<< <i>In the post-CAC, post-Secure Plus, post-plus grade era, the winners are the folks who previously knew how to pick out the better coins for the grade. I can live with that.
My own experiences in the MS gem bust-barber-seated world of the 2009-2012 era, is that stickering has destroyed far more value that it has created, esp. for non-PCGS coins, which is at least half the slabbed coin market. While one would think that picking the better coins for the grade would have been enough, yet it wasn't if you happened to choose nice NGC coins....even if those were equiv/better than similarly graded PCGS coins. >>
I would argue that the problem described here was not caused by CAC, it was caused by NGC and the grading standards they employed for much of the 2000s. It is true that one of the quirks of today's market is that to "unlock" the value of an NGC coin, you have to cross it to PCGS (in the holder if possible; if not, then by cracking it). In my opinion, this is a self-inflicted wound by NGC.
<< <i>The crux of the issue is whether stickering has been more of a financial boon for dealers or collectors. Since you are the former and I am the latter, it's unlikely we'll reach agreement on the answer. >>
Stickering has been a boon for people who can grade, can detect many types of coin doctoring, and have an eye for quality. Both collectors and dealers who fit this description have benefitted from stickering.
Wouldn't it be interesting to know the ratio of coins in dealer inventories as opposed to in collectors hands. Several posters seem to think dealers hold more coins than are tied up in collections. That doesn't seem right, but I could be mistaken. I can't imagine the dealers hold any but a small percentage of the total number of holdered coins. It seems reasonable to me that dealers must deal in the current market and are therefore faster at adapting their inventories to changing standards, while established collections hold coins and suffer the impact of tightening standards.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>suffer the impact of tightening standards. >>
Don't forget the standards loosened first. Collectors that bought gradeflated coins could be considered the victims of dealers that engaged in gradeflation practices like slamming. These dealers created and sold a large number of gradeflated coins, leaving collectors holding the bag. Collectors that sold coins during the gradeflation period would also have benefited from higher than normal prices.
<< <i>Wouldn't it be interesting to know the ratio of coins in dealer inventories as opposed to in collectors hands. Several posters seem to think dealers hold more coins than are tied up in collections. That doesn't seem right, but I could be mistaken. I can't imagine the dealers hold any but a small percentage of the total number of holdered coins. It seems reasonable to me that dealers must deal in the current market and are therefore faster at adapting their inventories to changing standards, while established collections hold coins and suffer the impact of tightening standards. >>
I would guess also that a vast majority of the coins are held in collectors hands at any one time, 99+ %, even if you exclude much or all of the lower value stuff (say under $100).
I would also speculate that many of the same folks who "suffered the impact of tightening standards" also benefited from the tailwind of loosening standards at an earlier time or will again. It seems that tightening and loosening of grading is more cyclical than secular.
IMO, CAC has been a boon to a hobby where progressively larger percentages of sales are not face-to-face transactions.
CAC also offers my heirs additional security that they will realize the fullest value for my coins when they decide to sell them.
After CAC appeared, I sent most of my half dollars for approval. I did not forward the ‘super-high-end’/five figure coins, as I think that the effort (shipping) is too expensive and the lack of CAC approval isn’t going to alter my adoration for these high-end/low pop/signature coins. All but four of my submitted half dollars passed CAC approval. I’ve since upgraded two of them, I’ll keep one in the collection anyhow because I really like its looks, and the other is a more common date (1937-P) that is fine as is.
I do ask for CAC review for coins I purchase. I instruct the dealer as to whether (1) I will purchase the coin even if CAC does not pass the coin, or (2) the CAC approval is a requirement for purchase. In the nine instances (for half dollars) where this has occurred, eight coins garnered approval. This is not surprising, and not because I’m a super talented grader. It relates to the quality of the dealer and their half dollars that they deal in.
On some dates where a substantial population exists, I will specify CAC approval – option (2) above. This is the case for the 1935-D date – high population for the highest grade (over 80 examples in MS66). One half dollar I passed on purchase after it failed CAC approval. Several months later, this same dealer produced an excellent CAC half dollar and it was promptly added to my collection.
In one other instance for a silver dollar of extraordinary color for a date that is typically not colored, I instructed a different dealer that I would purchase the dollar regardless of CAC approval. The coin did not pass, surprising both me and the dealer. The dealer stressed that I was welcome to decline purchase of the coin after I had seen it in hand. The coin in hand is stupendous, and will remain a most welcome part of my collection. The dealer took the time to contact JA, was told the reason for the CAC failure, and let me know. My records include this assessment. Again, I stress the quality of the dealer, not the CAC approval, is a primary issue in this process. A great dealer and CAC working hand-in-hand for the collector.
Granted, it is nice to purchase silver dollars and half dollars with prior CAC approval. I concede that I’m paying a premium for the coin. I’m a collector; c’est la vie. I like the turn-of-phrase used by another poster in another thread – ‘Everybody has to eat’.
A decent summary of this post would be that a good dealer and CAC form a great partnership that can, and has, worked wonderfully for this collector.
My records indicate the status of CAC approval, or if the coins have not been submitted. I also indicate that my heirs should go to the trouble of submitting the half dollars that I have not submitted to CAC, in order to enhance their salability.
Here’s to another five years of CAC.
IMO, CAC helps collectors and high quality dealers alike.
JBN and I chat about and agree in a lot of ways about Walkers and CAC. There's a lot of wisdom in his post, particularly the part about working with a trusted dealer, but I want to add that I do not see it as putting PCGS in a negative light, like some will. PCGS and CAC have worked hard to separate out some bad coins, backed up their grades (or stickers) and fought deceptive practices by people who have damaged the hobby.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
There has been some truly excellent discussion in this thread about CAC and its benefits or lack of benefits. As always, the discussion hasn't always gone smoothly and there have been instances of bias pointed out or somehow otherwise imagined. I will give my take on who benefits from CAC below.
Many here know that I had been a serious collector (student of numismatics) for quite a few years before taking the plunge and starting my own coin business full-time about three years ago. As a collector, I had three criteria for placing coins into my collection and these criteria existed well before CAC came onto the scene. They were-
1) The coin must have superb eye appeal. 2) The coin must have original surfaces that are problem-free. 3) The coin must either be undergraded or at least very high end for the assigned grade (when in a holder). 4) The coin must be perceived by me as a good value.
These requirements are great advantages that collectors have at their disposal if they are patient, disciplined and knowledgeable. Also, as a collector, I had always cycled coins into and out of my collection since I also acted as a part-time dealer. Again, the benefits of being a collector helped me here since I was only selling coins that had already passed my review to be in my collection. When CAC came into being it was an interesting development as far as I was concerned. I brought my coins to CAC in three batches for review. Two smaller batches were done at CoinFest and the third, larger batch was done at CAC headquarters. Since then, I will at times include a new coin of mine with a larger submission of coins for my business and/or clients. The total coins sent by me for my collection or as a collector has been about 120-pieces. Only three were rejected. One coin allowed CAC to teach me something valuable about surface manipulation; one coin revealed to me that a specific quality of a specific series CAC valued at a level that I did not value; and one coin I disagreed with the CAC evaluation and thought that in this case they were wrong. To their great credit, I brought back the coin that I disagreed with CAC and explained to CAC why I disagreed. JA at CAC then told me he would evaluate the coin again and, when he returned, he told me that he agreed with me and that the coin now had a CAC sticker. What this showed to me about CAC was that the qualities that I had always valued in coinage were also the qualities that CAC was attempting to identify and that my requirements for a coin being included in my collection dovetailed quite nicely with the requirements that CAC had put in place to award a sticker. Therefore, as a collector, I have nothing but positive reviews to write about CAC.
However, as a dealer I find that CAC can complicate my life. To being with, many clients of mine have asked that coins be sent to CAC prior to a commitment to purchase. This is fine and I have no issues with this desire, but these contingency purchases tie up a coin for a week or two and can leave me with egg on my face if the coin fails the CAC evaluation. In fact, there have been two instances of coins being sold to board members where the coin eventually failed CAC evaluation. One coin had been sold several months prior to a board member and then he asked that I send it to CAC. It failed and both he and I disagreed with the CAC decision, but he kept the coin. The other instance was a contingency sale where the coin failed and JA explained to me why it failed. Truly, it was something that I had not seen at all, but was a surface manipulation. As a test, I brought the coin to a large show and asked six dealers who deal in the same approximate niche that I do to examine the coin. Four noticed no issues with the coin, one noticed the issue in question but didn't think it too bad at all and one immediately recognized the manipulation and helped educate me on the coin. This coin was rejected by the client and I ended up taking a loss on the coin in a full disclosure sale to another dealer. Additionally, many folks appear to assume that a coin without a CAC sticker on my site is a coin that was rejected by CAC. This is simply not true. In fact, it is rare for me to send my inventory to CAC and is typically done at the request of a client.
In total, CAC has been a wonderful resource for collectors who value what I value in my own collection while it has been somewhat of a yolk around my neck as a dealer who deals in the same material.
All I can do is add my perspective and experience. There have been many fine posts on this thread from individuals who see far more coins than I do.
1) As more money has entered numismatics, marketing has become more important 2) The hobby's big fish who are well connected eat the smaller fish in this pool 3) NGC has screwed themselves by loosening their standards on a number of coins - like MS 65 CBHs - over a period of time and I don't know to what degree they can 'fix' this damage 4) People seem to forget that a coin's grade reflects the opinions of a few individuals who are very knowledgeable in the field. Comparing slabbed coins to the "bad old days," it saves me time re how many coins I must view to find one I like.
However, people make these opinions. Opinions can change over time; I sent in a coin that came back in an MS 65 holder, disagreed with this, sent it in and it came back in an MS 66 holder a year later. And people make mistakes. I'm guessing the graders "get it right" 90% of the time. While it's a laudable percentage, that still means there are a number of coins which aren't properly graded which are out there.
Slabs and CAC can make people lazy. How many dealers out there could look at a coin without the grade on the slab and whether or not it has a sticker and ascertain the coin's grade and where it is on said grade's continuum? Not many. Jim Halperin and a handful of others can. How many collectors can do this? Even fewer than dealers.
5) CAC - Like with grading, I think they get it right most of the time. But I think the value of the sticker depends largely on the percentage of time you see it on a coin of a particular series. I think it means quite a bit to see a sticker on an Unc. Bust $ or Draped Bust copper, because you don't see many stickers on these coins. The more frequently I see these stickers on a specific coin in a specific grade, the less they mean to me. Ie., I'd pay a premium for an Unc. Classic Large Cent with a sticker, while I wouldn't pay such a premium for a Liberty Nickel in MS 66.
Note - CAC does sticker nice NGC coins.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
<< <i>The other instance was a contingency sale where the coin failed and JA explained to me why it failed. Truly, it was something that I had not seen at all, but was a surface manipulation. As a test, I brought the coin to a large show and asked six dealers who deal in the same approximate niche that I do to examine the coin. Four noticed no issues with the coin, one noticed the issue in question but didn't think it too bad at all and one immediately recognized the manipulation and helped educate me on the coin. >>
Thanks for the story Tom. Your post was a very balanced view on the situation from both the collector and dealer perspective. To me, the above is a good example of why CAC is a good service for collectors. Often times, doctoring is hard to recognize and if a majority of dealers that specialize in a niche will fail to recognize it (granted, this is a small sample), it's good to have JA on your side.
While it's easy to say slabs and CAC can make people lazy, it's important to recognize that doctors are honing their skills to fool the most astute of experts. When you are faced with doctors and the array of techniques they have at their disposal, having some services like CAC and Secure Plus brings added peace of mind.
When you are faced with doctors and the array of techniques they have at their disposal, having some services like CAC and Secure Plus brings added peace of mind.
This is definitely true. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that IF the $100k AT gobrecht dollar coming up in auction somehow slipped through CAC that a ready refund check would be cut by CAC as soon as the coin was proven AT and presented to JA. What more can you ask for???
Speaking of which, it's getting kind of late to change the description from "This lovely, high-grade example shows deeply mirrored fields on each side. There is an off-center window of near-brilliance on the obverse and a larger untoned circle in the center reverse. The surfaces are toned deep blue and russet elsewhere with no obvious contact marks on either side."
<< <i>When you are faced with doctors and the array of techniques they have at their disposal, having some services like CAC and Secure Plus brings added peace of mind.
This is definitely true. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that IF the $100k AT gobrecht dollar coming up in auction somehow slipped through CAC that a ready refund check would be cut by CAC as soon as the coin was proven AT and presented to JA. What more can you ask for??? >>
I don't think I can create a better example of why CAC is important if I wanted to.
A $20k coin gets doctored into a $100k coin and is offered problem-free by a PNG dealer.
Would you want to be in that situation by yourself or would you want JA on your team?
Exactly true - although in this case if the coin description isn't changed, some poor buyer is gonna be stuck with a $100k albatross since it isn't stickered.
A Tiffany's diamond with an accompanying GIA certificate, plus the ADDED bonus of unconditional return privilege :-) :-) :-) Well at least that's how I explained the whole thing to the missus :-( :-( :-(
There is a sea of dreck on the marketplace. And the vast majority of slabs are correctly graded. And collectors own the vast majority of nice for the grade coins. Perhaps, if you put your mind to it you can actually figure out that all those statements are consistent. Could it be that most nice for the grade coins quickly enter collections while the dreck builds up in dealer inventory? Gasp!
I find a contradiction in that dealers constantly brag on how many crappy or average coins they have to look at during every show to buy just one for stock. These numbers are often reported by the dealers to be 1 out of 100 or even higher. This to me doesn't suggest that the "vast" majority of slabs are correctly graded. I would agree that the majority of slabs are correctly graded (>50%). But I'd probably place the number in the 60-75% range for both services combined. That's not a vast majority imo. Other areas would vary up (Morgans) or down (MS $20's) from this. Considering the gradeflation that occurred following the Pittman and Eliasberg sales (1996-2007) it's more than reasonable to assume that potentially 11 yrs out of the past 25 yrs of grading can be questioned. On top of that, a large % of the coins graded from 1986-1995 were resubmitted to take advantage of the grading shifts. I wouldn't even dare state that the vast majority of today's coins are correctly graded. Correctly graded to what standard? 1987? 1990? 1993? 1998? 2006? I would agree though that the vast majority of all coins are correctly graded when compared to coins graded during 2006-2008. Based on the sticker company's standards, they'd only give a nod to 30-50% of the coins. But they are probably using a 1995-1998 type standard...imo.
Yes, nice NGC coins do get stickered. The issue is and will continue to be getting the same value as a comparable stickered PCGS coin would bring (ie w/o the usual 15-30% NGC discount). CAC has leveled the grading field on these coins, but not the pricing. While NGC brought this on themselves, it's also true that the field cannot currently be leveled (ie buy the holder first, coin 2nd). The nice coins have been punished as well. I think the damage is unfixable as Elcontador alluded to. From here it's just a matter of how it plays out...sort of like the unwinding of TBTF bank otc derivatives. The majority of nice for the grade coins are held in dealer's personal longer term holdings (they are collectors at times too) as well as seasoned/experienced collectors. I'd swag that less than 50% and as low as 10% of the collectors out there can't differentiate between a so-so coin for the grade and a solid one. This is akin to trying to differentiate between a MS65.3 or MS65.4 Morgan VS. a MS65.5 or MS65.6 in the holder. The difference in pricing for a coin worth hundreds or thousands of dollars is striking from 65.3 to 65.5. Heaven forbid if you conduct this test out of the holder where most collectors might not even get within 1/2 pt of the real grade. It should be noted that posters on this forum don't tend to be typical collectors. The top 1-5% of knowledgeable collectors don't dictate what the other 95-99% buy for themselves. In either case, the majority of so-so and low end coins are with collectors who think they bought solid coins, mainly because they paid solid price money from their "solid" trusted dealer. What builds up in dealer's inventory is a tiny fraction of what is out there held by collectors and therefore the dreck (1-5%) on the coin show floor can look quite imposing when focused upon (ie the tip of the iceberg). The other 95-99% of the dreck is already sitting with collectors....most of it unknown to them.
Part of my confusion lies in the apparent contradiction between what Laura has published in Hot Topics regarding the TPGs grading and what TDN's asserts here.
Laura: "Except for the TPG's, no one would argue that there are problems. I NEVER see any (Saints) properly graded by ANY service anymore."
Laura: "These guys simply rule the numismatic world-at least in their minds. They do so by paying sponsorships to all the groups who are supposed to police us (I have always felt that NO group like an ANA or PNG should EVER sell a sponsorship to ANYONE)! Besides, they recreated the standards (old holders are much tighter graded), and then allowed for todays gradeflation problems to happen."
TDN: " I would say that the vast majority of coins ARE nice [ie: solid] for the grade."
I tend to believe Laura's view motivated the emergence of CAC.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Yes, nice NGC coins do get stickered. The issue is and will continue to be getting the same value as a comparable stickered PCGS coin would bring (ie w/o the usual 15-30% NGC discount). CAC has leveled the grading field on these coins, but not the pricing. While NGC brought this on themselves, it's also true that the field cannot currently be leveled (ie buy the holder first, coin 2nd). The nice coins have been punished as well. >>
And herein lies my dilemma.....which tradedollarnut dismissed as "bs".......as many of my walkers in my set were raw, and NGC made it easy via their direct submission policy (show your ANA membership) I sent my coins in to them ~10 years ago. 20/20 slabbed (early and middle dates), mostly at the grades I thought they would, so I was happy. FF to 2012; I find most of my registry set is now veiwed as 'dreck', and to get any kind of value out of them, I need to resubmit them to PCGS and HOPE that at least some will cross, then submit to CAC, and HOPE that at least some of the sticker. And people wonder why the average collector is frustrated....
<< <i>Part of my confusion lies in the apparent contradiction between what Laura has published in Hot Topics regarding the TPGs grading and what TDN's asserts here.
Laura: "Except for the TPG's, no one would argue that there are problems. I NEVER see any (Saints) properly graded by ANY service anymore."
Laura: "These guys simply rule the numismatic world-at least in their minds. They do so by paying sponsorships to all the groups who are supposed to police us (I have always felt that NO group like an ANA or PNG should EVER sell a sponsorship to ANYONE)! Besides, they recreated the standards (old holders are much tighter graded), and then allowed for todays gradeflation problems to happen."
TDN: " I would say that the vast majority of coins ARE nice [ie: solid] for the grade."
I tend to believe Laura's view motivated the emergence of CAC. >>
Sorry, I mean collection series coins - not 'bullion' coins. There no doubt the vast majority of mid grade unc saints are inflated.
Comments
<< <i>In the post-CAC, post-Secure Plus, post-plus grade era, the winners are the folks who previously knew how to pick out the better coins for the grade. I can live with that.
My own experiences in the MS gem bust-barber-seated world of the 2009-2012 era, is that stickering has destroyed far more value that it has created, esp. for non-PCGS coins,
which is at least half the slabbed coin market. While one would think that picking the better coins for the grade would have been enough, yet it wasn't if you happened to choose
nice NGC coins....even if those were equiv/better than similarly graded PCGS coins. >>
I would argue that the problem described here was not caused by CAC, it was caused by NGC and the grading standards they employed for much of the 2000s. It is true that one of the quirks of today's market is that to "unlock" the value of an NGC coin, you have to cross it to PCGS (in the holder if possible; if not, then by cracking it). In my opinion, this is a self-inflicted wound by NGC.
<< <i>The crux of the issue is whether stickering has been more of a financial boon for dealers or collectors.
Since you are the former and I am the latter, it's unlikely we'll reach agreement on the answer. >>
Stickering has been a boon for people who can grade, can detect many types of coin doctoring, and have an eye for quality. Both collectors and dealers who fit this description have benefitted from stickering.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>suffer the impact of tightening standards. >>
Don't forget the standards loosened first. Collectors that bought gradeflated coins could be considered the victims of dealers that engaged in gradeflation practices like slamming. These dealers created and sold a large number of gradeflated coins, leaving collectors holding the bag. Collectors that sold coins during the gradeflation period would also have benefited from higher than normal prices.
<< <i>Wouldn't it be interesting to know the ratio of coins in dealer inventories as opposed to in collectors hands. Several posters seem to think dealers hold more coins than are tied up in collections. That doesn't seem right, but I could be mistaken. I can't imagine the dealers hold any but a small percentage of the total number of holdered coins. It seems reasonable to me that dealers must deal in the current market and are therefore faster at adapting their inventories to changing standards, while established collections hold coins and suffer the impact of tightening standards. >>
I would guess also that a vast majority of the coins are held in collectors hands at any one time, 99+ %, even if you exclude much or all of the lower value stuff (say under $100).
I would also speculate that many of the same folks who "suffered the impact of tightening standards" also benefited from the tailwind of loosening standards at an earlier time or will again. It seems that tightening and loosening of grading is more cyclical than secular.
CAC also offers my heirs additional security that they will realize the fullest value for my coins when they decide to sell them.
After CAC appeared, I sent most of my half dollars for approval. I did not forward the ‘super-high-end’/five figure coins, as I think that the effort (shipping) is too expensive and the lack of CAC approval isn’t going to alter my adoration for these high-end/low pop/signature coins. All but four of my submitted half dollars passed CAC approval. I’ve since upgraded two of them, I’ll keep one in the collection anyhow because I really like its looks, and the other is a more common date (1937-P) that is fine as is.
I do ask for CAC review for coins I purchase. I instruct the dealer as to whether (1) I will purchase the coin even if CAC does not pass the coin, or (2) the CAC approval is a requirement for purchase. In the nine instances (for half dollars) where this has occurred, eight coins garnered approval. This is not surprising, and not because I’m a super talented grader. It relates to the quality of the dealer and their half dollars that they deal in.
On some dates where a substantial population exists, I will specify CAC approval – option (2) above. This is the case for the 1935-D date – high population for the highest grade (over 80 examples in MS66). One half dollar I passed on purchase after it failed CAC approval. Several months later, this same dealer produced an excellent CAC half dollar and it was promptly added to my collection.
In one other instance for a silver dollar of extraordinary color for a date that is typically not colored, I instructed a different dealer that I would purchase the dollar regardless of CAC approval. The coin did not pass, surprising both me and the dealer. The dealer stressed that I was welcome to decline purchase of the coin after I had seen it in hand. The coin in hand is stupendous, and will remain a most welcome part of my collection. The dealer took the time to contact JA, was told the reason for the CAC failure, and let me know. My records include this assessment. Again, I stress the quality of the dealer, not the CAC approval, is a primary issue in this process. A great dealer and CAC working hand-in-hand for the collector.
Granted, it is nice to purchase silver dollars and half dollars with prior CAC approval. I concede that I’m paying a premium for the coin. I’m a collector; c’est la vie. I like the turn-of-phrase used by another poster in another thread – ‘Everybody has to eat’.
A decent summary of this post would be that a good dealer and CAC form a great partnership that can, and has, worked wonderfully for this collector.
My records indicate the status of CAC approval, or if the coins have not been submitted. I also indicate that my heirs should go to the trouble of submitting the half dollars that I have not submitted to CAC, in order to enhance their salability.
Here’s to another five years of CAC.
IMO, CAC helps collectors and high quality dealers alike.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
Many here know that I had been a serious collector (student of numismatics) for quite a few years before taking the plunge and starting my own coin business full-time about three years ago. As a collector, I had three criteria for placing coins into my collection and these criteria existed well before CAC came onto the scene. They were-
1) The coin must have superb eye appeal.
2) The coin must have original surfaces that are problem-free.
3) The coin must either be undergraded or at least very high end for the assigned grade (when in a holder).
4) The coin must be perceived by me as a good value.
These requirements are great advantages that collectors have at their disposal if they are patient, disciplined and knowledgeable. Also, as a collector, I had always cycled coins into and out of my collection since I also acted as a part-time dealer. Again, the benefits of being a collector helped me here since I was only selling coins that had already passed my review to be in my collection. When CAC came into being it was an interesting development as far as I was concerned. I brought my coins to CAC in three batches for review. Two smaller batches were done at CoinFest and the third, larger batch was done at CAC headquarters. Since then, I will at times include a new coin of mine with a larger submission of coins for my business and/or clients. The total coins sent by me for my collection or as a collector has been about 120-pieces. Only three were rejected. One coin allowed CAC to teach me something valuable about surface manipulation; one coin revealed to me that a specific quality of a specific series CAC valued at a level that I did not value; and one coin I disagreed with the CAC evaluation and thought that in this case they were wrong. To their great credit, I brought back the coin that I disagreed with CAC and explained to CAC why I disagreed. JA at CAC then told me he would evaluate the coin again and, when he returned, he told me that he agreed with me and that the coin now had a CAC sticker. What this showed to me about CAC was that the qualities that I had always valued in coinage were also the qualities that CAC was attempting to identify and that my requirements for a coin being included in my collection dovetailed quite nicely with the requirements that CAC had put in place to award a sticker. Therefore, as a collector, I have nothing but positive reviews to write about CAC.
However, as a dealer I find that CAC can complicate my life. To being with, many clients of mine have asked that coins be sent to CAC prior to a commitment to purchase. This is fine and I have no issues with this desire, but these contingency purchases tie up a coin for a week or two and can leave me with egg on my face if the coin fails the CAC evaluation. In fact, there have been two instances of coins being sold to board members where the coin eventually failed CAC evaluation. One coin had been sold several months prior to a board member and then he asked that I send it to CAC. It failed and both he and I disagreed with the CAC decision, but he kept the coin. The other instance was a contingency sale where the coin failed and JA explained to me why it failed. Truly, it was something that I had not seen at all, but was a surface manipulation. As a test, I brought the coin to a large show and asked six dealers who deal in the same approximate niche that I do to examine the coin. Four noticed no issues with the coin, one noticed the issue in question but didn't think it too bad at all and one immediately recognized the manipulation and helped educate me on the coin. This coin was rejected by the client and I ended up taking a loss on the coin in a full disclosure sale to another dealer. Additionally, many folks appear to assume that a coin without a CAC sticker on my site is a coin that was rejected by CAC. This is simply not true. In fact, it is rare for me to send my inventory to CAC and is typically done at the request of a client.
In total, CAC has been a wonderful resource for collectors who value what I value in my own collection while it has been somewhat of a yolk around my neck as a dealer who deals in the same material.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
1) As more money has entered numismatics, marketing has become more important
2) The hobby's big fish who are well connected eat the smaller fish in this pool
3) NGC has screwed themselves by loosening their standards on a number of coins - like MS 65 CBHs - over a period of time and I don't know to what degree they can 'fix' this damage
4) People seem to forget that a coin's grade reflects the opinions of a few individuals who are very knowledgeable in the field. Comparing slabbed coins to the "bad old days," it saves me time re how many coins I must view to find one I like.
However, people make these opinions. Opinions can change over time; I sent in a coin that came back in an MS 65 holder, disagreed with this, sent it in and it came back in an MS 66 holder a year later. And people make mistakes. I'm guessing the graders "get it right" 90% of the time. While it's a laudable percentage, that still means there are a number of coins which aren't properly graded which are out there.
Slabs and CAC can make people lazy. How many dealers out there could look at a coin without the grade on the slab and whether or not it has a sticker and ascertain the coin's grade and where it is on said grade's continuum? Not many. Jim Halperin and a handful of others can. How many collectors can do this? Even fewer than dealers.
5) CAC - Like with grading, I think they get it right most of the time. But I think the value of the sticker depends largely on the percentage of time you see it on a coin of a particular series. I think it means quite a bit to see a sticker on an Unc. Bust $ or Draped Bust copper, because you don't see many stickers on these coins. The more frequently I see these stickers on a specific coin in a specific grade, the less they mean to me. Ie., I'd pay a premium for an Unc. Classic Large Cent with a sticker, while I wouldn't pay such a premium for a Liberty Nickel in MS 66.
Note - CAC does sticker nice NGC coins.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
<< <i>The other instance was a contingency sale where the coin failed and JA explained to me why it failed. Truly, it was something that I had not seen at all, but was a surface manipulation. As a test, I brought the coin to a large show and asked six dealers who deal in the same approximate niche that I do to examine the coin. Four noticed no issues with the coin, one noticed the issue in question but didn't think it too bad at all and one immediately recognized the manipulation and helped educate me on the coin. >>
Thanks for the story Tom. Your post was a very balanced view on the situation from both the collector and dealer perspective. To me, the above is a good example of why CAC is a good service for collectors. Often times, doctoring is hard to recognize and if a majority of dealers that specialize in a niche will fail to recognize it (granted, this is a small sample), it's good to have JA on your side.
While it's easy to say slabs and CAC can make people lazy, it's important to recognize that doctors are honing their skills to fool the most astute of experts. When you are faced with doctors and the array of techniques they have at their disposal, having some services like CAC and Secure Plus brings added peace of mind.
This is definitely true. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that IF the $100k AT gobrecht dollar coming up in auction somehow slipped through CAC that a ready refund check would be cut by CAC as soon as the coin was proven AT and presented to JA. What more can you ask for???
<< <i>When you are faced with doctors and the array of techniques they have at their disposal, having some services like CAC and Secure Plus brings added peace of mind.
This is definitely true. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that IF the $100k AT gobrecht dollar coming up in auction somehow slipped through CAC that a ready refund check would be cut by CAC as soon as the coin was proven AT and presented to JA. What more can you ask for??? >>
I don't think I can create a better example of why CAC is important if I wanted to.
A $20k coin gets doctored into a $100k coin and is offered problem-free by a PNG dealer.
Would you want to be in that situation by yourself or would you want JA on your team?
I find a contradiction in that dealers constantly brag on how many crappy or average coins they have to look at during every show to buy just one for stock. These numbers are often
reported by the dealers to be 1 out of 100 or even higher. This to me doesn't suggest that the "vast" majority of slabs are correctly graded. I would agree that the majority of slabs are correctly graded (>50%). But I'd probably place the number in the 60-75% range for both services combined. That's not a vast majority imo. Other areas would vary up (Morgans) or down (MS $20's) from this. Considering the gradeflation that occurred following the Pittman and Eliasberg sales (1996-2007) it's more than reasonable to assume that potentially 11 yrs out of the past 25 yrs of grading can be questioned. On top of that, a large % of the coins graded from 1986-1995 were resubmitted to take advantage of the grading shifts. I wouldn't even dare state that the vast majority of today's coins are correctly graded. Correctly graded to what standard? 1987? 1990? 1993? 1998? 2006? I would agree though that the vast majority of all coins are correctly graded when compared to coins graded during 2006-2008. Based on the sticker company's standards, they'd only give a nod to 30-50% of the coins. But they are probably using a 1995-1998 type standard...imo.
Yes, nice NGC coins do get stickered. The issue is and will continue to be getting the same value as a comparable stickered PCGS coin would bring (ie w/o the usual 15-30% NGC
discount). CAC has leveled the grading field on these coins, but not the pricing. While NGC brought this on themselves, it's also true that the field cannot currently be leveled (ie buy the
holder first, coin 2nd). The nice coins have been punished as well. I think the damage is unfixable as Elcontador alluded to. From here it's just a matter of how it plays out...sort of like the unwinding of TBTF bank otc derivatives. The majority of nice for the grade coins are held in dealer's personal longer term holdings (they are collectors at times too) as well as seasoned/experienced collectors. I'd swag that less than 50% and as low as 10% of the collectors out there can't differentiate between a so-so coin for the grade and a solid one. This is akin to trying to differentiate between a MS65.3 or MS65.4 Morgan VS. a MS65.5 or MS65.6 in the holder. The difference in pricing for a coin worth hundreds or thousands of dollars is striking from 65.3 to 65.5. Heaven forbid if you conduct this test out of the holder where most collectors might not even get within 1/2 pt of the real grade. It should be noted that posters on this forum don't tend to be typical collectors. The top 1-5% of knowledgeable collectors don't dictate what the other 95-99% buy for themselves. In either case, the majority of so-so and low end coins are with collectors who think they bought solid coins, mainly because they paid solid price money from their "solid" trusted dealer. What builds up in dealer's inventory is a tiny fraction of what is out there held by collectors and therefore the dreck (1-5%) on the coin show floor can look quite imposing when focused upon (ie the tip of the iceberg). The other 95-99% of the dreck is already sitting with collectors....most of it unknown to them.
TDN - Are you assuming that PCGS will not take the coin off the market? FWIW, I have no reason to doubt that they will.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Laura: "Except for the TPG's, no one would argue that there are problems. I NEVER see any (Saints) properly graded by ANY service anymore."
Laura: "These guys simply rule the numismatic world-at least in their minds. They do so by paying sponsorships to all the groups who are supposed to police us (I have always felt that NO group like
an ANA or PNG should EVER sell a sponsorship to ANYONE)! Besides, they recreated the standards (old holders are much tighter graded), and then allowed for todays gradeflation problems to happen."
TDN: " I would say that the vast majority of coins ARE nice [ie: solid] for the grade."
I tend to believe Laura's view motivated the emergence of CAC.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Yes, nice NGC coins do get stickered. The issue is and will continue to be getting the same value as a comparable stickered PCGS coin would bring (ie w/o the usual 15-30% NGC discount). CAC has leveled the grading field on these coins, but not the pricing. While NGC brought this on themselves, it's also true that the field cannot currently be leveled (ie buy the holder first, coin 2nd). The nice coins have been punished as well. >>
And herein lies my dilemma.....which tradedollarnut dismissed as "bs".......as many of my walkers in my set were raw, and NGC made it easy via their direct submission policy (show your ANA membership) I sent my coins in to them ~10 years ago. 20/20 slabbed (early and middle dates), mostly at the grades I thought they would, so I was happy. FF to 2012; I find most of my registry set is now veiwed as 'dreck', and to get any kind of value out of them, I need to resubmit them to PCGS and HOPE that at least some will cross, then submit to CAC, and HOPE that at least some of the sticker. And people wonder why the average collector is frustrated....
<< <i>Part of my confusion lies in the apparent contradiction between what Laura has published in Hot Topics regarding the TPGs grading and what TDN's asserts here.
Laura: "Except for the TPG's, no one would argue that there are problems. I NEVER see any (Saints) properly graded by ANY service anymore."
Laura: "These guys simply rule the numismatic world-at least in their minds. They do so by paying sponsorships to all the groups who are supposed to police us (I have always felt that NO group like
an ANA or PNG should EVER sell a sponsorship to ANYONE)! Besides, they recreated the standards (old holders are much tighter graded), and then allowed for todays gradeflation problems to happen."
TDN: " I would say that the vast majority of coins ARE nice [ie: solid] for the grade."
I tend to believe Laura's view motivated the emergence of CAC. >>
Sorry, I mean collection series coins - not 'bullion' coins. There no doubt the vast majority of mid grade unc saints are inflated.