Options
Pogue and CAC
Boosibri
Posts: 11,988 ✭✭✭✭✭
While the Pogue coins were once certified by CAC, the coins were subsequently reholdered and have since lost their physical sticker. While this is clearly the case, it would also appear that the coins were not regraded, only reholdered. As such the certification numbers are still the same and a quick cert check reveals which coins were and were not certified at a previous point in time.
Not sure if this is the case for all coins but I have checked several and they appear in the CAC database with the same numbers on the current slab.
Not sure if this is the case for all coins but I have checked several and they appear in the CAC database with the same numbers on the current slab.
0
Comments
...........ohhhh SNAP!
<< <i>Everybody already knows such outstanding coins will obviously CAC >>
I would be very careful making wild assumptions
I would bet in due course, CAC will adjust it pop report to reflect the fact that the reholdered coins are not currently CAC. If you want to know which Pogue coins were CAC,then do your research sooner than later.
<< <i>The Pogue coins were re-holdered with the same cert #s with the silver labels. The reholdered coins will not be sent to CAC prior to the auction based on my knowledge.
I would bet in due course, CAC will adjust it pop report to reflect the fact that the reholdered coins are not currently CAC. If you want to know which Pogue coins were CAC,then do your research sooner than later. >>
The re holdered coins are in fact CAC, they just happen to not have the sticker currently affixed.
Latin American Collection
<< <i>this is going to cause some controversy as I think one of the reasons they were reholderd and not sent back to cac is so that the ones that were not cac'd would not be looked at negatively. >>
Interesting point. And deceptive at best if it is true.
<< <i>
<< <i>The Pogue coins were re-holdered with the same cert #s with the silver labels. The reholdered coins will not be sent to CAC prior to the auction based on my knowledge.
I would bet in due course, CAC will adjust it pop report to reflect the fact that the reholdered coins are not currently CAC. If you want to know which Pogue coins were CAC,then do your research sooner than later. >>
The re holdered coins are in fact CAC, they just happen to not have the sticker currently affixed. >>
Interesting problem here since they have been broken out and reholdered. If I were CAC, they'd no longer be guaranteed.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
https://greatcollections.com/Collections/1120/The-Keyman64-Mercury-Dime-Collection/2024-07-07
<< <i>
<< <i>The Pogue coins were re-holdered with the same cert #s with the silver labels. The reholdered coins will not be sent to CAC prior to the auction based on my knowledge.
I would bet in due course, CAC will adjust it pop report to reflect the fact that the reholdered coins are not currently CAC. If you want to know which Pogue coins were CAC,then do your research sooner than later. >>
The re holdered coins are in fact CAC, they just happen to not have the sticker currently affixed. >>
Interesting problem here since they have been broken out and reholdered. If I were CAC, they'd no longer be guaranteed.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
I always check a cert # at CAC...I've already bought a few coins that were CAC but had no green sticker on it. Wild to me why someone would peel it off, but in this instance I sense there might be a greater drama playing out that I am oblivious to?
In normal circumstance, as a seller, why you would peel the CAC sticker off of a coin still eludes me but alas, it happens (and I've bought a few that I sent to CAC to re-sticker).
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The Pogue coins were re-holdered with the same cert #s with the silver labels. The reholdered coins will not be sent to CAC prior to the auction based on my knowledge.
I would bet in due course, CAC will adjust it pop report to reflect the fact that the reholdered coins are not currently CAC. If you want to know which Pogue coins were CAC,then do your research sooner than later. >>
The re holdered coins are in fact CAC, they just happen to not have the sticker currently affixed. >>
Interesting problem here since they have been broken out and reholdered. If I were CAC, they'd no longer be guaranteed. >>
If I were interested in the coin Boosibri posted, I would take a screenshot of the CAC search that showed approval, bid away and send it to JA if I won it. TDN, your point is valid, but it may be too late to do anything about it short of reholdering the coins again with new cert numbers. I would bet money that someone has already compiled a data base with the CAC search results and screen shots to prove it.
Latin American Collection
<< <i>CAC already offers a restocking service coins coins which have been re holdered but retain the same cert. Costs $3 per coin. Seems like the situation is fitting for the Pogue coins. >>
That's what I was thinking. Since PCGS did the reholdering (same cert#) and no one could mess with the coins in the interim, CAC shouldn't have an issue with doing the cheap re-stickering.
David Akers took somewhat the same approach when auctioning the John Pittman collection. Mr. Akers very conservatively graded the collection -- such that many coins were 'undergraded' -- and left the coins in their natural state -- uncertified. It didn't seem to matter -- bidding was very spirited and the bidding fervor may have been enhanced by the perception that the coins would achieve higher grades -- when certified. For the record, the conservatively graded, uncertified John Pittman collection realized almost $30 million in 1997-1999.
With savings like that, it's tempting to load up at the sale!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Interesting problem here since they have been broken out and reholdered. If I were CAC, they'd no longer be guaranteed. >>
How is this an interesting problem? Didn't your wallet help launch CAC? Shouldn't you already know that it is standard procedure for CAC to re-sticker re-holder'ed coins that initially were approved by them for a small fee?
So I guess it's a good thing you are Not CAC
And the Pavlov dogs salivate every time they see a green oval, and they have a seizure when they see a gold one.
And the Pavlov dogs salivate every time they see a green oval, and they have a seizure when they see a gold one. <<<
<< <i>And the Pavlov dogs salivate every time they see a green oval, and they have a seizure when they see a gold on >>
what's more interesting here is why were they not re-stickered? is it just because they didn't want to go through the hassle or are they trying to de-emphasize cac approval...or something else?
<< <i>With savings like that, it's tempting to load up at the sale! >>
<< <i>Yep, if a coin doesn't have a CAC sticker, it's no good. Everyone knows that.
And the Pavlov dogs salivate every time they see a green oval, and they have a seizure when they see a gold one.
That wasn't the point of the post. The point was that much has been made of the coins originally being sent to CAC and then being reholdered with no intent to resend to CAC. Of course the point isn't that the Pogue coins need a CAC sticker for some silly reason to be validated when they are likely the finest collection ever assembled.
Latin American Collection
If I ever buy a coin from any of you please do me a favor and remove the silly sticker and residue, if applicable, before mailing it to me.
FWIW I agree with TDN because the previous holder was stickered, not the current one.
<< <i>
<< <i>Yep, if a coin doesn't have a CAC sticker, it's no good. Everyone knows that.
And the Pavlov dogs salivate every time they see a green oval, and they have a seizure when they see a gold one.
That wasn't the point of the post. >>
Exactly. But I see that some detractors have a Pavlovian response of their own when that three-letter abbreviation appears in this forum. Like one member said recently, those kind of comments bring out the worst in this forum.
I hope this kind of negativity doesn't stay at the top of the forum for the better part of a week, like the last recent one did. If it does I hope PCGS deletes it, just like the last one. The same posters often offer more that is much more worthwhile.
<< <i>I can't decide if it's sad or comical that the emphasis of quite a few here has morphed into worrying about some stupid sticker over collecting an actual coin. >>
i'm not worried about it. the coins are awesome. however, i do think it's interesting they were stickered to begin with, then re-holdered without. if you don't that is interesting...then fine. don't join the discussion.
For all those going through JA approval withdrawal on these coins...
<< <i>i'm not worried about it. the coins are awesome. however, i do think it's interesting they were stickered to begin with, then re-holdered without. >>
Maybe they thought that with the backlash they already felt over the original golden labels, that it was better not to add a distracting or controversial sticker. Or that the venerated pedigree need not be subject to an FPG's evaluation. Or that the buyers at this level wouldn't need or want CAC verification. Or, even, that they didn't want to offer some coins in the collection that didn't get JA's approval along side all those that did.
<< <i>The decision to reholder the Pogue coins -- and lose the CAC stickers in the process -- is an interesting one. If ultimately successful -- from a financial standpoint -- it would appear to take some air out of the argument that even a landmark collection needs CAC stickers in order to achieve maximum value.
David Akers took somewhat the same approach when auctioning the John Pittman collection. Mr. Akers very conservatively graded the collection -- such that many coins were 'undergraded' -- and left the coins in their natural state -- uncertified. It didn't seem to matter -- bidding was very spirited and the bidding fervor may have been enhanced by the perception that the coins would achieve higher grades -- when certified. For the record, the conservatively graded, uncertified John Pittman collection realized almost $30 million in 1997-1999. >>
Higher prices were generally realized by major coin collections (1996-2003) by going the raw coin route. The Queller coins in 2002 and some other major raw collections I attended in 2003-2004 did just fine this way. All you need is 2 bidders out of 100 that see the coin at a higher grade, and you get a much higher price. Of course, that method worked well in a rising market from 1996-2008 as rising prices can bail you out of mistakes. But after approx 2004 fewer and fewer collections chose this method. I can't think of a major raw coin sale after 2003-2004. Today, I don't think 99% of the auctions would benefit by this route. But an exceptional collection like Pogue probably always would or will. Some of the coins slabbed out of the Pittman and Eliasberg sales got some very lofty grades, some to the point of being just ridiculously overgraded. Those coins are either entombed forever or are slowly downgraded as time goes on. One thing for sure, it's not 1995-1997 any more. So much loose grading has gone under the bridge since then that it has changed everything.
<< <i>Interesting problem here since they have been broken out and reholdered. If I were CAC, they'd no longer be guaranteed. >>
As a hypothetical bidder worried about stickers, I would really only be concerned with the proofs
in that regard, practically speaking.
BustHalfBrian: <<Everybody already knows such outstanding coins will obviously CAC; the sticker (or lack of) makes no difference, IMO. >>
Although the Pogue Collection is one of the greatest of all time, hyperbole, which beginners might not recognize as hyperbole, does not contribute to education or to keeping collectors interested over the long run. Not all of the coins were CAC approved and not all of the Pogue coins are "outstanding."
Booslibri: The earlier approved<<re-holdered coins are in fact CAC, they just happen to not have the sticker currently affixed. >>
My guess, which could be wrong, is that the serial numbers may continue to be entered on the CAC site, for a long time, for the purpose of determining whether individual coins in this first Pogue sale were CAC approved. As for coins in future Pogue sales, I do not know whether any of these will be sent to CAC before they are auctioned.
TDN: << If I were CAC, they'd no longer be guaranteed. >>
I do not completely understand TDN's point here. If a coin, which is CAC approved, is just re-holdered, with the same PCGS grade, then I believe that CAC will still pay just as much for it as CAC would before it was "reholdered," in this case. The purpose of the latest reholdering related to the reflectivity and aesthetics of the labels, and was not related to the grades of the coins.
Keyman: <<It is my understanding that they were regraded in the fall ... >>
Keyman said this in another thread. Maybe it is not a good idea to publicly repeat remarks from private conversations unless Keyman is really sure and he has the permission of the source. Did Keyman have such permission? Is it really true that all of the Pogue coins were regraded by PCGS in the fall? I do not know.
Keyman: in the fall, <<they got their GOLD PCGS LABELS, sent to CAC, then people saw the gold labels, did not like them, the coins went back to PCGS to just be reholdered SINCE FUN and got their SILVER labels....and have not been sent back to CAC to get their cute stickers again. >>
This sounds right. I believe, though, that the coins were sent back to PCGS after the exhibition at Sotheby's in late January, perhaps after the winter Long Beach Expo. In any event, I have heard very positive remarks about the new labels, which many people seem to like.
Kove: <<That's what I was thinking. Since PCGS did the reholdering (same cert#) and no one could mess with the coins in the interim, CAC shouldn't have an issue with doing the cheap re-stickering. >>
My thoughts, too, are along these lines.
Kellogg: << For the record, the conservatively graded, uncertified John Pittman collection realized almost $30 million in 1997-1999.>>
The Pittman Collection would have realized more if the coins had been PCGS graded before the auctions. There would have been more collector participation and a smaller percentage of the coins would have been purchased by wholesalers. Also, I am not convinced that the decision was made by DA. Could it be true that the Pittman family refused to allow the coins to be sent to PCGS? Knowing the terms of Pittman's will or other instructions might be helpful as well.
The Marvelous Pogue Family Coin Collection, part 1: Finest 1796 – ’97 Draped Bust Half Dollar
The Marvelous Pogue Family Coin Collection, Part 2: The Oliver Jung 1833 Half Dime
I do not completely understand TDN's point here. If a coin, which is CAC approved, is just re-holdered, with the same PCGS grade, then I believe that CAC will still pay just as much for it as CAC would before it was "reholdered," in this case. The purpose of the latest reholdering related to the reflectivity and aesthetics of the labels, and was not related to the grades of the coins.
These coins have been reholdered not once but several times. How often do we hear about a new print or hairline or booger or nose hair appearing? If MY money was on the line, I'd say that because of all the handling that the coins would need to be re screened at full fee - perhaps with a presumption of restickering but re screened nonetheless.
The 1995-1997 period is a little bit of a puzzle since the 1990-1995 bear market recovery basically began with Pittman and Eliasberg. Both collections went the raw route. And it is true that the wholesalers got a bunch of relatively high grades, especially the bust and seated material which I followed. If anything, the heirs should have picked NGC over PCGS because the grades would have been higher.... and the coins still getting 85-95% of PCGS prices. Some of the graded seated stuff I saw after the sale just boggled my mind. 1 and 2 point TPG upgrades over the Eliasberg catalog grade was quite normal. Jim Pryor's half dollar collection went off in this era too and it was all TPG graded....mostly/all PCGS. I have to think the grades were pretty conservative considering how many of those coins started upgrading in 1997-2004. Those would have done a lot better raw imo.
I agree with TDN that every time you handle a coin there is a risk of another hairline, scratch, foreign material, etc. to get on it.
<< <i>I agree with TDN that every time you handle a coin there is a risk of another hairline, scratch, foreign material, etc. to get on it. >>
Just a hunch, but I'm assuming these coins received a smidge more care and attention than your
run-of-the-mill reholder submission. The majority of the collection appears to have original skin,
which makes the possibility of irreversible damage from foreign matter even more remote. As I
said above, the proofs are the coins I'd be most concerned about. YMMV.
Well one thangs for sure, I ain't bidding on no 1804 Silver Dollars unless it has that CAC sticker on it!!!
Don't forget that the first Pittman auction was held almost 18 years ago -- when the prevalence of all-certified auctions wasn't as widespread as the situation today. Regardless of how the 'coin presentation' decision was made, I believe that it had the unqualified approval of Mr. Akers. Due to Mr. Pittman's status as a superlative collector of the 'old school,' the decision to present the coins as Mr. Pittman had done for decades (i.e., conservatively graded and uncertified) seemed perfectly natural and appropriate in 1997.
I attended the first Pittman auction and I can attest to the fact that the atmosphere was 'electric,' with collectors and dealers out in force for this much anticipated sale. David Akers did a wonderful job in cataloging the collection, with John Pittman's diverse provenance being richly described. I disagree with your statement that certification would have reduced the percentage of coins that were purchased by wholesalers. Wholesalers were largely 'shut out' of the Pittman auctions, as competition from major collectors and those dealers who serviced them -- the latter with long client bid orders -- was fierce. The auction room was packed -- standing room only.
To compliment my recollections, here's an excerpt from a 2009 article about the first Pittman auction -- by rare gold dealer Douglas Winter: "The first Pittman sale was held in October 1997. It’s hard for me to believe that the twelve year anniversary of this auction just passed as it really seems like it was just yesterday that I flew to Baltimore to examine the coins, bid on the lots and compete against most of the major collectors and dealers in the United States. It was an intense but fun four or five days in Charm City.
The first session of the Pittman sale brought $11,820,512. I can recall thinking the coins brought “all the money” at the time but looking back at the catalog today I’m struck at how reasonable many of these irreplaceable coins were."
<< <i>Well one thangs for sure, I ain't bidding on no 1804 Silver Dollars unless it has that CAC sticker on it!!! >>
Which one - the several that have been gently cleaned or the one with a blatant spot removal in the obverse field? Or if you are talking just Pogue, how about the one with a counterstamp on it.
Can you say 1804 $1 chopmark? :-D
Point is that 1804 dollars should be carefully examined and bid on with eyes wide open. Their grades rarely translate literally, but rather represent a ranking of the known coins.
<< <i>These coins have been reholdered not once but several times. >>
They where just reholdered once since leaving CAC for the gold foil to white with eagle label design change.
<< <i>
<< <i>These coins have been reholdered not once but several times. >>
They where just reholdered once since leaving CAC for the gold foil to white with eagle label design change. >>
That's one group. How about all the rest that went from original holder to gold foil label holder to silver label holder?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>These coins have been reholdered not once but several times. >>
They where just reholdered once since leaving CAC for the gold foil to white with eagle label design change. >>
That's one group. How about all the rest that went from original holder to gold foil label holder to silver label holder? >>
They didn't get CAC'd till in the gold foil labeled holders.
If nearly all the Pogue coins receive the CAC sticker of approval, it would mean to me, that PCGS was more conservative than usual in grading the Pogue coins. I doubt this is the case.
Would it have been better for the Pogue coin prices realized, to have avoided CAC completely, and of course, state such openly? I tend to like this approach the best, considering the extremely high grades of the Pogue coins. Let the bidders depend on PCGS graders to grade as usual, and then take responsibility for their own grading and bidding ability. Leave CAC out of it, and make the bidders take responsibility. Of course, if I win any Pogue coins, I would then send them all off to CAC.
<< <i>I would hope that PCGS used their normally accepted grading standards on the Pogue coins. That would mean some of the grades given would be high end for the numerical grade, some in the middle of the numerical grade, and some in the bottom third or so. Therefore, I believe JA at CAC would not give the CAC sticker of approval to about one-third of the Pogue coins.
If nearly all the Pogue coins receive the CAC sticker of approval, it would mean to me, that PCGS was more conservative than usual in grading the Pogue coins. I doubt this is the case. >>
I think you mean 'less conservative' in your next-to-last sentence above. [Edit: I mis-read mozin's statement above. I thought he was referring to CAC being more conservative in its awarding of stickers. Sorry for the confusion!].
Per the CAC web site, they estimate that 50% of the PCGS/NGC-certified coins 'in the marketplace' are CAC worthy. [My take: This is because the marketplace coins are typically 'picked over' -- with most of the nice coins being 'long gone']. CAC also estimates that about 90% of the PCGS/NGC-certified coins 'at large' are CAC worthy. [My take: This higher percentage includes the larger population of PCGS/NGC-certified coins, including all of those really great coins that have been 'deep-sixed' -- many of which have never been submitted to CAC].
Thus, it's my opinion that the Pogue coins should get a CAC acceptance percentage closer to the 90% figure for the larger certified population -- including the many 'deep-sixed' coins.
<< <i>I think you mean 'less conservative' in your next-to-last sentence above. >>
How do you figure? If just about everything got a sticker, that would indicate very conservative grading, no?