Options
Market Observations
crypto79
Posts: 8,623 ✭
I have been taken aback by the quality of collections that have come up for sale in the last couple of years as have others. What strikes me is the market shift towards absolute quality and this is really the first generation of this coming to term. The greats of past tended to focus on obtainable completeness first and grade second such as Eliasberg sometimes had a VF next to a MS67. Today's greats seem to hold out for the best of the best and have put together runs that have never been bettered in the past. As they come up it makes me think how history will judge the current group of collectors, is a Simpson not better than Col Green? His coins appear to be.
Also this focus on quality brings to light the complex pricing structure coins enjoys and suffers from. One of the cool things about coins is that I can have the same coins but as a fraction of the cost as a very rich person. While only rich people can ever own a Van Gogh, the condition relative price structure means that even modest (relative) budgeted individuals can own million dollar coins for a fraction of the cost in a fraction of the grade such as 1796 Quarters, Half Dismes, High Reliefs, 1878s halfs ect. The amazing PCGS MS68 1875p Trade dollar might be worth a quarter of a million, but my Choice AU55 CAC is about $2250, a 100x difference into unobtainable.
One looks at the current rabid competition at the very top by these (quality at all cost) high end collectors and one sees wild return on investments. These price increases in addition to the market appreciation in conjunction with the overall increase commodities and general inflation make most of us consider coins to be pretty solid investments even if many say it doesn't matter. My question is really how much of the TOP end market really effects the middle and bottom end? Prevailing logic would make one think that a rising tide raises all boats but I would argue the more special coins become valued the more normal stuff becomes "not special" and if we are really honest the majority of stuff isn't super special. Anyone try to sell a AG (non-cac) 16d dime in NGC plastic recently, that person would think the coin market is in the dumps while someone who owns a PCGS 67FB CAC (or what ever top pop is) coin might see a record price for the issue. If there are correlations, why are they headed in opposite directions? Are the old saying of "beats the stock market" really for collector coins or are they really talking about trophy coins? Anyone know any young mega collectors? Does the market cap really support all of these hundred million dollar collections coming to market considering the middle layer doesn't really contribute directly except by increasing a few big time dealers bottom lines to empower them to go after a few coins?
The more I look at it the more it appears that the top layer of the market is almost a completely separate market with their own dealer networks and rules. ebbs and flows form one hasn't seemed to impact the other in at least a few years if they were ever truly integrated. I think a price chart with historical data that mapped 10 blue (collar) chip coins adjusted for inflation and crossed against the ratio to metal price (silver and gold) would be interesting. A lot of work but I would say something like this with popularity but not key status over 30 years. Might draft something up while at the lake house.
1864 L penny F
1921 dime vg8
27s Quarter in VF
1932s quarter in F
1938d Half VF
1949s Half MS63
1881s 1$ MS64
1884cc 1$ MS62
1921 1$ AU55
1927 1$ Ms63
I wonder if one mapped those if they would should market growth after striping out inflation and commodities factors.
Also this focus on quality brings to light the complex pricing structure coins enjoys and suffers from. One of the cool things about coins is that I can have the same coins but as a fraction of the cost as a very rich person. While only rich people can ever own a Van Gogh, the condition relative price structure means that even modest (relative) budgeted individuals can own million dollar coins for a fraction of the cost in a fraction of the grade such as 1796 Quarters, Half Dismes, High Reliefs, 1878s halfs ect. The amazing PCGS MS68 1875p Trade dollar might be worth a quarter of a million, but my Choice AU55 CAC is about $2250, a 100x difference into unobtainable.
One looks at the current rabid competition at the very top by these (quality at all cost) high end collectors and one sees wild return on investments. These price increases in addition to the market appreciation in conjunction with the overall increase commodities and general inflation make most of us consider coins to be pretty solid investments even if many say it doesn't matter. My question is really how much of the TOP end market really effects the middle and bottom end? Prevailing logic would make one think that a rising tide raises all boats but I would argue the more special coins become valued the more normal stuff becomes "not special" and if we are really honest the majority of stuff isn't super special. Anyone try to sell a AG (non-cac) 16d dime in NGC plastic recently, that person would think the coin market is in the dumps while someone who owns a PCGS 67FB CAC (or what ever top pop is) coin might see a record price for the issue. If there are correlations, why are they headed in opposite directions? Are the old saying of "beats the stock market" really for collector coins or are they really talking about trophy coins? Anyone know any young mega collectors? Does the market cap really support all of these hundred million dollar collections coming to market considering the middle layer doesn't really contribute directly except by increasing a few big time dealers bottom lines to empower them to go after a few coins?
The more I look at it the more it appears that the top layer of the market is almost a completely separate market with their own dealer networks and rules. ebbs and flows form one hasn't seemed to impact the other in at least a few years if they were ever truly integrated. I think a price chart with historical data that mapped 10 blue (collar) chip coins adjusted for inflation and crossed against the ratio to metal price (silver and gold) would be interesting. A lot of work but I would say something like this with popularity but not key status over 30 years. Might draft something up while at the lake house.
1864 L penny F
1921 dime vg8
27s Quarter in VF
1932s quarter in F
1938d Half VF
1949s Half MS63
1881s 1$ MS64
1884cc 1$ MS62
1921 1$ AU55
1927 1$ Ms63
I wonder if one mapped those if they would should market growth after striping out inflation and commodities factors.
0
Comments
<< <i>My question is really how much of the TOP end market really effects the middle and bottom end? >>
With historically disproportionate wealth pooling at the top, I doubt that the super high end of collecting will affect the middle and lower levels anytime soon.
2009, hence no crazy run ups in prices on most of those collectibles. The uber rich are chasing the same top 1%....hence rising prices. As a rule, there are just too many coins for too few typical collectors to buy. And dealers
can't inventory all of them....even if they try.
<< <i>Take out Eliasberg's vf and you are left with a Gardner like collection, I bet most of Gardner's unattributed top coins are probably from Eliasberg or other great named collectors. >>
Eliasberg's collection is not really a good example since a large portion of it was bought intact from Clapp (or his estate). The collection was formed before 1960, an era when there was not the super emphasis on grade rarity. This was the age of Unc. and BU.
<< <i>Should we say "Thanks to Set Registry?"
I think it is more the TPG them selves. With "greatness" quantifiable, it makes it easier to target and pursue.
<< <i>Take out Eliasberg's vf and you are left with a Gardner like collection, I bet most of Gardner's unattributed top coins are probably from Eliasberg or other great named collectors. >>
While it is a fools errand to down play Eliasberg's collection, there were plenty of non-top pop type stuff. No doubt Gardner has some of his coins in it but he also has a lot of other great collections represented in his. As the generations have focused on quality they have in effect distilled the great coin out of the previous great collections to IMO unparalleled quality concentrations. Look at our own TDN, he not only built most likely the finest seated dollar, trade dollar set and is currently working early dollars with a pretty good start. Few Eliasberg, few carter there and add in a Norweb and collections really start to shape up.
I think we are a cross roads where the opened up access and people were able to buy up the best. I am not sure a Newman could build his set today and I am not sure a Gardner like collector will be able do the same tomorrow.
If the top coins increase in price, then other coins will increase in price as well over time. The coins that have a better chance to increase in price are those that others desire - eye appealing and beautiful looking coins. A rare 1916D in AG that is dark looking or damaged doesn't have any sex appeal to many collectors other than filling a hole to complete his or her set. Whereas other collectors that acquire a coin that is absolutely drop dead beautiful will attract many buyers. So clearly there is a different market for coins. I believe that if a collector buys great looking eye appealing coins that are originally toned with great surface quality and a good strike will always do well over time. These are the coins that tend to increase in price. Maybe more important then price, over time if you can complete your set then you have a set that you will be very happy with and proud to own.
I have always doubted this assumption and its logic. if prices are charted via sales, how can a coin increase in price if it doesn't sell?? because the best coin of the same type sold for more money?? also, if the "bottom" is unable to buy due to economic reasons, which some members seem to agree are real, why would it be a good thing that coins are now more expensive??
I won't even get into "sex appeal" or "sexy" coins, that's just ridiculous.
The one comment I will make is that these high flying collectors might be in for a rude awakening. The market for these high coins is surprisingly thin. Yes, most any dedicated numismatist were love to own some of these coins, but there are precious few of us who can afford to buy them. All it takes is for a few of the big players to change their tastes and move on to something else or pass on, and things could change rapidly.
Even the prime rarities that bring millions of dollars at auction are less liquid than some of their owners might believe. It takes a lot of marketing and "right" people involved in the auction to get back that several million dollars you have plunked down for a prime rarity. Sometimes the seller has to try a couple times before he or she gets a sale. Coins do not enjoy the liquidity of the stock market. You can't divide them into shares, and you don't have millions upon millions of buyers ready to pony up with they are offered for sale. They also do have organized markets, like stock exchanges.
<< <i>
<< <i>Should we say "Thanks to Set Registry?"
I think it is more the TPG them selves. With "greatness" quantifiable, it makes it easier to target and pursue. >>
Shh! You've uncovered the TPG's marketing ploy, "Grade it, make a competition out of it in the open, and rake in the cash!"
<< <i>I agree that there is a bifurcated market with very high prices for the rare, high grade pieces and stagnant to lower prices for the rest of the numismatic markets.
The one comment I will make is that these high flying collectors might be in for a rude awakening. The market for these high coins is surprisingly thin. Yes, most any dedicated numismatist were love to own some of these coins, but there are precious few of us who can afford to buy them. All it takes is for a few of the big players to change their tastes and move on to something else or pass on, and things could change rapidly.
Even the prime rarities that bring millions of dollars at auction are less liquid than some of their owners might believe. It takes a lot of marketing and "right" people involved in the auction to get back that several million dollars you have plunked down for a prime rarity. Sometimes the seller has to try a couple times before he or she gets a sale. Coins do not enjoy the liquidity of the stock market. You can't divide them into shares, and you don't have millions upon millions of buyers ready to pony up with they are offered for sale. They also do have organized markets, like stock exchanges. >>
Agreed. High end coins are a market catering to a different group of people. There are possibilities for great windfalls and great losses there. They do not correlate well for the rest of the market. There is minimal "trickle down" effect here, which I guess is typical for economics.
When i attended the 1999 Childs auction in New York City, I was stunned to discover that Childs collected primarily proof coins (other than the 1804 silver dollar) and only had ONE coin in MS-67! He hardly owned any coins in gem mint state grades.
i made sure I bought that single finest coin AFTER the auction for LESS than it sold at the auction. the 1880 G $1 in PCGS MS-67, now with a CAC sticker.
I realized that the collector of the day did not collect PQ mint state coins as much as proof coins. Today, collectors now understand that mint state coins which were NOT minted to look nice, became the coin to buy because they were so much harder to locate than the proof coins which WERE made to look nice!
The first dealer to really promote this concept of buying finest graded mint state coins to this extent was Jay Parrino back in the mid 1990's.
I learned a long time ago that having the #1 spot in a registry would be a fluke for me. The year I bought a 1796 No Stars quarter eagle in MS-62 was case in point. I caught "the whales" by surprise. I was #1 ATS for the gold type set 1795 to 1933, but that was one time occurrence that will not be repeated. To get to be #1 again I'd have upgrade as many coins as possible to high grade Proof pieces, which is not going to happen.
<< <i>Good observation. >>
I would say the difference is both markets were on their way up just a different paces, today I almost see 3 markets all behaving independently.
Top end going up and up
Classic Collector coins that are all there, typically with CAC seem to be priced higher and higher every month but their liquidity seems to be headed down. Trying to get cash offers for strong coins at strong levels is a lot harder than it was 2-3 years ago at least in the circles I keep up with. Obviously blowing them out isn't too hard but I see a disparity between the level of effort for the competition to buy and the competition to sell growing in opposite directions.
Stuff, album fillers, generic NGC, stripped PCGS, not sure how that stuff ever moves.
Much easier than some of the "stuff" you're searching for.
Humbly submitted.
Good day
<< <i>Classic Collector coins that are all there, typically with CAC seem to be priced higher and higher every month but their liquidity seems to be headed down. >>
This statement is an oxymoron. If prices really are going up, then liquidity should not be going down. As a dealer I found that practically anything sold eventually if you offered it long enough. The question was were you willing to leave your money tied up in for a long period of time, or were you ready to take your lumps and get you money out of it and get it working again?
There is a CAC bubble of sorts. At the Baltimore coin show I spotted a Type I gold dollar in a MS-63 holder with a CAC sticker that was a problem coin. When I put the 10X on it I spotted an "L" scratched in above Ms. Liberty's head. This is not a lone example. CAC is good, but not perfect. When more people learn that perhaps they will stop thinking that the green bean walks on water.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>The money's got to go somewhere. >>
Meaning ?
It could just as easily go out of the coin market.
<< <i>Interesting discussion.
When i attended the 1999 Childs auction in New York City, I was stunned to discover that Childs collected primarily proof coins (other than the 1804 silver dollar) and only had ONE coin in MS-67! He hardly owned any coins in gem mint state grades.
i made sure I bought that single finest coin AFTER the auction for LESS than it sold at the auction. the 1880 G $1 in PCGS MS-67, now with a CAC sticker.
I realized that the collector of the day did not collect PQ mint state coins as much as proof coins. Today, collectors now understand that mint state coins which were NOT minted to look nice, became the coin to buy because they were so much harder to locate than the proof coins which WERE made to look nice!
The first dealer to really promote this concept of buying finest graded mint state coins to this extent was Jay Parrino back in the mid 1990's. >>
Maybe Parrino advertised this concept to the hilt with 20th century rarities, but numerous dealers I followed in the mid-1970's into the 1980's were quite aware that rarer mint state coins were incredible bargains, especially 19th century material. I started looking for choice and gem S mint seated coins of the 1860's in 1975. I certainly didn't make up this idea. The March 1975 Jame Stack collection of quarters and halves was my first big time auction...and it was specifically to go after the gem 1867-s quarter. Kam Ahwash, Bill Grayson, Joel Rettew/David Hall, Gene Edwards, Maurice Rosen, James Pryor, Jim Halperin, Steve Ivy, The Kansas City boyz, Kagins, Kleinman, Reed Hawn, Robert Emmer, and numerous others were already into the hunt. If anything, the bigger and sharper dealers like SIR and NERCG were after the rare uncs, not as much the proofs. Look at Jim Halperin's rare coin fund 1 built from 1975-1978. When it auctioned off in 1980 it was loaded with underrated rare date uncs that he bought cheaply years earlier. Taxay's early 1970's work was the first hard copy book I ran across that mentioned how rare in unc so many 19th century silver coins were. For me back then, it was uncs before proofs, especially for the low mintage Philly dates of 1863-1872. Even in the 1970's I was looking for unc 1880 shield nickels....couldn't care less about the "rare" and more costly proofs of 1877 or 1878. Funny thing, I never found an unc 1880 nickel back then. It was just too gosh darn rare. Many felt they didn't even exist. It only took about a few hours of research to figure out that uncs/business strikes and not proofs were where the incredible values of the 1970's. I only wish I was around in the 1960's to pick them off before everyone else.
CAC is nothing more than a means for JA to identify coins he would be willing to buy at the present and immediate future. It will always be at least this. And hence it's not going away. The sliding of grading standards from 1997-2008 created this issue. Don't put the blame on CAC or anyone else. Something had to be done to re-level the playing field. Since the TPG's didn't do much about it, a private group did.
These are good things
<< <i>CAC. CAC. CAC. You would think CAC rules the world. According to CAC's own statistics, they have only evaluated 6Million coins in their entire existence. 6M of anything is fairly insignificant. It would be considered an illiquid small company stock with only 6M free floating shares. In the universe of billions of coins, 6M is a niche. CAC in the scheme of things, is a one person company. >>
6 MILL coins is a large % of the current number of coins residing in slabs. And if you consider the fact that a much higher number of expensive coins (ie >$500 - $1K) find their way to CAC, it's quite significant. The top graders and dealers now have a good feel for what will and won't earn a sticker. Anything that can sticker and earn a premium for it is probably going to be sent in. While I don't like the current situation, CAC does rule the top end and more expensive coin market. If there are only 25-35 MILL coins currently living in slabs, 6 MILL is a good-sized number once you take away all the bulk graded coins that don't matter much (ASE's, AGE's, moderns, low end gold, common date silver dollars, etc.). The best 6 MILLION coins of the entire coin market is very significant. If all of Gardner and Newman went to CAC what does that tell you? If the grading "legacies" from the 1998-2008 era get cleaned up then CAC won't matter so much. Until that day....we wait.
<< <i>"Stuff, album fillers, generic NGC, stripped PCGS, not sure how that stuff ever moves. "
Much easier than some of the "stuff" you're searching for.
Humbly submitted.
Good day
Don't disagree with any of the posts so far, but especially agree with the above. Of course, "stuff" and "album fillers" will move if it's priced right. Start at face value, for example. Would you be a buyer of a circ album of Peace dollars at face? I sure would, yet not long ago a question was posted on the board "why would anyone collect circ Peace dollars." I would and do, when I can get them for a price relative to silver that seems reasonable, the cheaper the better of course, while still looking for a quality circ piece that isn't cleaned, ugly or undesirable. This is the fun and challenge of collecting on a normal (not extremely or even moderately wealthy) collector's budget. If bought right, such precious metal pieces are easy sells (for whatever the prevailing precious metals price is) if you find you need money more than the coin. That's how "that stuff moves." I just collect it, don't have to or try to make a living out of it, so I don't have to worry about day-to-day liquidity issues as much.
<< <i>
<< <i>CAC. CAC. CAC. You would think CAC rules the world. According to CAC's own statistics, they have only evaluated 6Million coins in their entire existence. 6M of anything is fairly insignificant. It would be considered an illiquid small company stock with only 6M free floating shares. In the universe of billions of coins, 6M is a niche. CAC in the scheme of things, is a one person company. >>
6 MILL coins is a large % of the current number of coins residing in slabs. And if you consider the fact that a much higher number of expensive coins (ie >$500 - $1K) find their way to CAC, it's quite significant. The top graders and dealers now have a good feel for what will and won't earn a sticker. Anything that can sticker and earn a premium for it is probably going to be sent in. While I don't like the current situation, CAC does rule the top end and more expensive coin market. If there are only 25-35 MILL coins currently living in slabs, 6 MILL is a good-sized number once you take away all the bulk graded coins that don't matter much (ASE's, AGE's, moderns, low end gold, common date silver dollars, etc.). The best 6 MILLION coins of the entire coin market is very significant. If all of Gardner and Newman went to CAC what does that tell you? >>
Of that 6M, how many were sent in multiple times? Of those 6M, how many were rejected? Maybe only 3M slabbed coins actually have CAC stickers. With 60M coins graded between PCGS and NGC now, you really think there are only 25-35 MILL coins currently living in slabs? You think it's that low? 3M CAC of 30M total is still a small %.
<< <i>
<< <i>CAC. CAC. CAC. You would think CAC rules the world. According to CAC's own statistics, they have only evaluated 6Million coins in their entire existence. 6M of anything is fairly insignificant. It would be considered an illiquid small company stock with only 6M free floating shares. In the universe of billions of coins, 6M is a niche. CAC in the scheme of things, is a one person company. >>
6 MILL coins is a large % of the current number of coins residing in slabs. And if you consider the fact that a much higher number of expensive coins (ie >$500 - $1K) find their way to CAC, it's quite significant. The top graders and dealers now have a good feel for what will and won't earn a sticker. Anything that can sticker and earn a premium for it is probably going to be sent in. While I don't like the current situation, CAC does rule the top end and more expensive coin market. If there are only 25-35 MILL coins currently living in slabs, 6 MILL is a good-sized number once you take away all the bulk graded coins that don't matter much (ASE's, AGE's, moderns, low end gold, common date silver dollars, etc.). The best 6 MILLION coins of the entire coin market is very significant. If all of Gardner and Newman went to CAC what does that tell you? >>
Great thoughts from rr as always. Having a very expensive piece (relatively) meet with CAC's approval is now not unlike how PCGS/NGC are and have historically been viewed with regard to any expensive coin that, should it be all that it appears to be (let's say, a gem 1916 standing lib quarter as an example) why isn't it in PCGS/NGC plastic? Now we've added another qualifier -- it's a gem 1916 Standing Lib in PCGS/NGC plastic -- has it met the CAC standard as well?
I'm not referring to the small day to day fluctuations, I'm referring to market corrections.
coinzip.com
Meaning ?
It could just as easily go out of the coin market.
I do agree with originalisbest, that there are still lots of us who actually still collect nice circulated coins with the intention of upgrading as we go.
When the stock market comes unglued after QE gets cut off, the money's got to go somewhere. After the dust settles in a scramble for liquidity, the money's got to go somewhere. I still see the economics of forming a nice collection of circulated coins via occasional upgrades over time as viable.
Timing is sometimes important, and when markets change, opportunities happen, and the opportunities won't all be in the high-end market.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>today I almost see 3 markets all behaving independently.
Top end going up and up
Classic Collector coins that are all there, typically with CAC seem to be priced higher and higher every month but their liquidity seems to be headed down. Trying to get cash offers for strong coins at strong levels is a lot harder than it was 2-3 years ago at least in the circles I keep up with. Obviously blowing them out isn't too hard but I see a disparity between the level of effort for the competition to buy and the competition to sell growing in opposite directions.
Stuff, album fillers, generic NGC, stripped PCGS, not sure how that stuff ever moves. >>
I generally agree with the 3 market concept. Re: Classic collector coins, I'm not sure about the pricing/liquidity aspect, but where are they? Slabbed and in auctions or eBay, I guess, because you don't find many nice mid or upper grade early walkers, Barbers, Indian, or large cents at shows anymore.
I think neither.
I hope collectors ( or dealers for that matter) dont mistake "investing in coins" coins as a rival for investing in stocks when you talk about the long term.
Unless maybe you are a truly long term collector like Newman and the coins he had and can put them away for 50-70 years.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
The arrival of the TPGs was the key to this, resulting in increased liquidity and confidence. CAC is part of the maturation. It's all a big experiment really. Set Registries are rather more powerful than anyone would have guessed.
I agree that the market is probably stratifying more (it always has been to some extent), but it would be a mistake to think the entire market is well-represented here on the forums. I think we're significantly skewed toward the more academic, professional, and wealthy portion of the collector base.
<< <i>re the statement I made on CAC, I was in error. CAC claims to have graded over 550,000 coins, not 6M. 550,000 out of RR's #'s of 30M coins is 2%, not the 20% based on my bad memory. RR, has does that change your thoughts? >>
Yeah, I thought that number was a little too good to be true. For CAC to have done 6 MILL coins in 5-6 years they'd have to be cranking out coins like the top tier TPG's.
It changes my earlier post. 2% is not much at all. But, CAC is still the gold standard in the current market. Without a sticker the seller is potentially leaving 10-30% on the table for any coin valued over $1,000....assuming the seller is not asking CAC prices for unstickered coins and getting it. Even if CAC were to go away tomorrow the idea that 40-60% of the slabbed coin market in general doesn't meet their standards is not going to be forgotten any time soon by the coin buying public. Buyers are going to wonder if the coin being offered to them is in top 40% or the lower 60%.
<< <i>I don't see CAC as part of the maturation process. They are around because coin grading took a wrong turn around 1996-1998. The grading of the Pittman and Eliasberg coins was quite liberal compared to what had come in the decade before them. It only loosened further from there. While there was a need to grade more coins in the supergrades (ie MS67-MS68) there wasn't a need to make MS63's and MS64's into MS65's and AU's into MS61 to MS63. If today's standards were selected in 1986-1987 and maintained we'd have been fine. But, that's not what happened. I suspect that the current system won't hold up and a 3rd set of grading standards will evolve out of this current set in the next 5-10 years. If I were a TPG I'd be working towards a system that didn't require coins to be stickered to fetch top dollar. I wouldn't want the success of my product to be tied to a 3rd party's opinion. >>
And what a pain the butt it is for those of us who have purchased good coins to have them all re-graded at considerable cost ... and it galls us further when you run into coins that have CAC stickers that don't deserve them.
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't see CAC as part of the maturation process. They are around because coin grading took a wrong turn around 1996-1998. The grading of the Pittman and Eliasberg coins was quite liberal compared to what had come in the decade before them. It only loosened further from there. While there was a need to grade more coins in the supergrades (ie MS67-MS68) there wasn't a need to make MS63's and MS64's into MS65's and AU's into MS61 to MS63. If today's standards were selected in 1986-1987 and maintained we'd have been fine. But, that's not what happened. I suspect that the current system won't hold up and a 3rd set of grading standards will evolve out of this current set in the next 5-10 years. If I were a TPG I'd be working towards a system that didn't require coins to be stickered to fetch top dollar. I wouldn't want the success of my product to be tied to a 3rd party's opinion. >>
And what a pain the butt it is for those of us who have purchased good coins to have them all re-graded at considerable cost ... and it galls us further when you run into coins that have CAC stickers that don't deserve them. >>
And you never seem to fail to let us know about them...
<< <i> << I don't see CAC as part of the maturation process. They are around because coin grading took a wrong turn around 1996-1998. The grading of the Pittman and Eliasberg coins was quite liberal compared to what had come in the decade before them. It only loosened further from there. While there was a need to grade more coins in the supergrades (ie MS67-MS68) there wasn't a need to make MS63's and MS64's into MS65's and AU's into MS61 to MS63. If today's standards were selected in 1986-1987 and maintained we'd have been fine. But, that's not what happened. I suspect that the current system won't hold up and a 3rd set of grading standards will evolve out of this current set in the next 5-10 years. If I were a TPG I'd be working towards a system that didn't require coins to be stickered to fetch top dollar. I wouldn't want the success of my product to be tied to a 3rd party's opinion. >> And what a pain the butt it is for those of us who have purchased good coins to have them all re-graded at considerable cost ... and it galls us further when you run into coins that have CAC stickers that don't deserve them. >> And you never seem to fail to let us know about them... >>
Just as much as you never fail to make us all aware you are CAC's biggest promoter
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't see CAC as part of the maturation process. They are around because coin grading took a wrong turn around 1996-1998. The grading of the Pittman and Eliasberg coins was quite liberal compared to what had come in the decade before them. It only loosened further from there. While there was a need to grade more coins in the supergrades (ie MS67-MS68) there wasn't a need to make MS63's and MS64's into MS65's and AU's into MS61 to MS63. If today's standards were selected in 1986-1987 and maintained we'd have been fine. But, that's not what happened. I suspect that the current system won't hold up and a 3rd set of grading standards will evolve out of this current set in the next 5-10 years. If I were a TPG I'd be working towards a system that didn't require coins to be stickered to fetch top dollar. I wouldn't want the success of my product to be tied to a 3rd party's opinion. >>
And what a pain the butt it is for those of us who have purchased good coins to have them all re-graded at considerable cost ... and it galls us further when you run into coins that have CAC stickers that don't deserve them. >>
And you never seem to fail to let us know about them... >>
You are correct because they are out there, and rather than slamming CAC critics you should urge CAC to tighten up its standards. You of all people should have more clout than any of us.
When you put yourself on a very high pedestal it should come as no surprise when people point out the flaws.
<< <i>CAC makes mistakes but I assume JA will make it right by buying them at auction right???? I know PCGS buys coins which are mistakes to remove them from the market. >>
He will buy them or make adjustments when the problems are pointed out to him. I will give CAC full credit for that.
As for the auctions, it would be instructive if you were to sit down and view some auction lots. It would be a good education for you, if you are familiar with grading.
Waiting for this for a long time. Not sure today's TPG companies would do it to kill their current revenue if they cannot do it right. Usually, dinosaur reacts slow and be taken over by other smart species. Considering bean and re-consideration, isn't CAC eating some TPG's lunch now?
<< <i>> If I were a TPG I'd be working towards a system that didn't require coins to be stickered to fetch top dollar.
Waiting for this for a long time. Not sure today's TPG companies would do it to kill their current revenue if they cannot do it right. Usually, dinosaur reacts slow and be taken over by other smart species. Considering bean and re-consideration, isn't CAC eating some TPG's lunch now? >>
did you read the thread? CAC is insignificant. 2% of the TPG non-modern volume (moderns make up HALF the TPG's volume), 1% of their total volume. CAC is overrated, over revered, over talked about