I say CAC on if it suits you, hopefully I won't be hung because I disagree with the concept. I disagree with all the DCarr issues, too, and have been ramrodded for that. Stman summed it up well. it all reminds me of a saying --- if any two of us were the same one of us would be unnecessary. hence, we don't always agree on everything.
I have pondered buying some gold CAC stickered coins, but have never pulled the trigger because the premium price was typically beyond what I was willing to pay (i.e. I could purchase a green bean in a grade higher for cheaper). It seems like the gold sticker seems to carry it's own premium beyond the coin in the actual holder.
On another note, I am not a dealer concerned with short term re-sale values or a photographer who can take great pictures of his own coins. Therefore, I send all my coins in to be reholdered if they don't have a TrueView. So a CAC sticker on a non-TrueView coin presents issues for me.
"Making" a gold bean on a coin you think is cool and that you found in the wild is a thrill. It means at least one prominent dealer agrees with your assessment. And they're willing to put their money where their mouth is if you ever decide to sell that piece.
If you know your series like the back of your hand, then maybe you don't need that affirmation. But then you probably don't like third party grading, because you probably think that you already know your series better than most. It also probably means that you don't like to share your coins, talk about your coins, or participate in the voyeristic experiment we call the internet. Because there is a big element of that in getting a gold bean on a favorite piece and sharing that coin with others.
Buying a coin that you like that has a gold bean, if it's not overpriced, is a great way to insure you're getting a nice piece. It means a top tier TPG and a top dealer agree it is what you think it is.
Buying a coin with a gold bean just because it has a gold bean, or paying way more than the market trends just because it has a gold bean, doesn't make a lot of sense. But even then, it's your money and it's your hobby.
When we've talked about WINGS (similar to CAC on international coins) on the darkside, I always come back to Gresham's Law: Given two coins that are identical and are the same price, where one is stickered and one isn't, which would you buy?
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
The guy that slams CAC every time he gets cracks me up. Guess where he went with his very expensive coin when he got it? Yup, right to CAC. He claims CAC has too much power. I think the market has given him the power because of his grading skills and honesty......
To those slamming the CAC paradigm or idea, which seems to be a popular sport among many on the boards, keep in mind that the other end of the spectrum are those coins that fail CAC evaluation. This is a rather large group, approximately 55-60% of the coins submitted, and dwarfs the thin-slice gold CAC market. These coins may be lower end for the grade, in the opinion of CAC, or might have "issues" that were either silently net graded by the TPGs or missed completely during the certification process. This education, in my opinion, is far more important than finding out the oddball coin received a gold sticker. Regardless, I believe many folks feel good about flashing internet testosterone.
Where does this 55-60% did not sticker estimate come from? If the failure rate is near that level then a lot people submitting to CAC are struggling to see their coins.
My personal failure rate in ~150 submissions is around 25% and I'm far from an expert numismatist.
I cannot attest the DNC (did not sticker) rate, but I certainly would not submit any coin that I did not think was well above average, which would lessen the odds of being DNC'ed. I have had fairly decent success myself, approx. 75%, with a few leaving me wondering..."what did JA see that I did not"?
oih82w8 = Oh I Hate To Wait _defectus patientia_aka...Dr. Defecto - Curator of RMO's
I buy most of my coins over the internet. I buy from folks who offer returns, but I hate to return because it is time consuming and a hassle for both parties. CAC stickers allow me to purchase based on images with greater confidence. When I have good pictures to look at I have been successful buying non CAC coins over the net that did CAC when I sent them in. The money I spend on CAC services is far less than I used to spend traveling to hobby related shows.
And a Gold CAC doesn't mean the coin is limited to stickering at one grade higher, it means it would easily sticker at one grade higher....could also sticker at 2 or three grades higher. I had a crack out that regraded two grades higher and stickered again.
To those slamming the CAC paradigm or idea, which seems to be a popular sport among many on the boards, keep in mind that the other end of the spectrum are those coins that fail CAC evaluation. This is a rather large group, approximately 55-60% of the coins submitted, and dwarfs the thin-slice gold CAC market. These coins may be lower end for the grade, in the opinion of CAC, or might have "issues" that were either silently net graded by the TPGs or missed completely during the certification process. This education, in my opinion, is far more important than finding out the oddball coin received a gold sticker. Regardless, I believe many folks feel good about flashing internet testosterone.
Where does this 55-60% did not sticker estimate come from? If the failure rate is near that level then a lot people submitting to CAC are struggling to see their coins.
My personal failure rate in ~150 submissions is around 25% and I'm far from an expert numismatist.
All these figures from CAC itself to paraphrasing JA to regular coin blogs to established dealers indicates to me that over the years CAC appears to be awarding green stickers less than 50% of the time.
And a Gold CAC doesn't mean the coin is limited to stickering at one grade higher, it means it would easily sticker at one grade higher....could also sticker at 2 or three grades higher.
To be fair it could also mean it might not sticker at all next time. All different kinds of scenarios have been played out here numerous times.
A gold sticker might not upgrade at the TPG services either.
Please... Save The Stories, Just Answer My Questions, And Tell Me How Much!!!!!
yeah, I just made it up, it's called deductive reasoning. I shall endeavor to explain.......................but you must understand that it is based on "if you really believe in them."
the whole driving thought behind TPG's was that it would ease sight-unseen trading and allow a dealer to buy with a greater assurance of what he was getting. if a CAC submitter sends a coin to be evaluated it goes without saying that he is submitting a coin which he has judged to be properly graded/undergraded with no distracting characteristics. having the sticker attached should be enough for a believer in the concept to buy the coin sight unseen.
it follows that if you accept the whole TPG concept and the CAC concept your confidence level about what to expect would be very high. based on all the praise for JA, as expressed by his legions at this site, I should be seeing that. we don't. also, I am not aware of ever having seen someone post a green or gold stickered coin which was criticized by the JA followers, so my assumption is that all such coins could be bought sight-unseen with a very high level of confidence.
If a really rare coin came along and I had to make a snap decision to buy or pass, I would certainly be willing to take the chance sight unseen based upon the sticker
Originally posted by: tradedollarnut If a really rare coin came along and I had to make a snap decision to buy or pass, I would certainly be willing to take the chance sight unseen based upon the sticker
I know it's kind of an academic question since you often buy pieces whose prices aren't published in a typical trade journal or which have recent auction history.
But would you be willing to pay a premium for the coin you mentioned in your scenario if it had a gold bean?
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
Originally posted by: tradedollarnut If a really rare coin came along and I had to make a snap decision to buy or pass, I would certainly be willing to take the chance sight unseen based upon the sticker
I know it's kind of an academic question since you often buy pieces whose prices aren't published in a typical trade journal or which have recent auction history.
But would you be willing to pay a premium for the coin you mentioned in your scenario if it had a gold bean?
A premium over what? The grade on the insert? Of course. The next grade up? That would be difficult to do sight unseen
Business as usual means "Buy what you like and collect what you want " When the dealing's done, that gold bean will cost someone more. It might even be me
The 47% "average" is certainly skewed by coins that tend to come nice and where the TPG's might be fairly closely aligned in their grading....like BU Morgan dollars. On the flip side, the two TPG's are widely different on MS65 capped bust halves. I wouldn't be surprised if the net sticker rate on MS65's is 25-35%....with PCGS being considerably higher than NGC (ie maybe 35% PCGS - 20% NGC?).
Then we have series that are very tough to sticker regardless of the holder, such as gem classic gold. The sticker rates on MS65/66 Saints is somewhere in the 4-15% range. From my own experiences I'd say 10% is about the norm. So other coins have to offset this much lower %'s to get an average of 47%. How about MS68 Saints? There are over 100 of them graded....and not a single sticker to be found....a 0% rate.
Newbies should not assume that the universal 47% will apply to their coin. I'd also agree with TomB that the average market rate is probably 40-45% across the entire market.
Lastly, recall Newman and Gardner's monumental collections? Gene Gardner had one of the best graders and appraisers in the business helping him with his sets. Yet their net sticker rate on hundreds of coins was around 55%. And no doubt the NGC sticker rate dragged that average down a bit. Newman was also in the 55-65% range though I forget the exact number. Dick Osburn's sticker rate on his 150+ seated half set was 19%. That was a mix of 39% PCGS and 3% NGC....13X difference! The collection was split 55/45% NGC/PCGS coins. Let's just say that certain series don't easily lend themselves to high sticker rates if you buy the best coin/best value possible at the time. All of these guys knew something about evaluating/procuring quality coins for their sets.
Now if your goal is to only buy the most awesome of coins that are no brainer high end for the grade, then you can achieve a "collection" of 80-100% stickered coins. If you only buy stickers to start with, 100% is a snap, lol. It's getting to the point now that real solid for the grade 4 figure coins without stickers are not easy to find. Norweb, Eliasberg, Pittman, Newman, Gardner and others just focused on buying decent coins, often great coins. I don't know what the Pogue sticker rate will end being but I question if it would be above 80%. There wasn't the intensity to consider higher end only based on a TPG standard, or downgrade as needed to get a uniform CAC "set." If Gene Gardner only considered higher end coins for his set, he'd have passed on plenty of coins he ended up buying. And the alternative was probably a lower grade and lower quality coin, that was "nice for the grade."
As QDB as often said, buy the best quality you can afford. And modified to today's stickerized world it would be....."and ensure it's not a low end coin for the grade, even if a finest known." The 1822 $5 and 1804 $ w/o stickers have been discussed at length the past few days.
Usually, the person who bought coins back in the 1986-2003 era and didn't crack their old holders out to take advantage of a 100% price jump for an upgrade from 2004-2008. I know if I had kept my original choice/gem seated collection intact from 1988-2016 probably 20-30% of those coins would have gold beaned. Nearly all of them are sitting in higher graded holders today than what they first graded in 1986-1989.
I had several dozen nice rattler/ogh $20 Saints I had collected over the years. All of the best ones got cracked out as gold took off a few years later and Saint prices doubled to tripled. My upgrade rate on those was over 50%. Many gold beans were given up for profits early on.
Gold bean coins would be fairly common today if no one was allowed to crack out their coins since 1986. But over 80-90% of those coins have left their original holders. So to those patient people sitting on their early graded coins.....that's how to get a gold bean. Or, be the one to buy their collections.
Here has been my take on the premise that a gold bean means it's under-graded. Perhaps by today's standards it is. But I still see many of them as correctly graded. How many of us learned to grade and still do. But I understand the market, is the market now.
Another thing is, I applaud JA for this business. And I'm not saying this for controversy. I guess part of CAC's inception was for grade inflation. It might be possible he gold beans coins he originally graded. Here is where I get confused.
And I understand that they hadn't graded coins too high in the old days.
I'll leave it there as this is just my opinion and I don't care to "debate" these days.
Please... Save The Stories, Just Answer My Questions, And Tell Me How Much!!!!!
Comments
On another note, I am not a dealer concerned with short term re-sale values or a photographer who can take great pictures of his own coins. Therefore, I send all my coins in to be reholdered if they don't have a TrueView. So a CAC sticker on a non-TrueView coin presents issues for me.
If you know your series like the back of your hand, then maybe you don't need that affirmation. But then you probably don't like third party grading, because you probably think that you already know your series better than most. It also probably means that you don't like to share your coins, talk about your coins, or participate in the voyeristic experiment we call the internet. Because there is a big element of that in getting a gold bean on a favorite piece and sharing that coin with others.
Buying a coin that you like that has a gold bean, if it's not overpriced, is a great way to insure you're getting a nice piece. It means a top tier TPG and a top dealer agree it is what you think it is.
Buying a coin with a gold bean just because it has a gold bean, or paying way more than the market trends just because it has a gold bean, doesn't make a lot of sense. But even then, it's your money and it's your hobby.
When we've talked about WINGS (similar to CAC on international coins) on the darkside, I always come back to Gresham's Law: Given two coins that are identical and are the same price, where one is stickered and one isn't, which would you buy?
--Severian the Lame
To those slamming the CAC paradigm or idea, which seems to be a popular sport among many on the boards, keep in mind that the other end of the spectrum are those coins that fail CAC evaluation. This is a rather large group, approximately 55-60% of the coins submitted, and dwarfs the thin-slice gold CAC market. These coins may be lower end for the grade, in the opinion of CAC, or might have "issues" that were either silently net graded by the TPGs or missed completely during the certification process. This education, in my opinion, is far more important than finding out the oddball coin received a gold sticker. Regardless, I believe many folks feel good about flashing internet testosterone.
Where does this 55-60% did not sticker estimate come from? If the failure rate is near that level then a lot people submitting to CAC are struggling to see their coins.
My personal failure rate in ~150 submissions is around 25% and I'm far from an expert numismatist.
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,...
And a Gold CAC doesn't mean the coin is limited to stickering at one grade higher, it means it would easily sticker at one grade higher....could also sticker at 2 or three grades higher. I had a crack out that regraded two grades higher and stickered again.
a CAC sticker should let you buy with no pictures if you really believe in them.
I had a crack out that regraded two grades higher and stickered again.
Gold bean both times?
To those slamming the CAC paradigm or idea, which seems to be a popular sport among many on the boards, keep in mind that the other end of the spectrum are those coins that fail CAC evaluation. This is a rather large group, approximately 55-60% of the coins submitted, and dwarfs the thin-slice gold CAC market. These coins may be lower end for the grade, in the opinion of CAC, or might have "issues" that were either silently net graded by the TPGs or missed completely during the certification process. This education, in my opinion, is far more important than finding out the oddball coin received a gold sticker. Regardless, I believe many folks feel good about flashing internet testosterone.
Where does this 55-60% did not sticker estimate come from? If the failure rate is near that level then a lot people submitting to CAC are struggling to see their coins.
My personal failure rate in ~150 submissions is around 25% and I'm far from an expert numismatist.
My range of "55-60%" might have been sloppy, but writing "likely 50% or more" should have been fine. I get this estimate from an interpretation of several sources. These include our own Justacommeman from a post on July 7, 2009 after he attended a two day course taught by John Albanese at the ANA and he paraphrased JA as stating "48% of all coins submitted are stickered". Additionally, a March 12, 2010 press release by CAC stated "Since opening for business in late 2007, CAC has received more than 144,000 submissions from member dealers and collectors, and has awarded green stickers to just over 68,000 of these", which is a green sticker rate of approximately 47.2%. Further, a May 2, 2011 Coin Update article by Michael Bugeja lists greater than 200,000 coins submitted to CAC with a success rate still just over 47%. It may be read here. Later, and also on Coin Update, Michael Zielinski stated "Recent statistics indicate that overall about 45% of all coins submitted to CAC are awarded green stickers". Most recently, David Lawrence Rare Coins wrote on February 3, 2015 that "certainly less than 50%" of coins submitted to CAC are awarded green stickers.
All these figures from CAC itself to paraphrasing JA to regular coin blogs to established dealers indicates to me that over the years CAC appears to be awarding green stickers less than 50% of the time.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
CAC stickers allow me to purchase based on images with greater confidence
a CAC sticker should let you buy with no pictures if you really believe in them.
Who told you that? Or did you just make it up?
Bajjerfan : It got a green bean.
To be fair it could also mean it might not sticker at all next time. All different kinds of scenarios have been played out here numerous times.
A gold sticker might not upgrade at the TPG services either.
My YouTube Channel
yeah, I just made it up, it's called deductive reasoning. I shall endeavor to explain.......................but you must understand that it is based on "if you really believe in them."
the whole driving thought behind TPG's was that it would ease sight-unseen trading and allow a dealer to buy with a greater assurance of what he was getting. if a CAC submitter sends a coin to be evaluated it goes without saying that he is submitting a coin which he has judged to be properly graded/undergraded with no distracting characteristics. having the sticker attached should be enough for a believer in the concept to buy the coin sight unseen.
it follows that if you accept the whole TPG concept and the CAC concept your confidence level about what to expect would be very high. based on all the praise for JA, as expressed by his legions at this site, I should be seeing that. we don't. also, I am not aware of ever having seen someone post a green or gold stickered coin which was criticized by the JA followers, so my assumption is that all such coins could be bought sight-unseen with a very high level of confidence.
I am not a fan of the whole thing.
If a really rare coin came along and I had to make a snap decision to buy or pass, I would certainly be willing to take the chance sight unseen based upon the sticker
I know it's kind of an academic question since you often buy pieces whose prices aren't published in a typical trade journal or which have recent auction history.
But would you be willing to pay a premium for the coin you mentioned in your scenario if it had a gold bean?
--Severian the Lame
If a really rare coin came along and I had to make a snap decision to buy or pass, I would certainly be willing to take the chance sight unseen based upon the sticker
I know it's kind of an academic question since you often buy pieces whose prices aren't published in a typical trade journal or which have recent auction history.
But would you be willing to pay a premium for the coin you mentioned in your scenario if it had a gold bean?
A premium over what? The grade on the insert? Of course. The next grade up? That would be difficult to do sight unseen
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Then we have series that are very tough to sticker regardless of the holder, such as gem classic gold. The sticker rates on MS65/66 Saints is somewhere in the 4-15% range. From my own experiences I'd say 10% is about the norm. So other coins have to offset this much lower %'s to get an average of 47%. How about MS68 Saints? There are over 100 of them graded....and not a single sticker to be found....a 0% rate.
Newbies should not assume that the universal 47% will apply to their coin. I'd also agree with TomB that the average market rate is probably 40-45% across the entire market.
Lastly, recall Newman and Gardner's monumental collections? Gene Gardner had one of the best graders and appraisers in the business helping him with his sets. Yet their net sticker rate on hundreds of coins was around 55%. And no doubt the NGC sticker rate dragged that average down a bit. Newman was also in the 55-65% range though I forget the exact number. Dick Osburn's sticker rate on his 150+ seated half set was 19%. That was a mix of 39% PCGS and 3% NGC....13X difference! The collection was split 55/45% NGC/PCGS coins. Let's just say that certain series don't easily lend themselves to high sticker rates if you buy the best coin/best value possible at the time. All of these guys knew something about evaluating/procuring quality coins for their sets.
Now if your goal is to only buy the most awesome of coins that are no brainer high end for the grade, then you can achieve a "collection" of 80-100% stickered coins. If you only buy stickers to start with, 100% is a snap, lol. It's getting to the point now that real solid for the grade 4 figure coins without stickers are not easy to find. Norweb, Eliasberg, Pittman, Newman, Gardner and others just focused on buying decent coins, often great coins. I don't know what the Pogue sticker rate will end being but I question if it would be above 80%. There wasn't the intensity to consider higher end only based on a TPG standard, or downgrade as needed to get a uniform CAC "set." If Gene Gardner only considered higher end coins for his set, he'd have passed on plenty of coins he ended up buying. And the alternative was probably a lower grade and lower quality coin, that was "nice for the grade."
As QDB as often said, buy the best quality you can afford. And modified to today's stickerized world it would be....."and ensure it's not a low end coin for the grade, even if a finest known." The 1822 $5 and 1804 $ w/o stickers have been discussed at length the past few days.
Usually, the person who bought coins back in the 1986-2003 era and didn't crack their old holders out to take advantage of a 100% price jump for an upgrade from 2004-2008. I know if I had kept my original choice/gem seated collection intact from 1988-2016 probably 20-30% of those coins would have gold beaned. Nearly all of them are sitting in higher graded holders today than what they first graded in 1986-1989.
I had several dozen nice rattler/ogh $20 Saints I had collected over the years. All of the best ones got cracked out as gold took off a few years later and Saint prices doubled to tripled. My upgrade rate on those was over 50%. Many gold beans were given up for profits early on.
Gold bean coins would be fairly common today if no one was allowed to crack out their coins since 1986. But over 80-90% of those coins have left their original holders. So to those patient people sitting on their early graded coins.....that's how to get a gold bean. Or, be the one to buy their collections.
Another thing is, I applaud JA for this business. And I'm not saying this for controversy. I guess part of CAC's inception was for grade inflation. It might be possible he gold beans coins he originally graded. Here is where I get confused.
And I understand that they hadn't graded coins too high in the old days.
I'll leave it there as this is just my opinion and I don't care to "debate" these days.