In response to the queries about the PCGS and CACed coins, I don't know much more than that. I'm not in grading 3; I was talking with an instructor and he told us about it.
I could make a birth year registry set out of pocket change.
@Danye West said:
In response to the queries about the PCGS and CACed coins, I don't know much more than that. I'm not in grading 3; I was talking with an instructor and he told us about it.
Well thanks for stepping up to the plate. I still believe those coins were "traps" for students. When they get to Grading 3 and Advance Grading, some students are "full" of themselves. A little humility gets them back to earth real quick.
No touchee on this posting except that it is rather unnatural IMO to pump up this PCGS/CAC combo. No doubt nice coins there, and possibly not the worst place to start, but as others have said equal or better for grade/price coins may be found in other combos of raw or N, etc.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
Hello,
For the most part I totally agree with Laura and CAC. Even though she goes off on rants from time to time, she
is 100% honest and loves beautiful coins. Laura has the highest integrity and has built many major collections, perhaps more than anyone. She can be outspoken but it is because she CARES.
Serious collectors KNOW that building a top collection means paying the price for coins as they are available. There are
few bargains as many people want the best. This applies to almost all collectibles. Look at Pogue, Duckor, Newman,
Gardener and others. They paid the price for the best coins and for the most part were rewarded handsomely.
This can be for XF coins and not just top sets. Buy the best looking CAC examples and pay up for them.
Over grading or grade inflation is rampant. Most people cannot expertly
grade or should need to. When you buy a diamond regardless of the quality, smart people rely on the GIA certificate.
Coins are the same. CAC is the only protection against massive over grading, fake toning, and more.
Do you buy any NGC non CAC? NGC is more often than not one grade lower than what the holder says. Auction records
confirm this. it is the same as EGL/GIA. Sure if you pay the right price it does not matter as much. Why is the main mission
of crack out people to try and cross NGC to PCGS? Why do they try and buy the coin for a lessor amount and then attempt
to get it into a lower grade PCGS holder?
How can dealers even be allowed to submit thousands of coins a month to try and get higher grades? The entire process is
absurd.
Only around 15% of all coins will pass CAC. Why would you not want those? They will state that they pass more and they do,
but you have to account for all the coins that would never be submitted because the owners know they have no shot at
passing.
Is CAC always correct? Don't choke, but absolutely yes. When a coin does not pass they have found something about it
that they perceive stops it from being the grade on the holder. it could be wear, a scratch, a line, bad color or other things.
They are not lying. They can point out what their issue is. They do not make this up. The ONLY issue to OTHER people is IF the CAC issue keeps the coin from being the grade on the holder. People do not always agree on this as you well know.
So to sum this up, CAC standards for a grade are not always the same as the grading services. What is wrong with that?
It is an OPINION. Why do many people prefer PCGS to NGC? Opinion.
I prefer the strictest company.
Take ten expert graders. Ask them. Three might say that the CAC issues do not stop a coin from being a 66.
My take on this is WHO CARES. Why do I want a coin that has to be debated, a coin that has some issues in the eyes of
CAC. I don't and Laura does not either. Are there not enough beautiful CAC coins to buy? Patience pays.
Even if eight of the ten graders think the coin should pass CAC. Who cares. I usually do not need or want it.
Someone mentioned Gardener. Sure he bought rare, and mostly great eye appeal coins. Many were well before CAC and
when NGC graded much stricter and closer to PCGS. His sales were a feeding frenzy of crack out guys and regular dealers,
deciding what will cross, what will upgrade, what will downgrade and pass CAC etc. His sales were not the usual. There are not many Gardener's. People say "buy the coin and not the holder". That is nonsense unless you are an expert
grader. This is what CAC is for. They are the strictest on coins and that is what you should want most of the time.
Pogue on the other hand was mad about many of his prized coins not passing CAC. For the first sale, he changed the holders and did not show which coins did pass. Top buyers had to contact Stack's to get a list of which coins passed as that is all they were interested in. He DID submit his future sales to CAC. Although he was not happy with his pass rate,
he is not stupid. He knew that many major buyers would only buy if the coins passed CAC so he sent them, but had no stickers on the holders. He was not happy but his smart business sense prevailed.
Are there times when not having CAC is ok? I guess. If a coin is a great rarity like SOME of the Pogue coins, and you are
not likely to find another...................and you do not care why it did not pass then sure.
In general, many collectors either do not care or are dumb. if you like and enjoy the item (not just coins) buying anything is FINE.
However, if you are looking for a good investment at the same time it pays to buy the best and forget the rest.
Not the most expensive but the best. If I were looking for something reasonable to buy it could be BEAUTIFUL XF/AU Bust quarters and halves. It is hard to lose on these. Of course most would have to pass CAC. This is all common business sense.
People who disagree are mostly wrong. Facts and figures prove this.
The most telling fact is that MS CAC Generic and some other gold is now on the CDN price guides. This is HUGE. People demanded it. Ask yourself why the spread on regular generic Saints and 20.00 Libs between non CAC and CAC are so wide?
These are mostly site unseen prices. It is simple. The CAC coins are nicer and people and dealers will pay MORE.
The answer is the same as why you need CAC on most of the coins you own.
Lastly one post said he buys and sells anything. I 100% agree with that if you are a dealer. There is a price
for everything. I sell diamonds. Off color heart shapes are like death but at a price they will sell.
As a collector I try and buy the best.
On that note above, I can honestly say I believe there are millions upon millions of coins that PCGS and NGC, nor CAC have ever seen, to date. Some people still don't trust the TPGs with their treasures.
Only around 15% of all coins will pass CAC. Why would you not want those? They will state that they pass more and they do,
but you have to account for all the coins that would never be submitted because the owners know they have no shot at
passing.
Where are you getting this from? CAC has gone on record to state that roughly 40% of all coins submitted sticker and that the sticker rates between NGC and PCGS are roughly the same. Since collectors do not pay for coins that do not sticker and dealers pay a small fee, there is no reason to be choosy in what you submit. I've submitted coins I thought would likely fail. Every now and then, there is a pleasant surprise.
Only around 15% of all coins will pass CAC. Why would you not want those? They will state that they pass more and they do,
but you have to account for all the coins that would never be submitted because the owners know they have no shot at
passing.
Where are you getting this from? CAC has gone on record to state that roughly 40% of all coins submitted sticker and that the sticker rates between NGC and PCGS are roughly the same. Since collectors do not pay for coins that do not sticker and dealers pay a small fee, there is no reason to be choosy in what you submit. I've submitted coins I thought would likely fail. Every now and then, there is a pleasant surprise.
You had me until you posted that CAC is ALWAYS correct. That is nonsense. The TPGS's are not correct all the time either - none of them! Buybacks prove it.
Furthermore, IMHO, anyone buying labels or relying exclusively on the opinions of any dealer either does not have the time to learn how to grade, is extremely lucky to have found a very knowledgeable dealer, or is ....
I once passed on an NGC MS65 seated half from the 1840s with a CAC sticker. I felt it was a C+ coin and I couldn't get excited about it. I also bought a PCGS PR65 1838 Gobrecht that I knew had been rejected because of a slight scratch under the eagle - I felt it was a B+ coin even with the mark. CAC agreed with me upon resubmission. So, yes - CAC makes mistakes....but they correct them immediately when brought to their attention.
Differences in opinion about a grade (unless substantial) are not mistakes, however.
I have never been able to figure out how such a basic thing as grading a coin and assessing its merits as a collectible turned into something more resembling rocket science than supporting the pursuit of the simple pleasure of collecting nice coins.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The most telling fact is that MS CAC Generic and some other gold is now on the CDN price guides. This is HUGE. People demanded it. Ask yourself why the spread on regular generic Saints and 20.00 Libs between non CAC and CAC are so wide?
These are mostly site unseen prices. It is simple. The CAC coins are nicer and people and dealers will pay MORE.
The answer is the same as why you need CAC on most of the coins you own.
Too many issues to debate that are presented as "facts" in Perfection's lengthy post. They've all been hashed out here before.
As far as why CAC generic gem gold has huge spreads. It's simple. They only pick 3-6% of all gem $10's and $20s. Of course those are "going to be nicer." I know if I were the owner of a top 7-10% PCGS MS65 Saint that didn't make the cut, it would be annoying since it's "not nicer enough." To think that picking the best 1 of any 10 coins is not critical enough. You have to be 1 out of 20 fussy. Imagine a market where only 1 out of 20 - MS65 or MS66 Bust, Barber or Seated halves is "good enough."
Frankly, any top grader/dealer can arbitrarily pick the top 5% of any series/grade in question. That leaves 95% of the market as rejects. Rejecting is easy. And with 95% rejected, of course there will be huge spreads from the top 5% vs. everything else. Just understand that the fall out from this flight to extreme quality, leaves the majority of the market in the ignored category. Many top collectors or investors are mirroring the dealer activity and refusing to accept any coin that has any potential weakness in eye appeal, luster, marks, strike. No market is healthy were 40-95% of it is placed on "ignore."
While the market won't accept mine or Perfection's 95% rejection rate....they do follow CAC's 95% rejection rate of gem gold. The top 7-10% of all gem Saints now find themselves mostly priced like the worst 80%. You have to move up to the top 6% to get that 30-40% premium. How do you even tell a top 6% coin from a top 10% coin? Ironically, one could probably take a top gem PNG gold wholesaler (I know of 1), pick the best 10% of the Gem original 65 Saints you find, mix 95 of those in with 5 random CAC 65 Saints (picked out of a 100), and have CAC pick out those same 5 CAC'd coins with all 100 inserts covered. That would be an interesting exercise.
I believe that at least 80% of all better coins are already graded and perhaps much more.
There is NO way that 40% of coins pass CAC. Find a few dealers to confirm his. Maybe someone like
Warren Mills, or Laura who both try to buy very special coins and are so selective. Also I will again state that many coins
do not get sent to CAC because they as Laura calls them dreck. Look in cases at shows, look on dealers websites,
look marginally at the auctions. How many CAC coins do you see. 40% NO chance. If you follow Heritage you will
notice that over the year they have more and more CAC coins. Consignors want to get more money and not take
beatings on marginal coins.
3, The next Fun Auction 2768 coins 457 CAC
The January Fun auction 19,763 coins 1643 CAC
Why not more?
So where are all these CAC coins? I believe far fewer pass than you think.
The CAC pops are way off. The crack out people routinely crack out the nicer coins, many of which are CAC.
So a certain amount of CAC coins are no longer CAC, they upgraded. Some dealers do not send CAC the tags to
take out of the pops.
Coin grading is NOT a basic thing. There are tens of millions being made upgrading coins, selling NGC coins to
buyers who believe the holder grade and more schemes that seem totally legal.
Sure there are mistakes and CAC will change its mind occasionally but your example is flawed. The coin DID have
a scratch. The issue to graders is IF a certain flaw or wear point is acceptable for a certain grade.
@mr1874 said: "I have never been able to figure out how such a basic thing as grading a coin and assessing its merits as a collectible turned into something more resembling rocket science than supporting the pursuit of the simple pleasure of collecting nice coins."
Coin grading is not rocket science. I have found it is very easy with excellent instruction and a lot of study. One young neophyte student in a four day grading class aced the final exam - she ruined the curve for the embarrassed collectors in our group. PRICING a coin in the market is rocket science. Learning what beautiful and natural, original eye appeal looks like to the top dealers collectors is rocket science.
@tradedollarnut said: "So, yes - CAC makes mistakes....but they correct them immediately when brought to their attention. Differences in opinion about a grade (unless substantial) are not mistakes, however."
I apologize to anyone who thought I implied that an opinion of grade (unless substantial) is a mistake. All the TPGS's and CAC should correct true mistakes when brought to their attention. The mistakes I refer to are missed repairs, damage, etc.
Example: I like Trade dollars. I have many images of repaired chops that went undetected on these coins. I have an unfair advantage. I know what the design of the genuine coin looks like for each type, and I examine the coins carefully using a stereomicroscope (7X to 10X) under florescent light.
One only has to look at the CAC rate of major collections that were done pre-CAC. Newman, Gardner, Pogue all did in the 55-65% range. And that included in some cases a high concentration of NGC coins. Those are the kinds of rates I'd expect from experienced collectors looking for nice coins, having professional assistance, but not being a slave to any particular TPG and/or sticker service. Those tend to mirror my own opinion that the TPG's get it right about 55-75% of the time in the major type coin arena. Or you can just bypass that structure and buy everything CAC'd to say you're 100%,
I pulled my last 5 CAC submissions and I am at exactly 50% passed. (80 total coins) Just like picking the right coins for grading, you have to pick the right coins for CAC. A dealer at the Chicago show told me he went 1 for 30 on his last submission. A dart has a better average than that!
@mr1874 said: "I have never been able to figure out how such a basic thing as grading a coin and assessing its merits as a collectible turned into something more resembling rocket science than supporting the pursuit of the simple pleasure of collecting nice coins."
Coin grading is not rocket science. I have found it is vary easy with excellent instruction and a lot of study. One young neophyte student in a four day grading class aced the final exam - she ruined the curve for the embarrassed collectors in our group. PRICING a coin in the market is rocket science. Learning what beautiful and natural, original eye appeal looks like to the top dealers collectors is rocket science.
>
One of the best posts I've seen in a while. So surely, something in the market today is rocket science....and it has produced mammoth changes over the past 8-10 years. Grading a coin to 55-75% accuracy probably isn't rocket science. Grading to 90-95% accuracy probably is rocket science. I agree that pricing with so many gradations in both the grade itself (65 dreck, 65 low end, 65 ok, 65 nice, 65 pq, 65 upgrade) and then the various qualifiers to include TPG, holder generation, +, star, secure, pops, multiple price guides, etc. would test the mettle of most rocket scientists.
When I did my original "free" 40 coin submission to CAC in Nov 2007 at the CoinFest show, my success rate was approx 40-45% on choice/gem silver type coins. About 2/3 of the coins were NGC. All of these coins were bought before CAC came into existence. A number of them were bought raw at auction and slabbed once. If I had coins with upgrade potential I did resubmit them along the way. Whatever holders they ended up in was what I stayed with. I was quite surprised on some of the CAC rejection criteria. Keeping high end coins long term was never my criteria. Rather, it was keeping coins that were decent or nice for the grade that had appeal. HIgh end coins tended to get sold for strong premiums and/or upgraded. Very low end coins or mistakes I got rid of by 2007. The market made it very clear before the 2008 top that low end or lousy coins for the grade were going to get whacked hard once the music stopped.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
On that note above, I can honestly say I believe there are millions upon millions of coins that PCGS and NGC, nor CAC have ever seen, to date. Some people still don't trust the TPGs with their treasures.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
On that note above, I can honestly say I believe there are millions upon millions of coins that PCGS and NGC, nor CAC have ever seen, to date. Some people still don't trust the TPGs with their treasures.
Yeah.
If two entities (one with a single pair of eyes) are needed to justify one's collection, it might be a good time for an individual to reflect on their objectives.
@tradedollarnut said:
I ran about 98% CAC on the coins purchased before its existence came into being. But laura and I were very very picky when building my sets.
Honestly, we've made more compromises since after CAC...mostly due to old time collections coming on the market.
Bruce, weren't you and Laura not instrumental in creating CAC? Seems that Laura was ranting endlessly about inferior grading by PCGS and NGC. CAC was promoted as the arbiter of what was really solid for a given grade.
I have very little to add to this conversation, now that it is focused on CAC coins, anyway. I have little knowledge to add but I have followed CAC from the beginning and I remember John Albanese, the only party whose opinion really matters, saying that stickered coins represent high end coins for the grade (A) and also those that are solid for the grade (B) and will exclude coins that may be over graded or may be accurately graded but have issues that relegate them to the lower tier (C) and no sticker.
By those criteria, I would believe the number of coins that are at least "solid for the grade" with decent eye appeal would be higher than 50% and multiples of a silly number like 15%. I do remember JA saying the number be much higher. Not to me personally but in print.
If you want to know the answer maybe it would be best to go to The Man.
Here is just one excerpt that I remember:
MR: "Of all the vintage (non-modern) coins that exist in PCGS and NGC holders today, what percentage would you say would qualify for the CAC green label?"
John Albanese: I would say it’s a high percentage, upwards of 80% or so. We unveiled our service at a Connecticut show last fall. We offered free submissions to the public. Some 500-600 coins were brought to us of which about 85% were labeled. On the other hand, if you were to go through a typical dealer’s showcase on the bourse floor of a show, it could be less than half that rate. So far, that’s been our experience based on current submissions."
In the last few years I have sold off 139 Morgan dollars using GreatCollections.
I had them submit all to CAC.
The sticker rate was 63 out of 139, or 45%
Out of the 139, 4 were graded by NGC and the rest by PCGS.
The sticker rate was 1 out of 4 of the NGC coins.
All of the coins were purchased in the 2004-2008 time period or were part of recent grading/re-grade submissions by me.
Using the search function at GC where you filter out only auctions > $250
The current CAC % for the all Morgan dollar lots listed is 53 out of 346 or 15%.
So maybe the true sticker rate for Morgans is more around 15% number or GC is being used to dump off a lot of marginal coins.
@tradedollarnut said:
I ran about 98% CAC on the coins purchased before its existence came into being. But laura and I were very very picky when building my sets.
Honestly, we've made more compromises since after CAC...mostly due to old time collections coming on the market.
Bruce, weren't you and Laura not instrumental in creating CAC? Seems that Laura was ranting endlessly about inferior grading by PCGS and NGC. CAC was promoted as the arbiter of what was really solid for a given grade.
I don't know if instrumental is the right word but she certainly pushed JA in that direction and I was an early investor (since divested).
@Ezmoney said:
I heard she couldn't grade a raw coin accurately if she wanted to so maybe that is why she relies so heavily on the PC CAC combo.
I have had her buy multiple coins in the near six figure area for me raw based upon her opinion....and one approaching $300k. RAW. I never even saw them ahead of time.
What is this sorcery.
This can't be possible because I read here on the forum that all expensive coins that are still raw are "Raw for a reason".
MR: "Of all the vintage (non-modern) coins that exist in PCGS and NGC holders today, what percentage would you say would qualify for the CAC green label?"
John Albanese: I would say it’s a high percentage, upwards of 80% or so. We unveiled our service at a Connecticut show last fall. We offered free submissions to the public. Some 500-600 coins were brought to us of which about 85% were labeled. On the other hand, if you were to go through a typical dealer’s showcase on the bourse floor of a show, it could be less than half that rate. So far, that’s been our experience based on current submissions."
You are quoting JA and MR prior to CAC becoming a real market entity in the post 2008 world. Neither one of them knew at that time how things would go after Nov 2007. They might have guessed 80%...for that one show. But for years after that no way 80%. 25-40% would be closer to reality. And for ch/gem gold coins reality is 5-15%. How do I know that? I've seen fresh 100+ coin submissions of MS65 Saints (2008) go to CAC and come back with 5-6 coins stickered. At a regional coin show in March 2017 I touched base with a long time PNG dealer who specializes in US gold. I asked them what the current sticker rates for Gem 65/66 saints were. He said it was running no more than 5-6% and you were lucky if you got that....and that was coming from an insider with close ties to CAC.
Using the CoinFest show in Nov 2007 probably wasn't a great venue to test the long term sticker rates. My 40 coins were reviewed then. I got 40%. My dealer buddy put in 20 coins and he got the 75% or so. TomB submitted some coins as I recall, no doubt got 80-90% or more. So I think those results were heavily skewed towards experienced dealers and long time "fussy" collectors submitting their material. Had I known the rate was going to be 80% I'd have submitted 40 PCGS MS65 Saints and been very happy with 32 stickers....lol. Logically, if the CAC rate were 80%, or even 60%, the premiums you see on many scarcer coins would not be 20-50%, but more like 10-15%....it would be the same difference between PCGS vs. NGC pricing back in 2007 (10-15%).
I respect your opinion and perhaps you are correct. You were and are much closer to this market than I am.
But if you read that quote, JA was asked point blank, "Of all the vintage (non-modern) coins that exist in PCGS and NGC holders today, what percentage would you say would qualify for the CAC green label?"
His answer: " I would say it’s a high percentage, upwards of 80% or so."
He then goes on to talk about their experience at a coin show where 85% were [labeled]. But the question was how many of all the coins that exist in PCGS and NGC holders are "solid" for the grade. And that number was upwards of 80%. Why would JA have to guess? After decades of his experience I would think he would have a pretty good handle on how many were solid and what percentage were problem coins.
And that number makes sense to me. If you looked at a large group of graded coin there will probably be 20% at the bottom that just barely make the grade, along with coins with ugly toning, weak strikes, etc. The so-called C coins. At the other end are the 15% to 20 % PQ or A coins. The middle or "solid" for the grade B coins would be around the remaining 60%. So the A & B coins that should get a sticker would be 80%. No?
Those numbers are just my estimates backed up with nothing, but it seems logical that PCGS is grading coins more accurate than only getting 10% to 15% accurately graded in gem gold coins.
Take it for what it's worth. Just another point of view.
I don't think that JA expected the past decade of gradeflation. From what I've seen, it's gotten worse. I see seated dollars in ms65 that simply have no business being in that holder.
@tradedollarnut said:
I don't think that JA expected the past decade of gradeflation. From what I've seen, it's gotten worse. I see seated dollars in ms65 that simply have no business being in that holder.
If we've had a decade of gradeflation, then it was going on in 2008 when JA estimated 80% solid grades. In fact, that is part of why he started CAC, I believe.
So do you think he estimated correctly in 2008 that 80% of certified coins were solid but today that number is down to only 50%?
Good day people.
1. Yes rampant grade inflation has 100% change the CAC pass rate. It is absurd how many coins are upgraded and how
many CAC coins are cracked out. However lately it seems much more difficult.
2. Much of this banter does not matter. What matters is the market and its prices. It is a FACT that higher graded CAC Saints trade for substantially more than non CAC. It does not matter why or if it right.
At the end of the day, problem free, usually eye appealing coins pass CAC and are in high demand. If I look at ten
MS Seated Liberty Halves, I want the two that stand out, (if any do). I have little interest in the rest at any price.
A larger dealer could buy all of them at a price but even someone like volume dealer DLRC, does not want the worst ones at any price.
YES YES, there should be huge spreads between the best and the rest. Gardner, Newman, Pogue, I agree around 55% CAC.
Perfection, all CAC and why not?
15% CAC at most. I repeat, look at cases, websites, auctions, and see the number of CAC coins.
I would BET CAC pass rate is FAR lower than it has been years ago. it is hard to believe that many newer NGC would ever
pass.
Look at art. There are millions of paintings, Very few bring the major money. Look at artist X. Say he brings 200K on average for his landscapes. He paint a still life. It brings MUCH less because he is not know for them. One might think
it should bring much more because it is rare. Nope, it usually does not work that way. It is perception. Same with
coins.
@Perfection said: "Look at art. There are millions of paintings, Very few bring the major money. Look at artist X. Say he brings 200K on average for his landscapes. He paint a still life. It brings MUCH less because he is not know for them. One might think it should bring much more because it is rare. Nope, it usually does not work that way."
Disagree, can't pick art as an example. Too many different variables and "schools."
I respect your opinion and perhaps you are correct. You were and are much closer to this market than I am.
But if you read that quote, JA was asked point blank, "Of all the vintage (non-modern) coins that exist in PCGS and NGC holders today, what percentage would you say would qualify for the CAC green label?"
His answer: " I would say it’s a high percentage, upwards of 80% or so."
My own experiences in buying and selling in the 2002-2009 period, attending auctions and major shows including FUN and Baltimore each year were that the majority of the coins in slabs (>50% and over-weighted due to NGC) would not be ok for the grade. I looked at thousands of choice/gem bust, barber, and seated type coins at auction and on the bourse. I tracked what those coins sold for at auction (high end, low end, or solid money). I was a frequent buyer and seller.... setting up at approx 80-100 shows over that period.
It really comes down to the fact that there would be no need for CAC if they agree with 80% of the coins out there. Your own favorite dealers could do that for you. If you're agreeing with 80%, then you are rejecting only 20% of the coins. I'd bet any forum member with more than 5 yrs collecting experience is rejecting more than 20% of the slabbed coins presented to them. You're basically saying JA is easier than all of us? Fwiw, if you read some of JA's earlier articles, he first thought of the notion for CAC in 2001/2002 as he felt grading was starting to run away from us. And grading only got more loose from 2002-2008.
I just conferred with a top dealer who I've worked with for the past 35 years. They've been playing the TPG grading game since day one, and very successfully over the years. They do the show circuits and are well connected nationally. They are a CAC/PCGS/NGC dealer. Here's what they said for the sticker rates applied to 3 diff. eras, understanding that 2002 would be an estimate since CAC wasn't around yet. And these rates apply to choice/gem MS/PFsilver/copper/nickel type coins pre-1933.
-2002 60%
-2008 50%
-2017 30%
His overall sticker rate has run approx 75% since 2008....for ALL coins submitted to CAC. Then again, he's only going to send to CAC what he's reasonably sure is worth the effort, time delay, and expense.
Those numbers are close enough to my own thoughts that I would agree with them.
JA agrees with 80% of all slabs? No way. Common MS64/65/66/67 Morgan dollars are the easiest classic coin to grade out there. The archived results at GC echo that sentiment. One would think if CAC Morgans bring more money (and they do in 65-68 grades), they would be flocking to GC to get those premiums directly to eager collectors. Yet, they don't show up in numbers approaching 80%...not even 40%.
Out of 70,000+ gem Morgan dollars at GC, here's the sticker break down. GC does actively submit their consignments to CAC and can give the consignors a better rate. I'm willing to listen to explanations why the below sticker rates are so far from 80%.
If there's some real coin data that can be presented that shows an 80% rate for ANYTHING...please post it. Heritage auction archives, Stacks/Bowers archives, major coin show bourse survey, Ebay surveys, survey of major collections sold, etc. All this stuff should point in the same general direction for any broad sampling. CAC numbers will continue to grow. One would think that 80% of worthy coins (valued $200+) showing up at a coin show or auction are going to find their way to CAC.
There is no doubt technical grading (as well as variety/counterfeit screening) could now be handled by computer algorithms.
We could leave eye appeal to an add-on level of human grading.
A computer algorithm could no doubt make music, but not like Art Tatum.
I wouldn't ask the algorithm to make music, or to even tell me what coin I liked.
If provided another examples, however, It COULD accurately and reliably tell me what coins are counterfeit, what coins have been submitted before, and whether said coin meets the programmed, instructed standards for AU 55, AU 58, MS69 or MS70.
Yes, you certainly could have a respected human eye to certify the intangibles pleasing to the collector du jour if you or the market required it, but I certainly think we have the technology in place now to settle the question of technical grading, vis a vis recurring complains of shifting standards and gradeflation.
Technical grading does not have to be "an opinion."
Just a thought. If third party grading standards fell significantly CAC is out of business as there would be no freshly slabbed coins to certify. They would be forced to become an actual full service grading operation and not hide behind a colorful little facsimile or fade off into obscurity.
@Coinstartled said:
Just a thought. If third party grading standards fell significantly CAC is out of business as there would be no freshly slabbed coins to certify. They would be forced to become an actual full service grading operation and not hide behind a colorful little facsimile or fade off into obscurity.
CAC loses money on its stickering operations so I think you're out to lunch
Comments
Where did you hear this?
In response to the queries about the PCGS and CACed coins, I don't know much more than that. I'm not in grading 3; I was talking with an instructor and he told us about it.
FAKE NEWS!!!
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
ALT FACTS!!!
From those voices in his head. We have meds for that.
Well thanks for stepping up to the plate. I still believe those coins were "traps" for students. When they get to Grading 3 and Advance Grading, some students are "full" of themselves. A little humility gets them back to earth real quick.
I am not a legend cheerleader but I would trust her grading on raw coins
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
It takes skill to be able to buy coins, crack them out, and resubmit them without wasting tons of money in grading fees.
No touchee on this posting except that it is rather unnatural IMO to pump up this PCGS/CAC combo. No doubt nice coins there, and possibly not the worst place to start, but as others have said equal or better for grade/price coins may be found in other combos of raw or N, etc.
Well, just Love coins, period.
Hello,
For the most part I totally agree with Laura and CAC. Even though she goes off on rants from time to time, she
is 100% honest and loves beautiful coins. Laura has the highest integrity and has built many major collections, perhaps more than anyone. She can be outspoken but it is because she CARES.
Serious collectors KNOW that building a top collection means paying the price for coins as they are available. There are
few bargains as many people want the best. This applies to almost all collectibles. Look at Pogue, Duckor, Newman,
Gardener and others. They paid the price for the best coins and for the most part were rewarded handsomely.
This can be for XF coins and not just top sets. Buy the best looking CAC examples and pay up for them.
Over grading or grade inflation is rampant. Most people cannot expertly
grade or should need to. When you buy a diamond regardless of the quality, smart people rely on the GIA certificate.
Coins are the same. CAC is the only protection against massive over grading, fake toning, and more.
Do you buy any NGC non CAC? NGC is more often than not one grade lower than what the holder says. Auction records
confirm this. it is the same as EGL/GIA. Sure if you pay the right price it does not matter as much. Why is the main mission
of crack out people to try and cross NGC to PCGS? Why do they try and buy the coin for a lessor amount and then attempt
to get it into a lower grade PCGS holder?
How can dealers even be allowed to submit thousands of coins a month to try and get higher grades? The entire process is
absurd.
Only around 15% of all coins will pass CAC. Why would you not want those? They will state that they pass more and they do,
but you have to account for all the coins that would never be submitted because the owners know they have no shot at
passing.
Is CAC always correct? Don't choke, but absolutely yes. When a coin does not pass they have found something about it
that they perceive stops it from being the grade on the holder. it could be wear, a scratch, a line, bad color or other things.
They are not lying. They can point out what their issue is. They do not make this up. The ONLY issue to OTHER people is IF the CAC issue keeps the coin from being the grade on the holder. People do not always agree on this as you well know.
So to sum this up, CAC standards for a grade are not always the same as the grading services. What is wrong with that?
It is an OPINION. Why do many people prefer PCGS to NGC? Opinion.
I prefer the strictest company.
Take ten expert graders. Ask them. Three might say that the CAC issues do not stop a coin from being a 66.
My take on this is WHO CARES. Why do I want a coin that has to be debated, a coin that has some issues in the eyes of
CAC. I don't and Laura does not either. Are there not enough beautiful CAC coins to buy? Patience pays.
Even if eight of the ten graders think the coin should pass CAC. Who cares. I usually do not need or want it.
Someone mentioned Gardener. Sure he bought rare, and mostly great eye appeal coins. Many were well before CAC and
when NGC graded much stricter and closer to PCGS. His sales were a feeding frenzy of crack out guys and regular dealers,
deciding what will cross, what will upgrade, what will downgrade and pass CAC etc. His sales were not the usual. There are not many Gardener's. People say "buy the coin and not the holder". That is nonsense unless you are an expert
grader. This is what CAC is for. They are the strictest on coins and that is what you should want most of the time.
Pogue on the other hand was mad about many of his prized coins not passing CAC. For the first sale, he changed the holders and did not show which coins did pass. Top buyers had to contact Stack's to get a list of which coins passed as that is all they were interested in. He DID submit his future sales to CAC. Although he was not happy with his pass rate,
he is not stupid. He knew that many major buyers would only buy if the coins passed CAC so he sent them, but had no stickers on the holders. He was not happy but his smart business sense prevailed.
Are there times when not having CAC is ok? I guess. If a coin is a great rarity like SOME of the Pogue coins, and you are
not likely to find another...................and you do not care why it did not pass then sure.
In general, many collectors either do not care or are dumb. if you like and enjoy the item (not just coins) buying anything is FINE.
However, if you are looking for a good investment at the same time it pays to buy the best and forget the rest.
Not the most expensive but the best. If I were looking for something reasonable to buy it could be BEAUTIFUL XF/AU Bust quarters and halves. It is hard to lose on these. Of course most would have to pass CAC. This is all common business sense.
People who disagree are mostly wrong. Facts and figures prove this.
The most telling fact is that MS CAC Generic and some other gold is now on the CDN price guides. This is HUGE. People demanded it. Ask yourself why the spread on regular generic Saints and 20.00 Libs between non CAC and CAC are so wide?
These are mostly site unseen prices. It is simple. The CAC coins are nicer and people and dealers will pay MORE.
The answer is the same as why you need CAC on most of the coins you own.
Lastly one post said he buys and sells anything. I 100% agree with that if you are a dealer. There is a price
for everything. I sell diamonds. Off color heart shapes are like death but at a price they will sell.
As a collector I try and buy the best.
On that note above, I can honestly say I believe there are millions upon millions of coins that PCGS and NGC, nor CAC have ever seen, to date. Some people still don't trust the TPGs with their treasures.
>
Where are you getting this from? CAC has gone on record to state that roughly 40% of all coins submitted sticker and that the sticker rates between NGC and PCGS are roughly the same. Since collectors do not pay for coins that do not sticker and dealers pay a small fee, there is no reason to be choosy in what you submit. I've submitted coins I thought would likely fail. Every now and then, there is a pleasant surprise.
I would take the under on that 40% number
@Perfection
You had me until you posted that CAC is ALWAYS correct. That is nonsense. The TPGS's are not correct all the time either - none of them! Buybacks prove it.
Furthermore, IMHO, anyone buying labels or relying exclusively on the opinions of any dealer either does not have the time to learn how to grade, is extremely lucky to have found a very knowledgeable dealer, or is ....
I once passed on an NGC MS65 seated half from the 1840s with a CAC sticker. I felt it was a C+ coin and I couldn't get excited about it. I also bought a PCGS PR65 1838 Gobrecht that I knew had been rejected because of a slight scratch under the eagle - I felt it was a B+ coin even with the mark. CAC agreed with me upon resubmission. So, yes - CAC makes mistakes....but they correct them immediately when brought to their attention.
Differences in opinion about a grade (unless substantial) are not mistakes, however.
I have never been able to figure out how such a basic thing as grading a coin and assessing its merits as a collectible turned into something more resembling rocket science than supporting the pursuit of the simple pleasure of collecting nice coins.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Too many issues to debate that are presented as "facts" in Perfection's lengthy post. They've all been hashed out here before.
As far as why CAC generic gem gold has huge spreads. It's simple. They only pick 3-6% of all gem $10's and $20s. Of course those are "going to be nicer." I know if I were the owner of a top 7-10% PCGS MS65 Saint that didn't make the cut, it would be annoying since it's "not nicer enough." To think that picking the best 1 of any 10 coins is not critical enough. You have to be 1 out of 20 fussy. Imagine a market where only 1 out of 20 - MS65 or MS66 Bust, Barber or Seated halves is "good enough."
Frankly, any top grader/dealer can arbitrarily pick the top 5% of any series/grade in question. That leaves 95% of the market as rejects. Rejecting is easy. And with 95% rejected, of course there will be huge spreads from the top 5% vs. everything else. Just understand that the fall out from this flight to extreme quality, leaves the majority of the market in the ignored category. Many top collectors or investors are mirroring the dealer activity and refusing to accept any coin that has any potential weakness in eye appeal, luster, marks, strike. No market is healthy were 40-95% of it is placed on "ignore."
While the market won't accept mine or Perfection's 95% rejection rate....they do follow CAC's 95% rejection rate of gem gold. The top 7-10% of all gem Saints now find themselves mostly priced like the worst 80%. You have to move up to the top 6% to get that 30-40% premium. How do you even tell a top 6% coin from a top 10% coin? Ironically, one could probably take a top gem PNG gold wholesaler (I know of 1), pick the best 10% of the Gem original 65 Saints you find, mix 95 of those in with 5 random CAC 65 Saints (picked out of a 100), and have CAC pick out those same 5 CAC'd coins with all 100 inserts covered. That would be an interesting exercise.
Warren Mills, or Laura who both try to buy very special coins and are so selective. Also I will again state that many coins
do not get sent to CAC because they as Laura calls them dreck. Look in cases at shows, look on dealers websites,
look marginally at the auctions. How many CAC coins do you see. 40% NO chance. If you follow Heritage you will
notice that over the year they have more and more CAC coins. Consignors want to get more money and not take
beatings on marginal coins.
3, The next Fun Auction 2768 coins 457 CAC
The January Fun auction 19,763 coins 1643 CAC
Why not more?
So where are all these CAC coins? I believe far fewer pass than you think.
So a certain amount of CAC coins are no longer CAC, they upgraded. Some dealers do not send CAC the tags to
take out of the pops.
buyers who believe the holder grade and more schemes that seem totally legal.
a scratch. The issue to graders is IF a certain flaw or wear point is acceptable for a certain grade.
@mr1874 said: "I have never been able to figure out how such a basic thing as grading a coin and assessing its merits as a collectible turned into something more resembling rocket science than supporting the pursuit of the simple pleasure of collecting nice coins."
Coin grading is not rocket science. I have found it is very easy with excellent instruction and a lot of study. One young neophyte student in a four day grading class aced the final exam - she ruined the curve for the embarrassed collectors in our group. PRICING a coin in the market is rocket science. Learning what beautiful and natural, original eye appeal looks like to the top dealers collectors is rocket science.
@tradedollarnut said: "So, yes - CAC makes mistakes....but they correct them immediately when brought to their attention. Differences in opinion about a grade (unless substantial) are not mistakes, however."
I apologize to anyone who thought I implied that an opinion of grade (unless substantial) is a mistake. All the TPGS's and CAC should correct true mistakes when brought to their attention. The mistakes I refer to are missed repairs, damage, etc.
Example: I like Trade dollars. I have many images of repaired chops that went undetected on these coins. I have an unfair advantage. I know what the design of the genuine coin looks like for each type, and I examine the coins carefully using a stereomicroscope (7X to 10X) under florescent light.
One only has to look at the CAC rate of major collections that were done pre-CAC. Newman, Gardner, Pogue all did in the 55-65% range. And that included in some cases a high concentration of NGC coins. Those are the kinds of rates I'd expect from experienced collectors looking for nice coins, having professional assistance, but not being a slave to any particular TPG and/or sticker service. Those tend to mirror my own opinion that the TPG's get it right about 55-75% of the time in the major type coin arena. Or you can just bypass that structure and buy everything CAC'd to say you're 100%,
I pulled my last 5 CAC submissions and I am at exactly 50% passed. (80 total coins) Just like picking the right coins for grading, you have to pick the right coins for CAC. A dealer at the Chicago show told me he went 1 for 30 on his last submission. A dart has a better average than that!
Hope is not a strategy.
One of the best posts I've seen in a while. So surely, something in the market today is rocket science....and it has produced mammoth changes over the past 8-10 years. Grading a coin to 55-75% accuracy probably isn't rocket science. Grading to 90-95% accuracy probably is rocket science. I agree that pricing with so many gradations in both the grade itself (65 dreck, 65 low end, 65 ok, 65 nice, 65 pq, 65 upgrade) and then the various qualifiers to include TPG, holder generation, +, star, secure, pops, multiple price guides, etc. would test the mettle of most rocket scientists.
When I did my original "free" 40 coin submission to CAC in Nov 2007 at the CoinFest show, my success rate was approx 40-45% on choice/gem silver type coins. About 2/3 of the coins were NGC. All of these coins were bought before CAC came into existence. A number of them were bought raw at auction and slabbed once. If I had coins with upgrade potential I did resubmit them along the way. Whatever holders they ended up in was what I stayed with. I was quite surprised on some of the CAC rejection criteria. Keeping high end coins long term was never my criteria. Rather, it was keeping coins that were decent or nice for the grade that had appeal. HIgh end coins tended to get sold for strong premiums and/or upgraded. Very low end coins or mistakes I got rid of by 2007. The market made it very clear before the 2008 top that low end or lousy coins for the grade were going to get whacked hard once the music stopped.
Spelling is rocket science to me.
Yeah.
If two entities (one with a single pair of eyes) are needed to justify one's collection, it might be a good time for an individual to reflect on their objectives.
Pretty much any thread these days quickly becomes a discussion about CAC. We're years in, and apparently people still don't know what to make of it.
I've become so discriminating in my standards, so sophisticated in my taste, that No coins meet my ultra high criteria.
I now have one of the finest numismatic collections in the world. Unfortunately, there are no coins in it yet.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I ran about 98% CAC on the coins purchased before its existence came into being. But laura and I were very very picky when building my sets.
Honestly, we've made more compromises since after CAC...mostly due to old time collections coming on the market.
Bruce, weren't you and Laura not instrumental in creating CAC? Seems that Laura was ranting endlessly about inferior grading by PCGS and NGC. CAC was promoted as the arbiter of what was really solid for a given grade.
I have very little to add to this conversation, now that it is focused on CAC coins, anyway. I have little knowledge to add but I have followed CAC from the beginning and I remember John Albanese, the only party whose opinion really matters, saying that stickered coins represent high end coins for the grade (A) and also those that are solid for the grade (B) and will exclude coins that may be over graded or may be accurately graded but have issues that relegate them to the lower tier (C) and no sticker.
By those criteria, I would believe the number of coins that are at least "solid for the grade" with decent eye appeal would be higher than 50% and multiples of a silly number like 15%. I do remember JA saying the number be much higher. Not to me personally but in print.
If you want to know the answer maybe it would be best to go to The Man.
Here is just one excerpt that I remember:
MR: "Of all the vintage (non-modern) coins that exist in PCGS and NGC holders today, what percentage would you say would qualify for the CAC green label?"
John Albanese: I would say it’s a high percentage, upwards of 80% or so. We unveiled our service at a Connecticut show last fall. We offered free submissions to the public. Some 500-600 coins were brought to us of which about 85% were labeled. On the other hand, if you were to go through a typical dealer’s showcase on the bourse floor of a show, it could be less than half that rate. So far, that’s been our experience based on current submissions."
In the last few years I have sold off 139 Morgan dollars using GreatCollections.
I had them submit all to CAC.
The sticker rate was 63 out of 139, or 45%
Out of the 139, 4 were graded by NGC and the rest by PCGS.
The sticker rate was 1 out of 4 of the NGC coins.
All of the coins were purchased in the 2004-2008 time period or were part of recent grading/re-grade submissions by me.
Using the search function at GC where you filter out only auctions > $250
The current CAC % for the all Morgan dollar lots listed is 53 out of 346 or 15%.
So maybe the true sticker rate for Morgans is more around 15% number or GC is being used to dump off a lot of marginal coins.
I don't know if instrumental is the right word but she certainly pushed JA in that direction and I was an early investor (since divested).
What is this sorcery.
This can't be possible because I read here on the forum that all expensive coins that are still raw are "Raw for a reason".
My Ebay Store
You are quoting JA and MR prior to CAC becoming a real market entity in the post 2008 world. Neither one of them knew at that time how things would go after Nov 2007. They might have guessed 80%...for that one show. But for years after that no way 80%. 25-40% would be closer to reality. And for ch/gem gold coins reality is 5-15%. How do I know that? I've seen fresh 100+ coin submissions of MS65 Saints (2008) go to CAC and come back with 5-6 coins stickered. At a regional coin show in March 2017 I touched base with a long time PNG dealer who specializes in US gold. I asked them what the current sticker rates for Gem 65/66 saints were. He said it was running no more than 5-6% and you were lucky if you got that....and that was coming from an insider with close ties to CAC.
Using the CoinFest show in Nov 2007 probably wasn't a great venue to test the long term sticker rates. My 40 coins were reviewed then. I got 40%. My dealer buddy put in 20 coins and he got the 75% or so. TomB submitted some coins as I recall, no doubt got 80-90% or more. So I think those results were heavily skewed towards experienced dealers and long time "fussy" collectors submitting their material. Had I known the rate was going to be 80% I'd have submitted 40 PCGS MS65 Saints and been very happy with 32 stickers....lol. Logically, if the CAC rate were 80%, or even 60%, the premiums you see on many scarcer coins would not be 20-50%, but more like 10-15%....it would be the same difference between PCGS vs. NGC pricing back in 2007 (10-15%).
[beating dead horse emoji]
There is no doubt technical grading (as well as variety/counterfeit screening) could now be handled by computer algorithms.
We could leave eye appeal to an add-on level of human grading.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
@roadrunner
I respect your opinion and perhaps you are correct. You were and are much closer to this market than I am.
But if you read that quote, JA was asked point blank, "Of all the vintage (non-modern) coins that exist in PCGS and NGC holders today, what percentage would you say would qualify for the CAC green label?"
His answer: " I would say it’s a high percentage, upwards of 80% or so."
He then goes on to talk about their experience at a coin show where 85% were [labeled]. But the question was how many of all the coins that exist in PCGS and NGC holders are "solid" for the grade. And that number was upwards of 80%. Why would JA have to guess? After decades of his experience I would think he would have a pretty good handle on how many were solid and what percentage were problem coins.
And that number makes sense to me. If you looked at a large group of graded coin there will probably be 20% at the bottom that just barely make the grade, along with coins with ugly toning, weak strikes, etc. The so-called C coins. At the other end are the 15% to 20 % PQ or A coins. The middle or "solid" for the grade B coins would be around the remaining 60%. So the A & B coins that should get a sticker would be 80%. No?
Those numbers are just my estimates backed up with nothing, but it seems logical that PCGS is grading coins more accurate than only getting 10% to 15% accurately graded in gem gold coins.
Take it for what it's worth. Just another point of view.
I don't think that JA expected the past decade of gradeflation. From what I've seen, it's gotten worse. I see seated dollars in ms65 that simply have no business being in that holder.
Good point. That does make sense.
@tradedollarnut
If we've had a decade of gradeflation, then it was going on in 2008 when JA estimated 80% solid grades. In fact, that is part of why he started CAC, I believe.
So do you think he estimated correctly in 2008 that 80% of certified coins were solid but today that number is down to only 50%?
Perhaps...if you exclude generic gold.
Generic gold is just slapped into holders - they're a different animal.
A computer algorithm could no doubt make music, but not like Art Tatum.
Actions speak louder than words and the 80% estimate has proven not to be correct---much lower
Good day people.
1. Yes rampant grade inflation has 100% change the CAC pass rate. It is absurd how many coins are upgraded and how
many CAC coins are cracked out. However lately it seems much more difficult.
2. Much of this banter does not matter. What matters is the market and its prices. It is a FACT that higher graded CAC Saints trade for substantially more than non CAC. It does not matter why or if it right.
At the end of the day, problem free, usually eye appealing coins pass CAC and are in high demand. If I look at ten
MS Seated Liberty Halves, I want the two that stand out, (if any do). I have little interest in the rest at any price.
A larger dealer could buy all of them at a price but even someone like volume dealer DLRC, does not want the worst ones at any price.
YES YES, there should be huge spreads between the best and the rest. Gardner, Newman, Pogue, I agree around 55% CAC.
Perfection, all CAC and why not?
15% CAC at most. I repeat, look at cases, websites, auctions, and see the number of CAC coins.
I would BET CAC pass rate is FAR lower than it has been years ago. it is hard to believe that many newer NGC would ever
pass.
Look at art. There are millions of paintings, Very few bring the major money. Look at artist X. Say he brings 200K on average for his landscapes. He paint a still life. It brings MUCH less because he is not know for them. One might think
it should bring much more because it is rare. Nope, it usually does not work that way. It is perception. Same with
coins.
@Perfection said: "Look at art. There are millions of paintings, Very few bring the major money. Look at artist X. Say he brings 200K on average for his landscapes. He paint a still life. It brings MUCH less because he is not know for them. One might think it should bring much more because it is rare. Nope, it usually does not work that way."
Disagree, can't pick art as an example. Too many different variables and "schools."
My own experiences in buying and selling in the 2002-2009 period, attending auctions and major shows including FUN and Baltimore each year were that the majority of the coins in slabs (>50% and over-weighted due to NGC) would not be ok for the grade. I looked at thousands of choice/gem bust, barber, and seated type coins at auction and on the bourse. I tracked what those coins sold for at auction (high end, low end, or solid money). I was a frequent buyer and seller.... setting up at approx 80-100 shows over that period.
It really comes down to the fact that there would be no need for CAC if they agree with 80% of the coins out there. Your own favorite dealers could do that for you. If you're agreeing with 80%, then you are rejecting only 20% of the coins. I'd bet any forum member with more than 5 yrs collecting experience is rejecting more than 20% of the slabbed coins presented to them. You're basically saying JA is easier than all of us? Fwiw, if you read some of JA's earlier articles, he first thought of the notion for CAC in 2001/2002 as he felt grading was starting to run away from us. And grading only got more loose from 2002-2008.
I just conferred with a top dealer who I've worked with for the past 35 years. They've been playing the TPG grading game since day one, and very successfully over the years. They do the show circuits and are well connected nationally. They are a CAC/PCGS/NGC dealer. Here's what they said for the sticker rates applied to 3 diff. eras, understanding that 2002 would be an estimate since CAC wasn't around yet. And these rates apply to choice/gem MS/PFsilver/copper/nickel type coins pre-1933.
-2002 60%
-2008 50%
-2017 30%
His overall sticker rate has run approx 75% since 2008....for ALL coins submitted to CAC. Then again, he's only going to send to CAC what he's reasonably sure is worth the effort, time delay, and expense.
Those numbers are close enough to my own thoughts that I would agree with them.
JA agrees with 80% of all slabs? No way. Common MS64/65/66/67 Morgan dollars are the easiest classic coin to grade out there. The archived results at GC echo that sentiment. One would think if CAC Morgans bring more money (and they do in 65-68 grades), they would be flocking to GC to get those premiums directly to eager collectors. Yet, they don't show up in numbers approaching 80%...not even 40%.
Out of 70,000+ gem Morgan dollars at GC, here's the sticker break down. GC does actively submit their consignments to CAC and can give the consignors a better rate. I'm willing to listen to explanations why the below sticker rates are so far from 80%.
MS65 1056/9510 11%
MS66 727/3267 22%
MS67 161/757 21%
MS68 4/30 13%
One last GC exercise. A survey of all auctioned quarters from bust to Washington, CAC vs. non-CAC.
Bust: 9%.
Seated: 10%
Barber: 9%
Washington: 4.3%
Overall quarter rate: 5.6% (1226/21772).
If there's some real coin data that can be presented that shows an 80% rate for ANYTHING...please post it. Heritage auction archives, Stacks/Bowers archives, major coin show bourse survey, Ebay surveys, survey of major collections sold, etc. All this stuff should point in the same general direction for any broad sampling. CAC numbers will continue to grow. One would think that 80% of worthy coins (valued $200+) showing up at a coin show or auction are going to find their way to CAC.
Post of the week!
I wouldn't ask the algorithm to make music, or to even tell me what coin I liked.
If provided another examples, however, It COULD accurately and reliably tell me what coins are counterfeit, what coins have been submitted before, and whether said coin meets the programmed, instructed standards for AU 55, AU 58, MS69 or MS70.
Yes, you certainly could have a respected human eye to certify the intangibles pleasing to the collector du jour if you or the market required it, but I certainly think we have the technology in place now to settle the question of technical grading, vis a vis recurring complains of shifting standards and gradeflation.
Technical grading does not have to be "an opinion."
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
Just a thought. If third party grading standards fell significantly CAC is out of business as there would be no freshly slabbed coins to certify. They would be forced to become an actual full service grading operation and not hide behind a colorful little facsimile or fade off into obscurity.
CAC loses money on its stickering operations so I think you're out to lunch
What do they make money on?
Making a market in coins that they've stickered