PL, 4 DMPL) and MS65's with 285 (28.8% -- 274 MS, 11 PL, 0 DMPL).
Here's my 0.10% contribution to the overall pop: 1887-P NGC MS65 Gold CAC Morgan in 4.0 Fatty:
Based on some the points we discussed earlier, there is a pretty explanation for that doesn’t require too much speculation.
DMPL standards of old were significantly more relaxed during the old holder time period, when coins were most likely to be undergraded (compared to today).
The simplicity of grading Morgans prevents them from being undergraded very often, unlike nuanced issues that we’ve come to learn more about, and had to adjust the criteria over time.
“ Double liners” , or coins that are liners with both the numeric grade and the designation, are almost always given one of the two. For sample, a coin that’s like a 64/65 depending who you ask may also be right on the line for pl/dmpl. They will probably give it the one it’s closer too, but it will end up as either a 64DMPL or a 65PL. The 65PL grade ultimately is fitting with modern standards, but if they went 64pl then it will never CAC at all.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Well, Dan. Thanks for stepping up and then stepping on all our examples.
Well done you!
Tim
I've had enough feedback from my submissions of PL/DMPL coins and the most common reason is 'mirrors not deep enough.' This feedback has been invaluable as I now feel that I know how to properly assess mirrors. Really everyone should take a CAC DMPL and study it compared to a CAC-mirror-reject DMPL. You'll see the difference. It is astonishing how many dealers do no understand the designation. I cringe every time I see a dealer claim that 'got it wrong' or 'missed the mirrors' or just go ahead and claim that non-designated coins are indeed PL.
I’m not really sure how much of an impact bias will have on the percentage of. I suppose there’s lots of buffs mercury, dimes, and old holders that would likely gold sticker but with today’s sub costs, or they might just charge up anyway but leave some room, and let someone else max it out.
I think we have been able to draw some conclusions. But of course there’s many other variables that factor into the decision. We do know, for a fact, that newer holstered GCACs are like hamsters, so we can conclude-
There is a direct correlation between the number of undergraded examples housed in old holders, and the number of coins eligible for a gold sticker to begin with.
The lower the spread between grades (price compression), the higher the likelihood that those coins got to stay in those old holders.
Basically, those the two pillars necessary for high gold CAC percentage, but of course there’s many other factors that play a part. There is an exception that makes #2 irrelevant, and that would be extremely rare coins that haven’t been sold in decades. 10 years ago, it would have been cracked and upgraded, but the market has changed dramatically since and it might be best to leave it alone .
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook